Janice Warren v. Mike Kemp, No. 22-2169 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
After being passed over for a superintendent role, Plaintiff sued her employer, Pulaski County Special School District (“PCSSD”), and its board members for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. A jury found in her favor on her Title VII and Section 1981 retaliation claims and awarded damages, including punitive damages. Defendants appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and the punitive damages award. Plaintiff cross-appeals the district court’s denial of her request for front pay, additional back pay, and equitable relief.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the judgment. The court explained that, as a whole, the evidence demonstrates that she believed she reported the disparity in the facilities as part of her duty to oversee compliance with Plan 2000, which sought to rectify discrimination against students in public education. The court explained that it does not rule out that the disparity in the facilities could affect employees too, there is simply no evidence here that Plaintiff believed she was complaining about a discriminatory employment practice. Thus, a jury could not conclude that Plaintiff had a good faith belief that she was reporting a discriminatory employment practice.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. When she reported a disparity between the facilities in a middle school and a high school to the school board, the plaintiff, then acting as superintendent of schools, did not engage in a protected activity for purposes of Title VII as the report did not concern an underlying discriminatory employment practice; the jury verdict for the plaintiff is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions to enter judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. Judge Kelly, dissenting.
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.