Jaryl Ellis v. Robert Houston, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019

Background

Five African American first-shift employees (Ellis, Delaney, Hunter, Johnson, Zeiger) at Nebraska State Penitentiary alleged repeated race-based harassment at daily roll call and elsewhere, often in the presence of their five immediate supervisors (Lt. Stoner, Lt. Haney, Lt. Runge, Sgt. Furby, Sgt. Miles).
Supervisors and coworkers allegedly made stereotyping jokes and epithets (e.g., references to fried chicken, watermelon, “back of the bus,” use of the n-word), and supervisors sometimes laughed or joined in and failed to discipline perpetrators.
Plaintiffs jointly complained in writing to Major Loock; an investigation followed, some supervisors were disciplined, and two plaintiffs (Ellis, Hunter) were transferred to other facilities by prison administrators.
After the complaint, plaintiffs allege intensified retaliation: increased and more onerous assignments, exclusion from desirable posts, and more disciplinary write-ups ("papering") by supervisors, especially targeting Ellis and Zeiger.
The district court granted summary judgment for the supervisors after treating the case as if a single plaintiff/defendant and focusing on discrete incidents; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo.
The Eighth Circuit reversed as to harassment claims against Sgt. Miles and retaliation claims of Ellis against Lts. Stoner and Haney; it affirmed dismissal of the remaining individual-supervisor claims and rejected qualified immunity for those reinstated claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved a racially hostile work environment under §§ 1981/1983	Group-wide, repeated racist jokes/epithets at mandatory roll call, supervisors’ participation/laughing, and cumulative effect created objectively and subjectively hostile environment	Conduct was isolated, not severe or pervasive enough; district court viewed incidents individually	Reversed in part: harassment claim survives against Sgt. Miles (participated and amplified harassment); claims against Stoner, Haney, Runge, Furby affirmed
Whether supervisors are individually liable under §§ 1981/1983 (intent requirement)	Supervisors’ own comments and failure to act show purposeful discrimination by some supervisors	Individual liability requires direct purposeful conduct; some supervisors lacked sufficient personal involvement	Court applied Iqbal intent standard and found Miles’s conduct sufficient for individual liability; others lacked evidence
Whether plaintiffs proved retaliation after complaining to Major Loock	Protected complaint was followed by materially adverse actions (more arduous assignments, exclusion, increased write-ups, transfers) causally linked to complaint	Adverse acts were trivial or not causally attributable to supervisors (some transfers ordered by administrators)	Reinstated retaliation claim for Ellis vs. Lts. Stoner and Haney (evidence of materially adverse acts and papering); other plaintiffs’ retaliation claims affirmed dismissed
Whether defendants entitled to qualified immunity	Plaintiffs: law was clearly established that racial harassment/retaliation violates §§ 1981/1983; supervisors had notice	Defendants: lack of clearly established law applying to the specific facts or reasonable mistake about unlawfulness	Qualified immunity denied for Sgt. Miles on harassment and for Lts. Stoner and Haney on Ellis’s retaliation claims (law sufficiently established)

Key Cases Cited

Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment review standard; draw inferences for nonmovant)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment requires examination of all circumstances; objective/subjective components)
Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (§ 1981 covers race-based harassment claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (individual liability under § 1983 requires purposeful misconduct by the official)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation: materially adverse action standard assessed from reasonable-employee perspective)
CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008) (§ 1981 prohibits retaliation)
Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 1997) (pattern of false reports and other adverse acts can support retaliation claim)
Allen v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 1999) (prison supervisor participation/lack of response supported race-harassment claim)
Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1986) (continuous racially invidious climate in prison can sustain claims)