Floyd-Gimon v. University of Arkansas, et al., No. 12-1797 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued the University and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her employment was terminated for gross misconduct. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her due process violation and gender discrimination claims. The court concluded that, assuming plaintiff had a property interest in her continued employment, her due process claim failed because she received all of the process that she was due; regardless of whether defendants deprived plaintiff of a liberty interest in her reputation, she could not establish a due process violation because she did not sufficiently, if at all, request a name-clearing hearing; the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to show direct evidence of discrimination or that defendants' explanation for terminating her was a pretext for gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. District court's grant of summary judgment in civil rights action alleging violations of due process and equal protection relating to termination for gross misconduct is affirmed. Due process claims failed because employee received all the process she was due; the failure to provide specific examples of altered records does not rise to the level of a due process violation. Claim that employee was deprived of a liberty interest in her reputation without due process failed because employee did not sufficiently, if at all, request a name-clearing hearing. District court did not err in finding employee failed to show direct evidence of gender discrimination and correctly concluded employee did not show the defendants' explanation for terminating her was a pretext for gender discrimination; the comparators were not similarly situated.
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.