Jackman v. Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17939
8th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiff Ebony Jackman, an African-American female state residential officer since 2000, complained after a 2007 incident where supervisor Mary Little made derogatory comments referring to "black women" and targeted Jackman; Jackman filed internal complaints and a union grievance.
- Jackman alleges subsequent retaliatory investigations (2010–2011), excessive coaching/counseling, a lengthier performance file, depletion of leave (including use of donated leave), and other co-worker racial/gender remarks.
- Jackman never was suspended, demoted, or had pay/benefits reduced; she remains employed.
- She sued under Title VII (race and sex discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment) and asserted an FMLA retaliation claim; the district court granted summary judgment to the State on all Title VII claims and stayed the FMLA claim pending Coleman.
- After Coleman established Eleventh Amendment immunity for certain FMLA suits, Jackman dismissed the FMLA claim and appealed the district court’s entry of judgment on the Title VII claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackman suffered an adverse employment action (discrimination/retaliation prima facie element) | Depletion of leave, repeated investigations, extensive coaching/counseling, and a long performance file were materially adverse and amounted to constructive discharge pressure | No termination, pay/benefit cut, demotion, forced leave, or change in duties occurred; complained-of actions were not materially adverse | Held: No. Plaintiff failed to show an adverse employment action as a matter of law |
| Whether alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute hostile work environment (Title VII) | Repeated derogatory comments by supervisor and coworkers, intrusive conduct (e.g., bathroom incident), and cumulative treatment created a hostile workplace | Incidents were infrequent, spread over years, and offensive but not extreme enough to permeate the workplace or alter employment terms | Held: No. Harassment not severe or pervasive; summary judgment proper |
| Whether retaliation standard requires "but-for" causation | Record includes internal complaints and purported investigations after complaints; plaintiff contends causal link | Defendant argues lack of materially adverse action and no but-for causal effect | Held: Even assuming causal issues, absence of materially adverse action defeats retaliation claim |
| Timeliness / finality of appeal after dismissal of FMLA claim | Jackman contended appeal timely after entry of amended judgment (Aug. 24) | State argued earlier July 2 order triggered appeal period | Held: Appeal was timely because final judgment was not properly entered until the amended judgment; prior appeal would have been premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkie v. Department of Health & Human Servs., 638 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2011) (defines adverse employment action and notes minor changes not actionable)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires "but-for" causation)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive discrimination alters employment conditions)
- Robinson v. Valmont Industries, 238 F.3d 1045 (8th Cir. 2001) (elements of Title VII hostile work environment claim)
- Recio v. Creighton University, 521 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2008) (materially adverse action in retaliation context standard)
- Tademe v. Saint Cloud State University, 328 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2003) (lengthy or "papered" personnel file not adverse absent resulting action)
- Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 1997) (reduced job duties can constitute adverse action)
- Phillips v. Collings, 256 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2001) (extreme, prolonged evaluations and recommended termination can be actionable)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 132 S. Ct. 1327 (2012) (states immune under Eleventh Amendment from certain FMLA suits)