Richard Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24929
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Richard Burton, an African-American certified law enforcement officer, was hired by the Arkansas State Capitol Police in June 2009 and terminated April 12, 2010. He completed a six-month probation with a request for a raise submitted by Chief Hedden.
- Burton complained in December 2009 that Officer Norman Gomillion repeatedly used racial slurs; Hedden directed Burton to submit a written complaint, counseled Gomillion, but conducted no documented further investigation.
- Burton engaged in several performance/discipline incidents (failure to timely complete an accident report, oversleeping after off-duty work, and failure to submit a requested memorandum) that led to an Official Letter of Reprimand and a recommendation for termination by Hedden.
- Burton sued the Secretary of State (official capacity) and Chief Hedden (official and individual capacities) for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation claims, but dismissed some claims (e.g., § 1981, hostile-work-environment).
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed qualified immunity for Hedden on § 1983 claims and whether it should exercise pendent jurisdiction over the Title VII claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chief Hedden is entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 race-discrimination claim | Burton: Hedden participated in discipline/termination motivated by race; comparator evidence shows pretext | Hedden: articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations); comparator not similarly situated | No immunity — sufficient evidence of pretext and valid comparator created triable issue |
| Whether Chief Hedden is entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 equal-protection retaliation claim | Burton: Termination was retaliation for complaining about racial slurs, violating Equal Protection | Hedden: No clearly established equal-protection right against retaliation; decision influenced by others | Denied — reversed: qualified immunity granted because Equal Protection does not clearly establish a right to be free from retaliation |
| Whether the Title VII race-discrimination claim may proceed (summary judgment) | Burton: Title VII and § 1983 discrimination theories are parallel; comparator evidence supports inference of discrimination | State: Legitimate reasons for termination; any comparator differences (probation status) defeat claim | Affirmed denial of summary judgment on Title VII discrimination — pendent jurisdiction exercised and triable issue exists |
| Whether the court should exercise pendent jurisdiction over Title VII retaliation claim | Burton: claims are intertwined with qualified-immunity appeal | State: Appeal limited; retaliation distinct because § 1983 retaliation (First Amendment) not properly pled | Declined for Title VII retaliation — not "inextricably intertwined" because § 1983 retaliation wasn't analyzed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step and courts' discretion on which prong to address)
- Brown v. City of Jacksonville, 711 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for viewing facts on summary judgment/qualified immunity appeals)
- Wimbley v. Cashion, 588 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognition that right to be free from racial discrimination is clearly established)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (use of McDonnell Douglas analysis in § 1983 discrimination cases)
- Ratliff v. DeKalb County, 62 F.3d 338 (11th Cir. 1995) (no clearly established Equal Protection right to be free from retaliation)