Maria Murguia, Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charisse Childers, Director, Division of Workforce Services, in her official capacity, Defendant - Appellee
No. 22-2831
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
August 24, 2023
GRASZ, Circuit Judge.
Submitted: June 14, 2023
Filed: August 24, 2023
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
GRASZ, Circuit Judge.
Maria Murguia sued the Director of the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (“DWS“) in her official capacity, alleging discrimination on the ground of national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights
I. Background
Murguia is an immigrant from Mexico who lives in Arkansas and speaks only Spanish. After Murguia lost her job because of COVID-19, she applied for unemployment insurance at a DWS office in April 2020. During her visit, Murguia‘s daughter Alejandra—who speaks English and Spanish—helped her fill out and submit a paper application for unemployment insurance. Murguia and Alejandra were not offered an interpreter.
After Murguia submitted her paper application, a DWS employee converted the application to an electronic one. That electronic application erroneously listed Murguia‘s last employer as Molly Maid. In fact, Murguia had quit her job at Molly Maid in November 2019 and began working for Holiday Inn thereafter. In part because Holiday Inn incorrectly recorded Murguia‘s social security number, the district court noted it is “unlikely” the error in the electronic application was Murguia‘s fault.
Murguia tried to correct the misunderstanding about her last employer, but her initial attempts were unsuccessful. In June 2020, for example, DWS issued a Notice of Agency Determination in which it disqualified Murguia from benefits based on the understanding that she quit her job with Molly Maid in November 2019.2
Murguia‘s second visit to a DWS office was in late August 2020. Murguia and Alejandra spoke with DWS employee Raymond Michaud, explaining Murguia‘s last employer was Holiday Inn—not Molly Maid. According to Murguia, Michaud had “a mad, mean look” and asked for supporting paystubs from Holiday Inn. The next day, Murguia and Alejandra returned with the requested paystubs and again interacted with Michaud. Michaud stated he no longer needed the paystubs and explained that Murguia needed to work somewhere for thirty days before she could be eligible for benefits. Alejandra was under the impression that Michaud was “annoyed” and “irritated” during the encounter. Michaud did not offer an interpreter.
Interactions between Murguia and DWS continued, albeit not in person. At times, Murguia communicated with Corina Parra, a DWS employee that helps claimants who possess limited English proficiency. Indeed, Parra helped Murguia translate and often returned Murguia‘s phone calls within a day. Alejandra also emailed Parra the requested Holiday Inn paystubs.
In September 2020, DWS issued an amended Notice of Agency Determination in which it acknowledged its prior determination “was issued in error since [Molly Maid] was not [Murguia‘s] correct last work.” Murguia later began receiving unemployment benefits, but her bureaucratic woes continued.
In April 2021, DWS sent Murguia notice that she had failed to properly report her earnings. To avoid a “fraud determination,” DWS asked Murguia to provide an explanation for the discrepancies. Later that same month, Murguia and Alejandra visited DWS to provide a copy of her identification and residency card. Murguia asked for an interpreter, so DWS began looking for one. Murguia waited for less than twenty minutes before signing a document entitled “Waiver of Interpreter Services”
Murguia was unable to satisfy DWS‘s request for supporting documentation, as evidenced by an August 2021 Notice of Agency Determination that Murguia did not correctly report her earnings. Murguia appealed the adverse agency determination. At a corresponding telephonic hearing in January 2022, an interpreter was available for part, but not all, of the proceeding. Nonetheless, in February 2022, the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal reversed the agency determination. While acknowledging Murguia incorrectly reported earnings between December 2020 and March 2021, the Appeals Tribunal concluded the error was not willful because she “testified that she did not realize she was required to report her part time earnings, due to her inability to speak English.”
