Malone v. AMEREN UE
646 F.3d 512
8th Cir.2011Background
- Malone, a black male, worked for Ameren UE at the Meramec Plant since 1989 in operations/maintenance.
- Ameren rejected Malone's promotions in 2003 (lacked Unit Operating Engineer experience) and 2006; Malone was promoted in 2007 to Unit Operating Engineer.
- Malone alleges a racially hostile work environment stemming from incidents in 2005–2007, including graffiti, a racially charged joke, a derogatory term, and a suspected sabotage in 2007.
- Incidents led to investigations; some workers were disciplined or the suspect acted, while Malone developed an adjustment disorder and did not return to work.
- Malone filed a 2008 EEOC charge alleging race discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted Ameren summary judgment on all claims.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, addressing discovery issues and exhaustion-principle limitations, and upheld summary judgment on failure-to-promote and hostile environment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for failure-to-promote | Malone exhausted by EEOC charge regarding promotion denial in 2003/2007. | Charge referenced a different position/year; no exhaustion for the 2003/2007 failures to promote claim. | Exhaustion deficient; failure-to-promote claims dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of hostile work environment claim | Multiple racially hostile incidents over years support a hostile environment. | Incidents not sufficiently severe or pervasive; not directed at Malone at all times; not enough evidence of a racially hostile purpose. | No genuine issue; evidence not enough for hostile environment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fu v. Owens, 622 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court may exclude untimely affidavits at summary judgment)
- Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 619 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trs., 558 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion and scope of EEOC charge limiting allegations)
- Humphries v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 580 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2009) (EEOC charge sufficiency and notice to employer)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1993) (standard for hostile work environment: severity/pervasiveness)
- Singletary v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 423 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2005) (hostile environment factors—objective and subjective views)
- Fanning v. Potter, 614 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2010) (dealing with discovery and summary judgment timing)