Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01829/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1829

___________

Willie Gammon, * 

 * 

 Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

 * District of Arkansas. 

Dan Flowers, Director of the *

Arkansas Highway and * [UNPUBLISHED] 

Transportation Department; Ronnie *

Burks, Chief of Arkansas Highway *

Police; Arkansas State Highway *

and Transportation Department; *

Arkansas Highway Police, *

* 

 Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2006

Filed: November 22, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willie Gammon, an African American sergeant employed by the Arkansas State

Highway Police (AHP), appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment on his race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims

in a Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 action brought against Dan Flowers,

Appellate Case: 06-1829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111999
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Director of the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department, and Ronnie Burks,

Chief of the AHP, in their official and individual capacities. The district court1

 found

Gammon failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1972), did not produce evidence

of harassment so severe as to alter his employment conditions, and offered no

evidence of retaliation for filing discrimination charges. After a de novo review, we

affirm.

Gammon claims Flowers and Burks, who are white, denied him promotions,

transfers, training, and equal pay because he is an African American. He contends he

produced both direct and indirect evidence of race discrimination. He claims race was

a factor in the AHP denying him promotions to First Lieutenant and Second

Lieutenant positions. While he rated as well or better than other candidates in a

number of areas considered by the AHP in deciding promotions (e.g., educational

level, years of experience, and certificates awarded), Gammon admits the successful

white candidates scored higher than he did on an objective evaluation of job

knowledge (which accounted for 40% of the promotional consideration) and, as a

result, he was not the top-rated candidate for either position. During Gammon's

interview for the First Lieutenant position, Burks told him his haircut was

unprofessional and he was too old for the haircut, and asked, “What happened to your

hair? Why did you cut all of your hair off?” Gammon testified these remarks were

racist. In addition, the successful candidate for the First Lieutenant position had

previously gone hunting with Flowers. Neither the hair comments nor hunting

incident show a strong causal link “between the alleged discriminatory animus and the

challenged decision” and thus do not constitute direct evidence of racial

discrimination. Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004).

Moreover, Gammon did not meet his burden to produce “‘specific, tangible evidence’

that employees who were ‘similarly situated in all respects’ to him received different

Appellate Case: 06-1829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111999
2

 To the extent the issue is before us, we also affirm the district court's adverse

grant of summary judgment on Gammon's disparate impact claim because Gammon

did not present evidence of statistical disparities sufficiently substantial to raise an

inference of causation between an identifiable, facially neutral personnel policy or

practice and a disparate effect on African American AHP employees. See Watson v.

Forth Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988).

-3-

treatment.” Philip v. Ford Motor Co., 413 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted).

Gammon also failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination as to

the transfer, training, and pay issues. He offered no evidence AHP denied him

transfer, training, or educational upgrade opportunities as he alleged. Further, while

Gammon’s proffered evidence shows a number of white sergeants earn more per year

than Gammon, some white sergeants earn the same or lesser amounts. Gammon

provided no basis for distinguishing among a variety of factors that might explain the

pay differences such as step placement or merit pay. While he alleges unit patrol

officers receive higher pay than weigh station officers, he admits he has never

requested to be assigned to a patrol unit.

The district court also properly dismissed Gammon’s hostile work environment

and retaliation claims. The sole evidentiary basis for the hostile work environment

claim is an incident in which a lieutenant called a patrolman a “nigger” and referred

to all other African American AHP employees using the same word. “[R]acial slurs

alone do not render a work environment hostile as a matter of law.” Singletary v. Mo.

Dep’t of Corr., 423 F.3d 886, 893 (8thCir. 2005). Finally, while Gammon alleged the

AHP retaliated against him because he filed discrimination charges with the EEOC,

he presented no evidence to support any causal connection between his charges and

any adverse employment action.2

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111999