Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State, et al., No. 13-1427 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Secretary of State, in his official capacity, and other state defendants. Plaintiff claimed race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the state defendants' motion for summary judgment on the race discrimination and retaliation claims; concluded that plaintiff could pursue his Title VII claims against all defendants but that the Eleventh Amendment barred his section 1983 claims against the Secretary and his claims for monetary damages against the Secretary and Chief Hedden in their official capacities; denied Chief Hedden qualified immunity; and denied summary judgment to the state defendants as to mitigation of damages and punitive damages but granted summary judgment to the state defendants on the section 1981 claims, hostile work environment claims, and claim of deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects, except the court reversed its denial of qualified immunity to Chief Hedden on plaintiff's 1983 equal-protection retaliation claim. The right to be free from retaliation was clearly established as a First Amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. The district court did not err in denying the Arkansas State Capitol Police Chief's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim alleging a racially discriminatory termination as the plaintiff produced evidence a similarly situated white employee had been treated differently when he engaged in comparably serious conduct and that the reasons the Chief asserted for plaintiff's termination were pretexts for race discrimination; the district court erred in denying the Chief qualified immunity on plaintiff's equal protection claim for retaliation under Section 1983 as there is no clearly established right under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation; the court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the Title VII claims against the state defendants. [ December 16, 2013
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.