Jenny Evance v. Trumann Health Services
719 F.3d 673
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Evance, a licensed practical nurse, was terminated from Trumann Health after allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct with a resident; multiple CNAs and a nurse reported observations and an internal investigation was conducted; the OLTC and police investigated and found no prosecutable misconduct; Trumann Health terminated Evance on August 13, 2010; Evance sued for gender, religion, disability discrimination, due process, ADA, Title VII, ACRA, and defamation; the district court granted some 12(b)(6) dismissals and later summary judgment on remaining claims; the district court found no credible direct evidence or prima facie case and granted summary judgment in favor of Trumann Health and some individual defendants on defamation; Evance appeals only the summary judgment ruling
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination against Trumann Health based on gender, religion, or disability | Evance alleges direct or pretextual discrimination; similarly situated comparators show more favorable treatment | Trumann Health had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (reports of inappropriate conduct) | Summary judgment affirmed; no direct evidence or valid similarly situated comparators shown |
| Defamation libel claims against Begley, Cortinas, Holt, and Kelly | Affidavits falsely stating Evance initiated sexual contact defamed her | Statements were made in good faith as part of investigations and are protected; Trumann Health not liable for defamation | Summary judgment affirmed; no evidence that affidavits claimed Evance initiated the contact; immunity applied and district court's ruling upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework governs discrimination claims when no direct evidence)
- Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2012) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (rigorous similarly situated standard for pretext)
- Russell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 414 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2005) (direct evidence requirement and pretext framework)
- Russell v. TG Mo. Corp., 340 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2003) (employer discretion; not a super-personnel department)
- Allen v. City of Pocahontas, Ark., 340 F.3d 551 (8th Cir. 2003) (employer may rely on erroneous information in decision-making)
- Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming summary judgment on grounds other than the district court's)
- Parkman v. Hastings, 531 S.W.2d 481 (Ark. 1976) (distinguishing libel vs. slander in Arkansas law)