Ronda DePriest v. Dennis Milligan, 823 F.3d 1179

Background

Ronda DePriest was Chief Deputy Circuit Clerk in Saline County (1991–2010); Dennis Milligan was elected Circuit Clerk in 2010 and replaced her with Jim Harris, who performed more political/policymaking duties.
Milligan notified DePriest she would not be retained before taking office; parties agree the reappointed Chief Deputy’s duties changed to require political/personal loyalty.
DePriest did not apply for a 2011 electronic records manager opening (she alleges it was not posted; county evidence shows it was posted and received nine applications).
DePriest sued Milligan (consolidated suits) alleging: First Amendment political‑dismissal and retaliation claims; gender discrimination under Title VII, § 1983 (Equal Protection), the ACRA, and GERA; and an Arkansas constitutional petition claim. Cases were removed to federal court.
The district court granted summary judgment to Milligan on federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims; DePriest appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) First Amendment: dismissal for political affiliation	DePriest argues she was dismissed because she supported the incumbent (political affiliation)	Milligan argues the new Chief Deputy position required political/personal loyalty and policymaking duties	Court: Affirmed — loyalty/political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the revised Chief Deputy role, so dismissal permissible as a matter of law (Branti/Elrod framework)
2) GERA: applicability and reviewability	DePriest contends GERA covers her and EEOC determination should be subject to review	Milligan relies on EEOC findings and procedural limits on review	Held: DePriest failed to timely seek review in the court of appeals; court will not reach merits of EEOC determination; GERA claim fails procedurally
3) Gender discrimination (reappointment and later hires) under Title VII, § 1983, ACRA	DePriest contends she was more qualified and was discriminated against when not reappointed and not hired for later openings	Milligan argues he legitimately reshaped the Chief Deputy role and later hires had required computer/system experience; DePriest often did not apply	Held: Affirmed summary judgment — plaintiff did not show pretext or, in some instances, did not establish a prima facie case (failure to apply; lack of evidence rebutting non‑discriminatory reasons)
4) Retaliation (2013 hires) under First Amendment, Title VII, ACRA	DePriest claims failure to hire in 2013 was retaliation for her earlier suit	Milligan offers nondiscriminatory reasons (lack of computer/system experience; discretionary hiring as elected official)	Held: Affirmed — even assuming prima facie case, DePriest failed to show Milligan’s reasons were pretextual or that retaliation was the determinative factor

Key Cases Cited

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (political dismissal standard)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (political affiliation as job requirement)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination)
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (retaliation causation framework)
Langley v. Hot Spring Cnty., Ark., 393 F.3d 814 (Eighth Circuit on loyalty requirement)
Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc., 759 F.3d 874 (Eighth Circuit on discrimination/retaliation proof)
Johnson v. City of W. Memphis, 113 F.3d 842 (personal loyalty as appropriate requirement)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (summary judgment proof standards)
Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (discussion of Mt. Healthy vs. McDonnell Douglas frameworks)