Tim Lors v. Jim Dean
746 F.3d 857
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lors sues BIT and state employees for retaliation related to a prior ADA discrimination suit; jurisdiction invoked under ADA Titles I and V among others.
- District court granted summary judgment on the merits; sovereign immunity defenses were raised; court later concluded Eleventh Amendment immunity barred money damages and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Lors previously challenged district court rulings on discrimination, termination, and unemployment decisions; CSC and state courts found there was cause for termination and that actions were not retaliatory”; this court later granted panel rehearing regarding Lane and Georgia and now affirms on the merits.
- Lors was transferred within BIT in 2004, later terminated in 2009; he filed ADA and other claims, with multiple state tribunal findings supporting a non-retaliatory termination.
- The court applies Georgia’s abrogation framework to Title V, analyzes direct evidence versus pretext, and ultimately concludes the retaliation claim fails on the merits and sovereign immunity bars Title I/Title V damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bar ADA claims? | Lors argues ADA abrogates immunity | Garrett controls; Title I not abrogated; immunity applies | Yes; Title I barred; Title V claim predicated on Title I also barred; Title V abrogation not addressed on merits |
| Is there direct evidence of retaliation? | Direct evidence exists (termination during appeal, emails, etc.) | No direct link; evidence insufficient | No direct evidence; cannot establish retaliation on direct evidence |
| Is the retaliation claim surviving under McDonnell Douglas? | Proffered reasons pretextual; evidence shows pretext | Reasons are legitimate and non-retaliatory | Not sufficient; pretext not shown; merits fail |
| Should the court decide Title V abrogation without Title II framework? | Georgia framework applied; no need to decide abrogation if merits fail | ||
| Did the CSC/SD state courts’ findings preclude reconsideration? | State findings undermine pretext | Independent state findings support no retaliation | Yes; state findings support legitimate non-retaliatory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Supreme Court: Title I abrogation not valid absent pattern of state discrimination)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II abrogation for access to courts; framework for abrogation analysis)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Abrogation analysis in context of incarceration; three-step inquiry)
- Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 (1999) (ADA Title II abrogation discussion; exhaustion of §5 power)
- Doe v. Nebraska, 345 F.3d 593 (2003) (ADA abrogation considerations in Ninth Circuit)
- Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986 (2001) (Ninth Circuit: Title V claims predicated on Title I barred by Georgia reasoning)
- Rivers–Frison v. Southeast Mo. Cmty. Treatment Ctr., 133 F.3d 616 (1998) (Not every prejudiced remark supports employment discrimination; evaluate decisional connection)
- Arraleh v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967 (2006) (Eighth Circuit on retaliation evidence and decisional link)