Tyler v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 173
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Tyler is an African American assistant dean for diversity at UAMS; he sued in 2004 alleging race discrimination in pay and retaliation, settled in 2005 with a Settlement Agreement fixing duties and creating a campus-wide Office of Diversity.
- The Settlement contemplated possible transfer of Tyler and others to the Office of Diversity, without negative impact on salary/benefits; Flowers later became Director of Recruitment for Diversity in 2007.
- Dean Gardner and other deans sought to create a six-college Office of Diversity; a 2006 hiring process produced Flowers over Tyler.
- Flowers was chosen over six finalists, including Tyler, after interviews; Flowers began work late February 2007 under Tyler’s supervision.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the University and Gardner in 2009 on all claims; Tyler appeals challenging retaliation and gender-discrimination theories.
- Appellate review is de novo on summary judgment, applying McDonnell Douglas framework for Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation under Title VII and §1983 | Tyler argues protected activity (2004 EEOC charge) caused Flowers hire in 2007. | University asserts no causal nexus; reasons for hire are nondiscriminatory and based on Flowers's qualifications. | No causal link or pretext shown; summary judgment affirmed on retaliation. |
| Prima facie case causation in retaliation | Temporal proximity between 2004 charge and 2007 hire supports causation. | Time gap (nearly 3 years) undermines inference; no other evidence of retaliation. | Temporal gap defeats prima facie causation; no independent causation shown. |
| Pretext for non-discriminatory explanation | Record shows Flowers preselected; job description possibly tailored to Flowers. | Reasons—enthusiasm, community ties, grant experience, interview performance—are legitimate and supported. | No pretext established; reasons are legitimate and not a disguise for discrimination. |
| Gender-discrimination claim exhaustion and merits | Claim includes gender discrimination; EEOC charge focused on retaliation. | Exhaustion bars Title VII gender claim; §1983 claim merits also fail. | Exhaustion not satisfied for gender claims; merits fail under both Title VII and §1983. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., 442 F.3d 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (McDonnell Douglas retaliation framework applied in §1983 context)
- Smith v. Fairview Ridges Hosp., 625 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2010) (temporal proximity required for retaliation inference; close timeframes only sometimes suffice)
- Bearden v. Int'l Paper Co., 529 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2008) (pretext and discrimination standards under McDonnell Douglas)
- Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328 (8th Cir. 1996) (evidence discrediting nondiscriminatory explanation may permit inference of discrimination)