Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01365/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronda DePriest
Appellant
Dennis Milligan
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1365

___________________________

Ronda DePriest

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Dennis Milligan, individually and in his official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: January 13, 2016

 Filed: May 26, 2016

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Ronda DePriest filed two consolidated lawsuits against Dennis

Milligan, alleging various gender discrimination and retaliation claims. The district

court1

 granted Milligan’s motion for summary judgment as to DePriest’s

1

 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
discrimination and retaliation claims and dismissed without prejudice DePriest’s state

constitutional claims. We affirm.

I. Background

Ronda DePriest served as an at-will employee in the Saline County, Arkansas,

Circuit Clerk’s office from 1991 to 2010. She was appointed as Chief Deputy Clerk

in 2002. In this capacity, DePriest handled real estate filings and some personnel and

financial matters. The Chief Deputy Clerk works under and reports to the Circuit

Clerk, who is an elected official in the County. In 2010, Dennis Milligan was elected

Circuit Clerk in a close contest against long-time incumbent Doug Kidd. DePriest

supported Kidd in the election by wearing his campaign shirt and walking in a parade

on his behalf. It is undisputed that when a new Circuit Clerk is elected, he or she must

appoint or reappoint individuals to staff the office. DePriest had been reappointed by

Kidd each time he won an election. 

On December 27, 2010, shortly before Milligan took office as Circuit Clerk,

DePriest learned that she would not be retained as an employee under Milligan. 

Instead, Milligan hired Jim Harris, an experienced political operative, to fill DePriest’s

position. In contrast to DePriest’s largely administrative role, Milligan envisioned his

Chief Deputy would serve in a chief-of-staff capacity. Notably, Harris was

responsible for managing public relations, advising Milligan, attending political

functions, and performing some of the administrative tasks DePriest had done. At the

time he took office, Milligan had not met DePriest and he contends she was not

someone he could trust in this role. The parties agree that Harris’s job duties are

different from those that DePriest performed as Chief Deputy. However, DePriest

contends that Harris is not as qualified to hold the position because she had nearly

twenty years of experience.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
In 2011, following DePriest’s dismissal, an electronic record manager position

opened in the office. DePriest contends she was qualified for the position and should

have been hired. However, she did not apply for the position because she claims it

was not publicly advertised. Evidence in the record shows the position was advertised

on the County website and the office received nine applications. DePriest does not

rebut this evidence, except to allege she did not see the position posted on the County

website. There is no indication that a vacancy could be filled by an individual who

did not apply for the position. 

On April 12, 2012, DePriest filed suit against Milligan in his official and

individual capacities in state court. She claimed Milligan: (1) dismissed her in

retaliation for her political affiliation with Kidd in violation of the First Amendment;

(2) discriminated against her because she is a woman by dismissing her, hiring a less

qualified man, and not allowing her to reapply for another position in violation of

Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause through § 1983, the Government Employee

Rights Act (“GERA”),2

 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”); and

(3) violated her right to petition the government under Article II, section 4 of the

Arkansas Constitution. Milligan removed the case to federal court. On September 30,

2013, following discovery, the district court granted Milligan’s motion for summary

judgment as to the First Amendment political affiliation claim. The district court

granted a stay as to the GERA and gender discrimination claims to allow DePriest to

submit these claims to the EEOC.3

 Subsequently, the EEOC reviewed DePriest’s

2

 The GERA is part of the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act. It provides

discrimination protections to state and local government employees who are “chosen

or appointed by a person elected to public office . . . (1) to be a member of the elected

official’s personal staff; (2) to serve the elected official on the policymaking level; or

(3) to serve the elected official as an immediate advisor with respect to the exercise

of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16c(a).

3

 Claims brought under the GERA follow a different procedural path than most

claims under federal discrimination statutes. After an individual has filed a GERA

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
claims twice, concluding both times she did not meet the criteria for coverage under

the GERA. DePriest did not appeal the EEOC’s determination.

In 2013, DePriest applied for two open positions in the Circuit Clerk’s office.

