Lakishia Hill v. City of Pine Bluff, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21256

Hill, a City of Pine Bluff employee, was promoted from secretary to zoning official in 2006.
Her starting salary as zoning official was $28,205.30, while two male predecessors had higher salaries and seniority.
A 2006 salary survey informed Hill’s initial pay within the zoning official range; in 2009 she received a raise to $35,145.
Hill sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Arkansas Equal Pay Act, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation.
District court granted summary judgment ruling there was no substantially equal position and no pretext for discrimination; the wage claim and other claims were dismissed.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding no reasonable jury could find intentional gender-based wage discrimination and rejecting pretext arguments; it also rejected Hill’s retaliation and failure-to-hire claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Wage discrimination prima facie and pretext	Hill asserts unequal pay based on gender for substantially equal work.	City’s seniority-based pay system and survey-supported rates are nondiscriminatory.	No reasonable jury could find discrimination; no pretext established.
Failure-to-hire for Emergency Management Coordinator	Hiring Jones over Hill shows gender discrimination since Hill was best qualified.	Jones was more qualified; hiring decisions need not rely on applicant status.	Not pretextual; having a more qualified male applicant does not prove discrimination.
Retaliation under § 1983 and ACRA	Tucker’s written warning was retaliatory for Hill’s lawsuit and caused injury.	Warning did not produce adverse employment consequences; no chill effect.	No materially adverse action; no retaliation established.
ACRA standard post-White	Arkansas retaliation analysis is broader than federal adverse-action standard.	Post-White standard applies; federal framework controls.	White standard governs; denial of certification seen as consistent with circuit precedent.

Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 348 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2003) (substantial equality required for wage comparisons)
Simpson v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 441 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2006) (job classifications not dispositive; substantial equality governs)
Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2000) (division of duties and seniority affect wage comparisons)
Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1995) (comparison to senior employee supports nondiscriminatory rationale)
Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2004) (evidence of nondiscriminatory justification may suffice)
Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (retaliation standard components in § 1983 claims)
Littleton v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC, 568 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2009) (materially adverse actions require real injury or harm)
White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry., 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (construction of 'materially adverse' standard for retaliation)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester (en banc), 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (pretext requires showing of hiring of a less qualified applicant)
McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (ACRA retaliation analyzed under Title VII standards)
Wallace v. Sparks Health Sys., 415 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2005) (ACRA retaliation framework alignments with federal standards)