Based on these experiences and DWS‘s failure to provide interpretation and translation services, Murguia filed this lawsuit against the Director of DWS in her official capacity. She asserts she was discriminated against on the ground of national origin in violation of Title VI. See
II. Analysis
A. National Origin Discrimination
Murguia argues the district court erred by concluding there is no genuine dispute of material fact on her Title VI claim. We review de novo a district court‘s grant of summary judgment, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Mumid v. Abraham Lincoln High Sch., 618 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2010). A district “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
The parties agree with the district court that the analytical framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies.3 McDonnell Douglas established a burden-shifting framework in which the plaintiff “must carry the initial burden under the statute of establishing a prima facie case of . . . discrimination.” 411 U.S. at 802. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the [action].” Id. If the defendant articulates
Title VI includes an implied private right of action to enforce the statute‘s prohibition against intentional discrimination. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 279-80 (2001). Under Title VI, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of . . . national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Murguia does not present a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. Murguia‘s prima facie case largely hinges on her position that this court must provide Chevron5 and Auer6 deference to regulations and agency guidance issued under Title VI and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. In her view, these regulations and agency guidance define “national origin” under Title VI, and DWS‘s failure to comply with those “language access” regulations is therefore relevant to whether DWS discriminated against her on the ground of national origin. We struggle to see how such a view can be reconciled with Alexander v. Sandoval, where the Supreme Court held there is no freestanding private right of action to enforce regulations promulgated under
But even if Murguia is correct that we can consider the regulations she relies upon, DWS‘s violation of those regulations—by itself—is insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. Cf. Mumid, 618 F.3d at 795 (concluding “deficient programming in and of itself is not evidence of intentional discrimination based on national origin“); Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 291-92 (1998) (concluding failure to comply with a regulation “does not itself constitute ‘discrimination’ under Title IX“). And the other evidence Murguia points to runs headlong into our precedent that “language and national origin are not interchangeable.” Mumid, 618 F.3d at 795 (citing Hannoon v. Fawn Eng‘g Corp., 324 F.3d 1041, 1048 (8th Cir. 2003)). See also Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 1983); Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1980).
Further, even if Murguia presented a prima facie case, we would still affirm the district court. When a plaintiff puts forth a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, the burden shifts to the Director to offer a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for Murguia‘s bureaucratic troubles. 411 U.S. at 802. The Director‘s reason “must be clear and reasonably specific.” Tex. Dep‘t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 258 (1981). And it is a burden “of production, not persuasion; it ‘can involve no credibility assessment.‘” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000) (quoting St. Mary‘s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993)).
As the Director‘s reason for Murguia‘s troubles collecting unemployment insurance, she offers the pandemic and its effect on DWS‘s ability to adjudicate applications for unemployment insurance during the time period that Murguia interacted with its employees. We have previously acknowledged operational changes associated with the pandemic in its “early months” as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason under McDonnell Douglas. See Johnson v. Schulte Hosp. Grp., Inc., 66 F.4th 1110, 1114-15 (8th Cir. 2023). Consistent with this precedent, we next turn to pretext.
The district court concluded Murguia did not provide evidence of pretext. On appeal, Murguia argues the Director‘s reason is pretextual because it is unconnected to her treatment and thus “is unworthy of credence.” The burden is on “the plaintiff to show that the offered reason is pretextual.” Lucke v. Solsvig, 912 F.3d 1084, 1088 (8th Cir. 2019). A plaintiff can carry this burden under McDonnell Douglas by showing the “proffered explanation is unworthy of credence,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, “because it has no basis in fact.” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Murguia filed her application for unemployment insurance within weeks of the March 2020 national COVID emergency. In the following months, unemployment skyrocketed. For example, DWS had about 1,000 claims “on adjudication” in February 2020. By April 2020, the number of claims ballooned to 66,000. DWS began changing protocols, and many applicants had to wait in line for up to six hours. The unprecedented circumstances, in turn, drastically affected a core DWS responsibility: administering
Considering these circumstances and the other evidence, we disagree with Murguia that DWS‘s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her troubles obtaining unemployment insurance is unworthy of credence. It is undisputed that Murguia‘s April 2020 electronic application for unemployment insurance listed the incorrect last employer. In June—mere months after the start of the pandemic and amid a massive uptick in applications—DWS was still operating under the erroneous assumption that Murguia‘s last employer was Molly Maid. When Murguia visited a DWS office twice in late August 2020, she tried to correct the misunderstanding by providing paystubs. She later spoke with Parra, which culminated in DWS acknowledging the error about Murguia‘s last employer. Murguia then began receiving unemployment insurance before DWS asked Murguia to explain a discrepancy in her earnings. In response, Murguia visited a DWS office and, for the first time, requested an interpreter before leaving because DWS could not provide one in less than twenty minutes. DWS eventually determined Murguia did not correctly report her earnings, but it concluded she did not do so willfully in light of her language restrictions.
Despite this, Murguia insists her prima facie case is strong enough to establish pretext. “It is possible for strong evidence of a prima facie case to establish pretext,” but, as we have explained, Murguia‘s “prima facie case was far from strong.” Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827, 834 (8th Cir. 2002). So even if Murguia had presented a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, she has nonetheless failed to carry her burden under McDonnell Douglas of showing the reasons for her bureaucratic troubles were a pretext for intentional discrimination. See Johnson, 66 F.4th at 1115; Bissada v. Ark. Children‘s Hosp., 639 F.3d 825, 833 (8th Cir. 2011).
In sum, the district court did not err by awarding the Director summary judgment.