She was among three candidates interviewed for the first position, but was not

interviewed for the second position. Milligan indicated that DePriest was not hired

for either position because she did not have experience with a new computer system

that Milligan had implemented in the office. DePriest contends she was not hired

because she is a woman and because of her pending lawsuit against Milligan. Both

positions were filled by women who had experience with the computer system

because they were currently employed in the Circuit Clerk’s office in other capacities. 

complaint with the EEOC, the EEOC “shall determine whether a violation has

occurred and shall set forth its determination in a final order.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e16c(b)(1). Judicial review is available for “[a]ny party aggrieved by a final order . . .

under chapter 158 of Title 28 [(the Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2341–2353)].” Id. § 2000e-16c(c). The Administrative Orders Review Act

provides judicial review procedures for actions by several federal agencies. See, e.g.,

Nack v. Walburg, 715 F.3d 680, 685–86 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that the Act applies

to determining the validity of Federal Communications Commission orders). For the

purposes of the GERA, “the [EEOC] shall be an ‘agency’ as that term is used in [the

Act].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16c(c). The few courts that have interpreted the GERA

have concluded that the courts of appeals, rather than the district courts, have

exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders from the EEOC on GERA claims. See

Crain v. Butler, 419 F. Supp. 2d 785, 788 (E.D.N.C. 2005); Stitz v. City of Eureka

Springs, Ark., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1056 (W.D. Ark. 1998); see also Nack, 715 F.3d

at 686 (“[T]he court of appeals [has] exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity

of [agency] orders.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2342)). To seek judicial review, the

aggrieved individual must “within 60 days after entry [of the final order], file a

petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2344; see also B.J. McAdams, Inc. v. I.C.C., 551 F.2d 1112, 1114 (8th Cir. 1977)

(discussing this provision in the context of another agency covered by the Act). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
On January 16, 2014, while the first lawsuit remained pending, DePriest again

filed suit against Milligan in state court. She claimed Milligan’s failure to hire her in

2013 was in retaliation for her lawsuit against him, which violated the First

Amendment, Title VII, and the ACRA. Milligan again removed the case to federal

court where it was consolidated with the original case. Milligan moved for summary

judgment in the consolidated case on all of the remaining unresolved issues.

In an order addressing the remaining claims in both lawsuits, the district court

granted summary judgment in favor of Milligan as to DePriest’s federal claims and

declined to exercise jurisdiction over her state constitutional law claims. In particular,

the district court concluded DePriest’s gender discrimination claim under the GERA

had no merit because the statute does not apply to her and, even if it did apply, the

district court determined it would not have jurisdiction to review her claim. 

Regarding DePriest’s claims under Title VII, the ACRA, and the Equal Protection

Clause through § 1983, the district court determined Milligan’s decision to dismiss

DePriest after adding political and personal loyalty aspects to the Chief Deputy

position did not violate state or federal law. The district court concluded that

DePriest’s argument that she is more qualified than Harrisfailsto establish Milligan’s

reason was merely a pretext for discrimination. The district court also considered and

granted summary judgment as to DePriest’s gender discrimination claim based on

Milligan’s failure to hire her for the electronic records manager position, for which

she did not apply, in 2011.

Next, the district court turned to DePriest’s claims of retaliation in her second

lawsuit. Regarding DePriest’s claim that Milligan violated the First Amendment

when he retaliated against her for filing a lawsuit against him, the district court

concluded DePriest failed to show that Milligan’s nondiscriminatory reason for not

hiring her was a pretext. Similarly, the district court concluded DePriest failed to

establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation because she could not show that her

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
lawsuit against Milligan was a determinative factor in not hiring DePriest for the two

positions in 2013. DePriest appeals from this judgment. 

II. Discussion

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the record in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rickard v. Swedish Match N. Am., Inc.,

773 F.3d 181, 184 (8th Cir. 2014). “To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff ‘must

substantiate [her] allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a

finding in [her] favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.’” Id.

(quoting Moody v. St. Charles Cnty., 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994)). We may

affirm an order granting summary judgment “on any basis supported by the record.” 

Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, 785 F.3d 1216, 1222 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting

Saulsberry v. St. Mary’s Univ. of Minn., 318 F.3d 862, 866 (8th Cir. 2003)).

A. First Amendment Claim

DePriest claims Milligan violated the First Amendment by dismissing her from

the Chief Deputy position because of her political affiliations. When the sole reason

for a dismissal is the employee’s political affiliation, we apply the test set forth by the

Supreme Court in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S.

507 (1980). In such circumstances, “a dismissal solely on account of an employee’s

political affiliation violates the First Amendment unless ‘the hiring authority can

demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective

performance of the public office involved.’” Langley v. Hot Spring Cnty., Ark., 393

F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Branti, 445 U.S. at 518). In order to survive

summary judgment on a claim of politically motivated dismissal, the plaintiff must

“submit[] sufficient evidence that political affiliation or loyalty was a motivating

factor in the dismissal.” Id. If the plaintiff satisfies this burden, the defendant must

“establish[] either that the political motive is an appropriate requirement for the job,

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
or that the dismissal was made for mixed motives and the plaintiff would have been

discharged in any event.” Id. “In general, personal loyalty is ‘an appropriate

requirement’ where the individual ‘reports directly to the [chief executive] and his

duties include public relations and responsibility for . . . long-range planning.’” Id.

at 818 (quoting Johnson v. City of W. Memphis, 113 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 1997))

(alterations in original).

Milligan seems to concede that he dismissed DePriest from her Chief Deputy

position due to her political affiliations. Thus, the burden shifts to Milligan to prove

political loyalty is an appropriate job requirement for the Chief Deputy position. The

parties agree that Milligan made changes to the Chief Deputy position and that

DePriest’s replacement performs duties related to policymaking and politics that she

had not performed. In particular, Milligan required his Chief Deputy to provide

advice, to be available at all times, and to speak on Milligan’s behalf at public events.

On this basis, we find it appropriate for Milligan to require personal and political

loyalty in the Chief Deputy position. See id.; Johnson, 113 F.3d at 844. As such, it

was permissible for Milligan to dismiss DePriest on the basis of her political

affiliations as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment on this claim.

B. Gender Discrimination Claims

DePriest raises gender discrimination claims under the GERA, the Equal

Protection Clause through § 1983, Title VII, and the ACRA. Regarding the GERA

claims, the EEOC concluded the GERA does not apply to DePriest. If properly

presented, we will set aside an EEOC final order on a GERA claim if the order is:

“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not consistent with law;

(2) not made consistent with required procedures; or (3) unsupported by substantial

evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16c(d). However, we need not review the merits of the

EEOC’s determination because DePriest did not make a timely appeal of the order

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
directly to this Court, as required by statute. See Stitz, 9 F. Supp. 2d at 1056 (“[W]e

do not believe that under the GERA, the district court is the court that can exercise

judicial review of an EEOC determination. Rather, we believe that the court of

appeals has such jurisdiction.”); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16c(c) (providing that judicial

review of GERA claims is governed by Chapter 158 of Title 28, which is the

Administrative Orders Review Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (providing the court of appeals

with exclusive jurisdiction to review an agency’s final orders); id. § 2344 (providing

that a petition for review of a final order must be filed within 60 days).

As to DePriest’s remaining gender discrimination claims, we apply the same

standard to discrimination claims arising under § 1983, Title VII, and the ACRA. See

Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 853 (8th Cir. 2012) (applying the same

standard to a claim arising under Title VII and the ACRA); Richmond v. Bd. of

Regents of Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992) (applying the same

standard to a claim arising under § 1983 and Title VII). In the absence of direct

evidence, we analyze employment discrimination claims under the McDonnell

Douglas burden-shifting framework. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973). First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for

gender discrimination, which requires showing: “(1) she was a member of a protected

class; (2) she was qualified for her job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment

action; and (4) these are facts that give rise to an inference of unlawful gender

discrimination.” Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc., 759 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014)

(quoting Wells v. SCI Mgmt., L.P., 469 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2006)). “The burden

then shifts to [the] defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its action. If [the] defendant meets that minimal burden, [the] plaintiff must show that

the proffered nondiscriminatory reason is merely a pretext for unlawful . . .

discrimination.” Id. (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 735 (8th

Cir. 2003)) (alteration in original). To survive summary judgment, the plaintiff “must

point to enough admissible evidence to raise genuine doubt as to the legitimacy of the

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
defendant’s motive.” Id. (quoting Barnhardt v. Open Harvest Co-op, 742 F.3d 365,

371 (8th Cir. 2014)). 

