Twiggs v. Selig
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11210
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Twiggs was Intake and Placement Director for Arkansas DYS under Angel; Selig was DHS Director supervising DYS.
- DYS contracted with G4S to provide residential services for juveniles at a facility.
- After A.T.’s release, Angel held a meeting to discuss concerns; initial accounts said no concerns prior to release.
- Branch later told Angel that Twiggs and Branch had known concerns before release; Twiggs denied knowledge.
- Angel gathered statements, found Twiggs dishonest about knowledge of concerns; Branch lied but corrected himself.
- Twiggs was terminated for dishonesty; she sued for gender discrimination under Title VII and §1983; district court denied summary judgment; on appeal, court held qualified immunity applies for Angel and Selig.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twiggs proved gender discrimination under McDonnell Douglas. | Twiggs argued pretext through Branch’s conduct and other circumstantial factors. | Defendants asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing Twiggs. | Twiggs failed to show pretext; no constitutional violation established. |
| Whether Twiggs and Branch were similarly situated for pretext analysis. | Twiggs and Branch were similarly situated in misconduct. | Twiggs and Branch not similarly situated; Twiggs lied over months, Branch lied briefly. | Not similarly situated; no pretext shown. |
| Whether the subjective policy on employee lying supports discrimination claim. | Subjective policy indicates discriminatory use. | Policy relied on but not applied discriminatorily. | Policy alone insufficient to prove discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973) (burden-shifting framework for Title VII discrimination)
- Ottman v. City of Independence, Mo., 341 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2003) (collateral order review of denial of qualified immunity; de novo review)
- Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 462 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2006) (substantial change in explanations relevant to pretext)
- Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474 (8th Cir. 2004) (same supervisor, same standards, same conduct required for pretext)
- Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001) (recent performance can outweigh prior positive evaluations)
- O'Connor v. Peru State College, 781 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1986) (subjective factors scrutinized for discriminatory abuse)