B. Deliberate Indifference
Murguia also argues the district court erred by rejecting her alternative request to apply a deliberate indifference standard when analyzing her Title VI claim. In support, she relies upon Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), and Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). While Murguia acknowledges Gebser and Davis involve Title IX,
In Gebser, the Supreme Court considered when a school district can be held liable for damages under a Title IX implied private right of action for teacher-on-student sexual harassment. 524 U.S. at 277. Given that Title IX has a “contractual nature” in which “Congress attaches conditions to the award of federal funds” via its spending power, the Supreme Court‘s “central concern” was whether the funding recipient had notice of monetary liability. Id. at 287 (citing
The Supreme Court answered a different question in Davis: “whether, and under what circumstances, a recipient of federal educational funds can be liable [under Title IX] in a private damages action arising from student-on-student sexual harassment[.]” 526 U.S. at 637. The Supreme Court first rejected the argument that the plaintiff sought to hold the school board liable for the student‘s sexual harassment. Id. at 641. It reasoned the plaintiff instead sought “to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its schools.” Id. Characterizing deliberate indifference under Gebser as a “high standard,” id. at 643, the Supreme Court then concluded liability in damages attaches under Title IX “only where [funding recipients] are deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” Id. at 650.
Gebser and Davis considered discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX in the form of harassment in the school setting. Murguia advances neither a Title IX claim nor a harassment claim. We acknowledge the Supreme Court has in some ways “interpreted Title IX consistently with Title VI,” Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 185 (2002), at least in part because Congress “passed Title IX with the explicit understanding that it would be interpreted as Title VI was[.]” Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 258 (2009). The inverse, however, is not necessarily true. Cf. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 n.7 (1985) (warning against a simplistic “assimilation of Title VI law to § 504“). And our review of Gebser, Davis, and the plain language of Title VI does not clearly demonstrate the deliberate indifference standard applies in this context. Indeed, our cases analyzing Title VI have instead applied McDonnell Douglas. See Rowles v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 983 F.3d 345, 355 (8th Cir. 2020); Freeman v. Fahey, 374 F.3d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 2004); Fuller v. Rayburn, 161 F.3d 516, 518 (8th Cir. 1998).
But even assuming for the sake of argument that the deliberate indifference standard applies, in light of our conclusion under McDonnell Douglas, Murguia fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact under the “high standard” of deliberate indifference. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 643, 650; see also Doe v. Dardanelle Sch. Dist., 928 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2019) (“Deliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault that cannot be predicated upon mere negligence.” (quoting Doe v. Flaherty, 623 F.3d 577, 584 (8th Cir. 2010))).
III. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
KELLY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
To prevail on her claim, Murguia is required to show that her “national origin
In April 2020, Murguia and her daughter, Alejandra, visited DWS to file a claim for Murguia to receive unemployment benefits. Alejandra helped Murguia complete an application—which was in English—for benefits. A DWS employee at the front desk interacted with them and watched as Alejandra interpreted and translated information for Murguia. At that point, under DWS‘s own policy, the employee should have determined Murguia‘s “language need” as a limited English proficiency (LEP) person and offered to provide her a free interpreter. The employee also should have indicated in Murguia‘s file that she needed Spanish-language services and documents. The employee did neither.
Murguia soon began to receive notices from DWS about her unemployment claim. These letters were only in English. Whenever Murguia received a letter from the agency, she had to call Alejandra to interpret or translate for her. Alejandra had no formal Spanish-language training beyond one year of Spanish classes in high school, and she testified that she “would read [a] letter and try [her] best to explain it” to Murguia in Spanish. By August 2020, Murguia had received several letters from DWS containing “vital information” only in English.
On August 25, 2020, Murguia and Alejandra returned to the DWS office. Michaud, a DWS “front intake” employee, interacted with them and watched as Alejandra interpreted for Murguia. Like before, notwithstanding the agency‘s policy, there was no effort to offer Murguia an interpreter. Michaud directed Murguia and Alejandra to come back the next day with certain documents. The two returned the following day, but Michaud refused to look at the documents he requested they bring, dismissively stating that he had “never asked for them.” What Michaud did, instead, was “run[] an immigration check” on Murguia. Murguia‘s immigration status, however, was “not in doubt.” This “immigration check“—and Michaud‘s failure to document that he even ran it—was undisputedly contrary to the agency‘s policies and practices.
