Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00238/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00238-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12111 American Disability Act

---

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

GENE STOWERS 

v. No. 3:19-cv-238-DPM 

STATEOFARKANSAS;ARKANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND 

TOURISM, Powhatan Historic State Park; 

KRISTYN WATTS, Park Superintendent, 

Individually and in her official capacity; 

and MICK HA VEN, Park Interpreter, 

Individually and in his official capacity 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFF 

DEFENDANTS 

Having been served with Stowers' s screened complaint, the 

defendants move to dismiss across the board. First, the Court's 

screening Order, NQ 4, has no preclusive effect. It's not a judgment. 

Screening is triage, and sometimes the Court misses something or gets 

the diagnosis wrong. Adversarial briefing almost always adds clarity. 

Second, Stowers' s claims should be further trimmed. Sovereign 

immunity bars his state law claims against the State, the Department, 

and Haven and Watts in their official capacities. Smith v. Arkansas 

Highway Police, 2013 WL 12320409 at *3-*4 (E.D. Ark. 7 October 2013). 

Stowers' s individual capacity claims against Haven and Watts fail 

because the ADA and Arkansas Civil Rights Act apply to employers, 

not employees. Trickey v. Selig, 2012 WL 3245956 at *2 (E.D. Ark. 

Case 3:19-cv-00238-DPM Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 4
not employees. Trickey v. Selig, 2012 WL 3245956 at *2 (E.D. Ark. 

8 August 2012); Smith, 2013 WL 12320409 at *9; ARK. CODE ANN. 

§ 16-123-108(c)(2) (allowing Arkansas Civil Rights Act retaliation 

claims only against employers, thereby overruling Calaway v. Practice 

Management Services, Inc., 2010 Ark. 432, 2010 WL 4524659 (Ark. 2010)). 

His federal official capacity claims against Haven and Watts also drop 

out because they duplicate his claims against the Department. 

Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010). His 

federal claims against Arkansas are needlessly duplicative, too. And 

Stowers's federal claims for damages are dismissed. Title I of the ADA 

did not validly abrogate the State's sovereign immunity. Board of 

Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). 

Stowers' s relief against the Department is therefore limited to his 

request for reinstatement or an injunction. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 

155-56 (1908); Treleven v. University of Minnesota, 73 F.3d 816, 819 

(8th Cir. 1996). 

Third, Stowers' s claims for a hostile work environment and for 

ADA discrimination and retaliation go forward. The defendants' 

exhaustion defense fails. Based on the EEOC' s right-to-sue letter, and 

Stowers' s timely suit thereafter, the statute's requirement of a letter 

from the U.S. Attorney General is equitably waived. See Woods v. State 

of Missouri Department of Mental Health, Kansas City Regional Diagnostic 

Center, 581 F. Supp. 437, 441-44 (W.D. Mo. 1984). Stowers has stated a 

-2-

Case 3:19-cv-00238-DPM Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 4
retaliation claim. He alleges that before he filed his EEOC charge, his 

supervisors had said he could work at least through 24 December 2018; 

but after his supervisors found out about the charge, they said 

December 21st would be his last day. At the pleading stage, this is 

enough to create an inference that the supervisors had a retaliatory 

motive. Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 

280 F.3d 893, 896-97 (8th Cir. 2002). The hostile work environment 

standard is rigorous, but Stowers' s allegations of mistreatment are 

enough at this stage. As best the Court can tell, Stowers's ADA 

discrimination claim rests on the same allegations as his hostile work 

environment claim-supervisor Haven's "white trash" comments, and 

co-worker Thompson's aggression and assigning Stowers more work. 

The defendants question the legal effect of a co-worker's actions, and 

whether Stowers's supervisors knew about his disability. But, in his 

affidavit, Stowers says the co-worker's actions were one example of 

how he was mistreated; and he alleges supervisor Haven reviewed his 

letter to Gov. Hutchinson, which mentioned that Stowers had received 

food stamps. Discovery will shed light on the nature of- and any 

difference between - Stowers' s discrimination and hostile work 

environment claims. At this stage, the Court allows both to proceed. 

-3-

Case 3:19-cv-00238-DPM Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 4
* * * 

Motion, NQ 10, partly granted and partly denied. Stowers's 

claims against the Department for injunctive relief based on a hostile 

work environment and ADA discrimination and retaliation are best 

resolved after discovery. 

So Ordered. 

~ /. 

'1' 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

/,g .~v~y J..OJ..D 

-4-

Case 3:19-cv-00238-DPM Document 16 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 4