Ellis, et al. v. Houston, et al., No. 12-2178 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, African American officers who worked in a state penitentiary, filed suit under 41 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 against supervisors for race based harassment and retaliation. On appeal, the officers challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims against Lieutenants Stoner, Haney, and Runge and against Sergeants Miles and Furby. The court concluded that the evidence revealed acts, comments, and inaction by Sergeant Miles sufficient to make out prima facie harassment claims against him, which must be reinstated and remanded; there was insufficient evidence of harassment by the other supervisors and therefore the claims against Lieutenant Stoner, Runge, and Haney, and Sergeant Furby were affirmed; the retaliation claims by supervisors were affirmed; and Sergeant Miles has not shown that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the officers' harassment claims, nor have Lieutenants Stoner and Haney shown they were entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claims of Officer Ellis. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. In an action brought by five African American officers in the Nebraska State Penitentiary against five supervisors for race based harassment and retaliation, the district court erred in granting defendant Miles' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim of harassment as the evidence reveals acts, comments and inaction by defendant Miles sufficient to make out a prima facie case of harassment; the district court did not err in granting the remaining defendants summary judgment on the harassment claims as there is insufficient evidence of harassment against those four defendants; with respect to plaintiffs' retaliation claims, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff Ellis's claims against defendants Stoner and Haney as the retaliatory acts those two defendants took against Ellis were materially adverse employment actions sufficient to support a prima facie case of retaliation; the retaliation claims of the other plaintiffs were insufficiently supported to survive summary judgment, and the district court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment on those claims; based on the record evidence, Miles, Stoner and Haney were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claims the court has determined should proceed. Judge Loken, concurring in the judgment, joined by Judge Colloton.
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.