Gary Austin v. Fletcher Long
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644
8th Cir.2015Background
- Austin, an African American, sued Fletcher Long under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for racial discrimination in firing.
- Long, the elected head prosecutor of the first judicial district of Arkansas, hired Austin in January 2006 as the second deputy prosecutor for Phillips County and later replaced him with another African American.
- Austin allegedly failed to contribute his operating expenses for four months, after Long directed him to follow Murray'sexpense instructions.
- Long and Murray claimed Austin had multiple performance problems (contact during business hours, bond reduction/expungement policy deviations, unapproved expenses); an Arkansas judge reportedly asked why Austin had not appeared in court.
- Austin claimed Long never gave him a formal evaluation or explanation for his firing in August 2011, and he asserted the district court erred in denying Long qualified immunity.
- Long moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity; the district court denied it, and Long appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretext disputes prevent immunity review | Austin shows disparate treatment; pretext exists. | District court's pretext findings resolve factual issues; immune review inappropriate. | Lack jurisdiction to review factual pretext determinations. |
| Whether Long is entitled to qualified immunity on the alleged race discrimination claim | Austin's rights to be free from invidious workplace discrimination were violated and clearly established. | No clearly established right shown; no constitutional violation proven. | Austin alleged a clearly established right; triable issue on pretext remains. |
| Whether the district court correctly allowed a pretext-based trial issue under McDonnell Douglas framework | Evidence shows similarly situated coworkers treated more harshly; pretext proven. | Different misconduct; not similarly situated; no pretext. | District court properly allowed pretext evidence by comparing to similarly situated coworkers. |
| Whether Austin sufficiently alleged a clearly established constitutional right | Right to be free from employment discrimination is well established. | Need stronger showing of a constitutional violation at summary judgment. | Court found the right clearly established; triable issue on pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeal on qualified-immunity issues)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (summary judgment and qualified-immunity standards for appellate review)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (pretrial record and factual disputes in qualified-immunity review)
- Pace v. City of Des Moines, 201 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2000) (interlocutory appeal limitations when factual disputes are central)
- Thomas v. Talley, 251 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 2001) (reaffirming limits on reviewing factual controversies in immunity appeals)
- Ridout v. JBS USA, LLC, 716 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2013) (similarly situated coworker standard for pretext in discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving pretext in discrimination claims)
- Goodwin v. Circuit Court of St. Louis Cnty., 729 F.2d 541 (8th Cir. 1984) (public official knowledge of discriminatory rights recognized)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (similarly situated coworker inquiry for retaliation/pretext)