Smith v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
431 S.W.3d 200
Ark.2013Background
- Tanya Smith filed an employment-related retaliation claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA) § 16-123-108 after her termination in early 2010; initial suit in Pulaski County was nonsuited and she refiled in Pope County in May 2012.
- Respondents ConAgra Foods and former supervisor Terry Steen removed the refiled action to federal court and moved to dismiss the retaliation claims as time-barred.
- The threshold dispute: whether ACRA retaliation claims under § 16-123-108 are governed by the ACRA’s one-year limitation in § 16-123-107(c) or by the general three-year statute for statutory causes of action in § 16-56-105.
- § 16-123-108(c) incorporates the remedies and procedures of § 16-123-107(b), but does not itself specify a limitations period; § 16-123-107(c) contains a one-year limit for certain ACRA claims.
- The federal district court certified the statutory-question to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which concluded that the three-year statute of limitations in § 16-56-105 applies to § 16-123-108 retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to ACRA retaliation claims under § 16-123-108? | Smith: No limitations period in § 16-123-108, so apply § 16-56-105 (3 years) or § 16-56-115 (5 years catch-all) | Respondents: Apply the one-year limit in § 16-123-107(c) because retaliation claims depend on rights created in § 16-123-107 and employment claims should have the same limitations | Held: Three-year limitations period of § 16-56-105 applies to § 16-123-108 retaliation claims; five-year catch-all not applicable; one-year ACRA provision does not control |
Key Cases Cited
- Chalmers v. Toyota Motor Sales, 326 Ark. 895, 935 S.W.2d 258 (1996) (applied three-year statute to liabilities created by statute)
- Kassees v. Satterfield, 2009 Ark. 91, 303 S.W.3d 42 (2009) (determine limitations period by gist of the action; where multiple limits exist, generally apply the longest appropriate)
- Winston v. Robinson, 270 Ark. 996, 606 S.W.2d 757 (1980) (treating statutory liabilities under general limitations scheme)
- Medical Liability Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC, 519 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2008) (applying state statutory limitations principles to liabilities created by statute)
- King v. Ochoa, 373 Ark. 600, 285 S.W.3d 602 (2008) (court should not rewrite clear statutory language to address policy concerns)