Austin v. Long, No. 14-2044 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseLong, the elected head prosecutor for the first judicial district of Arkansas, supervises deputy prosecutors in six counties. In 2006, Long hired Austin, an African-American, as a deputy prosecutor for Phillips County. The prosecutor previously hired for that position was African-American, as was the prosecutor hired to replace Austin. Austin failed to follow the instructions of Murray, the senior deputy prosecutor, conerning allocation of county funds. Long asserts that Murray and other court personnel had trouble contacting Austin during business hours, that Austin deviated from policy on felony bond reduction orders and expungement orders and incurred extraordinary expenses without approval. A judge reportedly contacted Long to ask why Austin had failed to appear in court. Austin contends that Long never provided him with a formal evaluation and never explained why he was fired. Austin filed an employment discrimination action under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983, claiming that Long treated him more harshly than similarly situated white prosecutors, who had been convicted of driving while intoxicated and sanctioned for an ethical violation. The district court denied Long's motion asserting qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the record gave rise to disputes of material fact over whether Long's stated reasons for firing Austin were a pretext for racial discrimination.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court correctly stated that plaintiff could demonstrate a triable issue of fact concerning pretext by showing that he was treated differently than similarly-situated employees and plaintiff did this by showing that two other prosecutors who had engaged in comparable or more serious misconduct had not been terminated; as a result, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court did not err in determining plaintiff had alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right - the right to be be free from race discrimination in his employment.
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.