Jerry Henry v. Danny Burl, 824 F.3d 735

Background

Jerry Henry, an African-American former ADC correctional officer, was terminated after an Internal Affairs investigation into contraband/tobacco distribution involving inmate David Morgan.
A confidential informant and an inmate implicated Morgan and said Morgan received tobacco from Henry; staff found contraband in locations identified by that inmate. Camera footage showed Henry and Morgan together in the count room, an area where inmates were not permitted to assist staff.
Henry denied selling contraband or receiving money; both he and Morgan denied allegations and took CVSA (computerized voice-stress analysis) tests, which Internal Affairs reported as indicating deception.
Warden Burl terminated Henry for (1) failing to follow instructions, (2) insubordination, and (3) falsification of statements (ADC policy §18(b)); a state grievance panel upheld termination only on the falsification ground.
Henry sued the Warden, Deputy Warden, and a Major in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1981, alleging race discrimination (less harsh treatment of white employees). The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Henry appealed.

Issues

Issue	Henry's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether Henry showed pretext for race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas	Henry: Termination was pretextual because a white comparator (Lt. Tyner) suspected of similar misconduct was not fired; investigation/treatment was harsher for Henry	Defendants: Provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—Henry failed CVSA and escorted an inmate into prohibited area; a similarly situated white employee was also fired after failing CVSA	Court: No pretext shown; defendants’ reasons legitimate and consistent; summary judgment affirmed
Whether comparator evidence established disparate treatment	Henry: Tyner and others on a bus had contraband but were not terminated, showing disparate treatment	Defendants: No evidence Tyner failed CVSA or engaged in same misconduct; record includes a white employee who was fired after failing CVSA	Court: Comparator not similarly situated in relevant respects; available comparator evidence undermines Henry’s claim
Whether defendants’ explanations shifted, supporting inference of pretext	Henry: State grievance panel upheld only one of three grounds, suggesting shifting reasons	Defendants: Burl’s stated reason (false statements/CVSA) remained consistent; panel’s partial rejection does not show defendants changed explanations	Court: No shifting explanations by defendants; no inference of pretext
Whether summary judgment and qualified immunity were appropriate	Henry: Discrimination claim should survive summary judgment based on comparator and investigative disparity	Defendants: Entitled to summary judgment; asserted legitimate reasons and qualified immunity	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendants (pretext not shown); qualified immunity analysis not required to change outcome

Key Cases Cited

N. Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Moen, 808 F.3d 373 (review standard for summary judgment)
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Lindquist, 592 F.3d 838 (standard for summary judgment)
Henning v. Mainstreet Bank, 538 F.3d 975 (summary judgment citation)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (McDonnell Douglas framework in Eighth Circuit)
McGinnis v. Union Pac. R.R., 496 F.3d 868 (plaintiff’s burden to show pretext)
Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (rigorous similarly situated test)
Rodgers v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 417 F.3d 845 (comparator analysis standard)
Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 424 F.3d 806 (employer’s good-faith belief of dishonesty negates discrimination inference)
Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, 785 F.3d 1216 (assuming prima facie case without deciding)
Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005 (use of McDonnell Douglas in Equal Protection employment claims)
Dixon v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 578 F.3d 862 (articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Logan v. Kautex Textron N. Am., 259 F.3d 635 (multiple similarly situated employees treated the same undermines discrimination claim)
Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc., 152 F.3d 1018 (shifting explanations as evidence of pretext)
E.E.O.C. v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 462 F.3d 987 (consistency of employer’s explanation and pretext analysis)