Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04312/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04312-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arkansas Department of Education
Appellee
Cozetta A. Dobson
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4312

___________

Cozetta A. Dobson, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Arkansas Department of Education, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: August 29, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cozetta Ausler Dobson appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor

of the Arkansas Department of Education on her claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2, et seq. She argues that she can establish a prima facie case on the elements

of adverse job action and causation, and that the district court erroneously applied

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the judgment of the

district court.

Dobson, a secretary for the Department, initially filed suit against it in 2001

alleging racial discrimination. A jury trial was held and resulted in the district court

granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant. Dobson’s retaliation

Appellate Case: 05-4312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083446
-2-

claim now before us stems from actions taken by the Department at various times after

the trial. She alleges that she was disciplined, not paid money owed to her, and

assigned diminished job duties in retaliation for filing the discrimination suit against

the Department. 

On November 6, 2003, the day after trial on her discrimination suit, she was

given a disciplinary memorandum by her supervisor, Dorothy Reynolds, citing

numerous incidents of insubordination and inappropriate behavior during June,

August, and September of 2003. She denies that she was insubordinate, but admits

to inappropriate behavior in certain statements she made and in making an obscene

gesture to Reynolds. The second incident of alleged retaliation occurred in February,

2004, after she complained about her working environment and requested she be

allowed to relocate to a different office. Dobson was informed that she did not have

the authority to relocate her workstation without approval from her supervisor. She

then did move to a different office without approval, and her supervisor refused to

approve payment for the time that she was not at her workstation. She filed a

grievance regarding the loss of salary and was eventually paid for the hours she had

worked at the unauthorized station, but she was not paid interest on the amount.

Finally, Dobson complains that her job duties were diminished in November, 2004.

The Department admits that her duties were reassigned, but asserts that the changes

were due to a restructuring within the Department and that her salary, benefits, and job

classification remained the same.

The Department filed a motion for summary judgment which the district court

granted . Specifically, the district court held that the disciplinary memorandum did

not constitute an adverse employment action against Dobson. Even if it were, the

compelling fact was that Dobson had admitted to committing several acts of grossly

inappropriate behavior for which she was cited in the memorandum. She was

disciplined for the misconduct, not in retaliation for her lawsuit. The fact that she was

engaged in protected activity for pursuing a discrimination claim did not insulate her

Appellate Case: 05-4312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083446
-3-

misconduct from the Department’s review or strip the Department of authority to take

corrective action to maintain order in the workplace. With respect to the Department’s

refusal to authorize payment for the time Dobson relocated her workstation without

permission, she was later paid for the time in dispute with the exception of interest.

The district court ruled that she had failed to establish a causal link between the

Department’s action and her discrimination lawsuit. Rather, the Department acted

because of Dobson’s defiant misconduct.

Finally, the district court rejected her reassignment of job duties claim,

concluding that a loss of status and prestige is not an adverse employment action

where the employee’s salary, benefits, responsibilities, and title remain the same, and

even if it was an adverse employment action, she has produced no evidence that her

assignment was motivated with intent to retaliate against her. The reassignment

occurred over a year after the conclusion of trial, which undercuts any inference of a

causal link between the earlier lawsuit and reassignment. Because Dobson did not

meet her burden in establishing a prima facie case, the district court denied her request

for permission to amend her complaint by adding three Department employees as

defendants, ruling that the amendment would be futile.

We have carefully considered the arguments made by Dobson in her brief filed

in this case, and conclude that they are without merit, and no error of law appears.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4312 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083446