Tony Sayger v. Riceland Foods, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23184
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sayger, a Caucasian maintenance worker, alleged retaliation after serving as a witness in an internal investigation into supervisor Crane's racist remarks about black employees.
- Riceland initially granted summary judgment on Title VII and Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA) claims; § 1981 claim proceeded to trial.
- Dobrovich's May 2009 investigation summarized a pattern of derogatory racial comments by Crane; Crane faced limited discipline (diversity training only).
- Bennett, Turney, and Sayger faced layoff/termination decisions in 2009-2010; Sayger claimed these were retaliatory for his witness participation.
- Jury found in Sayger's favor on § 1981 retaliation claim; district court denied JAML on punitive damages and awarded some equitable relief.
- Riceland cross-appealed, challenging the denial of judgment as a matter of law; Sayger appealed several related rulings, including evidentiary rulings and equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sayger's § 1981 claim is viable for retaliation | Sayger engaged in statutorily protected activity by witnessing and opposing discrimination. | No protected conduct or causal link proven; pretext not established. | Evidence supports retaliation and pretext; jury could find causation. |
| Preservation and timeliness of Title VII claim on appeal | Title VII claim timely; preserved on appeal. | Not preserved in pleadings; untimely if considered. | Title VII claim not preserved; even if preserved, untimely under 180-day EEOC filing rule. |
| Admissibility of Bennett/Turney verdict as evidence | Past discriminatory policy evidence may be admissible to show pretext. | Verdict is not evidence; previous case findings should be excluded. | Verdict not admissible; Sayger had ample opportunity to present related facts. |
| Award of equitable relief including reinstatement | Reinstatement serves as deterrence against retaliation. | No abuse of discretion; lack of wage data and ongoing retaliation concerns. | No abuse of discretion; reinstatement denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (Supreme Court 2009) (opposition can be protected even when not a formal investigation participant)
- Davis v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 685 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2012) (Title VII opposition analysis informs § 1981 retaliation)
- Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2012) (statutorily protected activity under § 1981 aligns with Title VII)
- Takele v. Mayo Clinic, 576 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (pretext analysis parallels Title VII retaliation standards)
- Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 1997) (§ 1981 and Title VII analyses are aligned for retaliation claims)
- Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (causation in retaliation can be shown despite time gaps)
- Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1997) (causation may be shown where timing suggests retaliation)
- Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court 1999) (damages standards for punitive relief in § 1981/EPL cases)
- Commercial Prop. Invs., Inc. v. Quality Inns Int'l, Inc., 61 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1995) (guidance on judgment as a matter of law standard)
- Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 1267 (8th Cir. 1997) (evidence and verdict considerations in pretext analyses)