Hill v. City of Pine Bluff, et al, No. 11-2799 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against her employer, alleging discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Arkansas Equal Pay Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 11-4-601; and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA), Ark. Code. Ann. 16-123-101 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that no reasonable factfinder could find that any defendant was guilty of intentional, gender-based wage discrimination when plaintiff's initial salary as a new zoning official was established in November 2006; plaintiff's failure-to-hire claim failed based on undisputed evidence supporting defendants' nondiscriminatory reason for hiring another candidate based on more experience and better qualifications and because plaintiff failed to demonstrate pretext; and plaintiff's remaining claims also failed.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff's Section 1983- based wage discrimination claim failed as her position was not substantially equal to the positions to which she compared her job; even if plaintiff made a prima facie case, the city offered a legitimate non- discriminatory basis - seniority - for the wage disparity, and plaintiff failed to show this was a pretext for gender discrimination; assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case of gender discrimination with respect to her application for a separate position, the city offered a legitimate non- discriminatory ground for its hiring decision - the other applicant's superior experience and qualifications - and plaintiff failed to show the ground was pretextual; retaliation claim rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.