The record included additional information about Michaud. There was a perception in the DWS office that Michaud did not “like Latins,” and that he generally spoke in a loud, angry voice when Latino
The Arkansas Legal Aid soon stepped in to assist Murguia, and on September 23, 2020, they informed the agency of Murguia‘s language-access issues. Murguia was put in touch with Parra, the agency‘s LEP coordinator for unemployment claims who was fluent in English and Spanish. Despite Parra‘s involvement, little changed. The agency still failed to note that Murguia required Spanish-language services, so Murguia continued to receive vital documents from the agency in English only. And Murguia was still left to rely on Alejandra to interpret or translate information about her claim. For example, after Murguia received two form documents from the agency in English on November 3, 2020, Alejandra emailed Parra asking her to help Murguia complete these forms, which were due by the following week. It took Parra about six weeks to respond to the email from Alejandra, and in the interim, Alejandra completed the forms for Murguia. Murguia also tried reaching Parra by phone when she needed assistance, as DWS did not have a separate telephone line for individuals who require interpretation services. Sometimes, Parra returned Murguia‘s calls, but other times, she did not.
In March 2021, nearly a year after Murguia filed her unemployment claim, she began to receive benefits. But Murguia still lacked access to sufficient interpretation or translation services. In April and August 2021, the agency sent fraud notices to Murguia, alleging that she received benefits to which she was not entitled. These, too, were in English. Murguia contested the fraud allegations, and the agency held an appeal hearing where she received an interpreter for the first time. But even then, the interpreter‘s “version of questions in Spanish did not make sense to [her] sometimes,” and in the middle of the hearing, the interpreter “stopped interpreting” and Murguia heard only English from then on. The agency later reversed its fraud determination based in part on the fact that Murguia “did not fully understand the unemployment laws due to her inability to speak English.” Notably, DWS has a handbook with the unemployment laws and program rules, but the agency never provided this to Murguia.
Murguia‘s experiences with DWS were not isolated incidences. The record shows that DWS has struggled with systemic issues regarding access to its services by LEP claimants. In 2015, DWS was investigated by the Department of Labor (DOL) about deficiencies concerning access to the agency‘s services by LEP persons. Relevant here, the investigation revealed that DWS generally failed to provide “adequate interpretation services in a timely manner to LEP individuals,” “adequate translation services in a timely manner,” or “provide[] LEP individuals with appropriate notice of language assistance services.” The DOL concluded that DWS‘s “policies, procedures, and practices were inadequate to meet its obligations under Title VI . . . and the implementing regulations for these statutes.” While DWS reached a settlement with the DOL in 2017, its shortcomings persisted. Between April 2020 and May 2021, other Spanish-speaking LEP claimants like Murguia had difficulties accessing
In my view, a reasonable inference can easily be drawn that DWS‘s actions were motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory purpose. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977); Pers. Adm‘r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). The agency does not dispute that in providing services to Murguia, it violated several of Title VI‘s implementing regulations—many of which are incorporated into DWS‘s Operations Manual. See, e.g.,
DWS, however, explains away Murguia‘s experiences at its office by pointing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency states that “[t]he pandemic forced [it] to change its protocol in multiple ways,” noting that it was “handling [a] historic number of unemployment cases,” DWS employees “often had minimal interaction with claimants in the early days of COVID-19,” and that claimants had to “hand in paper applications” rather than “fill out their applications on computers inside local offices.” And the agency relies on its “out-of-date computer system” to excuse the fact that Murguia received English-only documents.
But Murguia‘s claims concerned the deprivation of language services at DWS, and the agency failed to articulate the relationship between Murguia‘s claims and COVID-related changes. See Lucke v. Solsvig, 912 F.3d 1084, 1087 (8th Cir. 2019) (“Legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons must be clear and reasonably specific.” (cleaned up)). Nevertheless, Murguia showed that her experience at the DWS office was unrelated to the pandemic. For example, Murguia offered evidence suggesting that there was no on-site interpreter at the local DWS branch—both before and after the pandemic. And in fact, Parra testified that there was “no guarantee” that an interpreter would even be available if a claimant like Murguia needed one.
Nor does DWS explain how an outdated computer system prevented it from providing Spanish-language translations. In fact, Parra testified that Spanish-language paper applications were available “at the local [DWS] office,” and if a claimant “file[d] an unemployment claim [in Spanish], the [computer] system . . . trigger[ed] a Spanish . . . form.” And to the extent DWS also relies on the pandemic here, there was no evidence to suggest that the pandemic prevented DWS from translating documents into Spanish. All told, Murguia has raised legitimate questions of fact regarding the validity of the reasons proffered by DWS. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 854 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that there are at least two routes for demonstrating
In my view, Murguia has established a prima facie case of intentional national origin discrimination. See Lewis v. City of Union City, 934 F.3d 1169, 1185 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[A] plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if [s]he presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination.” (cleaned up)). And on this record, material questions of fact remain regarding pretext.
Respectfully, I dissent.