Tabby Butler v. Crittenden County, Arkansas
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4484
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Butler, an African American woman, worked as a deputy jailer from 2000 to 2008 at Crittenden County jail.
- In 2008 Butler received multiple disciplinary warnings for tardiness and insubordination under supervisor changes.
- She alleged supervisor Rodney Strong harassed her with sexual advances; administrators warned Strong to limit contact to work matters.
- Butler wrote an October 2008 letter alleging sexual advances; Strong was moved and later removed from supervision.
- Butler was suspended in December 2008 for tardiness and ultimately terminated on December 30, 2008 for disrespect and chain-of-command violations.
- She filed an EEOC-sexual harassment/retaliation charge in 2009 and sued in 2010 under §1981, §1983, §1985, and related statutes; district court granted summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler's claims are time-barred for failure to exhaust | Butler argues constitutional §1983 claims do not require Title VII exhaustion. | County argues all claims exhausted under Title VII timelines. | Not time-barred; §1983 claims arising from constitutional rights need not follow Title VII exhaustion. |
| Whether quid pro quo harassment supported by the record | Strong's advances caused a tangible job detriment for Butler after her complaint. | Temporal separation and termination predate causation; no direct link shown. | Insufficient causal link; no prima facie quid pro quo harassment. |
| Whether Butler established a hostile work environment based on sex or race | Harassment by a supervisor created a discriminatory environment. | Conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive; harassment stopped after intervention. | No prima facie hostile environment; conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive. |
| Whether Butler proved discrimination or retaliation under §1981/§1983 | Termination and suspension were retaliatory for complaints and protected activity; disparate treatment shown by comparators. | No direct evidence; no suitable comparators; timing weakens causal link; First Amendment claim meritless. | Claims fail under McDonnell Douglas framework; no evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Treasurers, 628 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion applies to Title VII, not §1983 discrimination claims)
- Henley v. Brown, 686 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2012) (constitutional-rights discrimination may be brought under §1983 without Title VII exhaustion)
- Kipp v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 280 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2002) (causation in retaliation cases requires a tangible link)
- Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2008) (hostile work environment standard requires severe or pervasive conduct)
- Vajdl v. Mesabi Acad. Of KidsPeace, Inc., 484 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2007) (hostile environment, to be sufficiently severe or pervasive)
- McGee v. Pub. Water Supply, Dist. No. 2, 471 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2006) (official acts within jail context not protected by First Amendment)
- Takele v. Mayo Clinic, 576 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (retaliation framework requires protected activity, adverse action, and causation)
- Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2007) (retaliation proof framework in §1983 cases)
- Wells v. SCI Mgmt., L.P., 469 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2006) (McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims)
- DeGraffenreid v. Gen. Motors Assembly Div., 558 F.2d 480 (8th Cir. 1977) (early articulation of intersectional discrimination claims)