DePriest claims three instances of gender discrimination: (1) Milligan’s failure

to reappoint her upon being elected; (2) Milligan’s failure to offer her another position

in the office in January 2011; and (3) Milligan’s failure to hire her for the electronic

records manager position in June 2011. Analyzing each of these claims within the

McDonnell Douglas framework, we conclude that DePriest cannot survive summary

judgment on any of her claims. 

First, while we find it plausible that DePriest established a prima facie case of

gender discrimination as to Milligan’s failure to reappoint her in 2011, DePriest fails

to show Milligan’s reasons for doing so were pretextual. Milligan contends he sought

to transform the Chief Deputy position into a policymaking, politics-centered position

that would be held by an individual he personally trusted. DePriest argues this is

pretext because she had more experience and was more qualified than Harris, the man

Milligan hired to replace her. However, DePriest also admits that the Chief Deputy

position changed under Milligan’s leadership, and she provides no evidence as to how

she remained more qualified given the new job requirements. Even viewing the facts

in the light most favorable to DePriest, her pretext argument does not hold water. 

DePriest does not identify any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to

conclude Milligan’s proffered reason for dismissing her was pretext for gender

discrimination. See Fiero, 759 F.3d at 878–79.

Second, regarding Milligan’s failure to offer DePriest another position in the

office in January 2011, DePriest has not alleged adequate facts to establish a prima

facie case of gender discrimination. DePriest did not apply for any open positions, nor

was Milligan required to find her a suitable position upon dismissing her from the

Chief Deputy position. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
Finally, DePriest has not established a prima facie case of discrimination as to

her claim that Milligan failed to hire her for the electronic records manager position

in June 2011. The parties agree that DePriest did not apply for this position. DePriest

argues she did not apply because the opening was not publicly posted, but she cites

to no evidence to support this assertion. Milligan provided an affidavit and several

exhibits from Christy Peterson, the County Personnel Manager, to support his

contention that the position was in fact posted. DePriest offered nothing to rebut this

evidence and create a triable question of fact. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643

F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (“The nonmovant ‘must do more than simply show

that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’” (quoting Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986))).

In light of the foregoing analysis, we affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment as to DePriest’s gender discrimination claims.

C. Retaliation Claims

DePriest claims Milligan retaliated against her for filing the first lawsuit against

him when he did not hire her for either of the open positions in 2013. DePriest

proceeds under three theories: violations of the First Amendment through § 1983,

Title VII, and the ACRA. 

Because DePriest has offered no direct evidence of retaliation, we evaluate her

Title VII claimunderthe McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Fiero, 759

F.3d at 880. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that:

“(1) she engaged in statutorily protected conduct; (2) she suffered an adverse

employment action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the two.” Id. at 880

(quoting Wells v. SCI Mgmt., L.P., 469 F.3d 697, 702 (8th Cir. 2006)). If the plaintiff

makes this prima facie showing, the employer “must then rebut it ‘by presenting

-10-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action it took against [the

plaintiff].’” Id. (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Kohler, 335 F.3d 766, 772–73 (8th Cir. 2003)). 

“If [the employer] satisfies this burden, [the plaintiff] is ‘then obliged to present

evidence that (1) creates a question of fact as to whether [the employer’s] proffered

reason was pretextual and (2) creates a reasonable inference that [the employer] acted

in retaliation.’” Id. (quoting Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827, 833 (8th

Cir. 2002)). We analyze First Amendment and ACRA retaliation claims under the

same framework as claims of retaliation under Title VII.4

 Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd.

of Trs., 628 F.3d 980, 986 (8th Cir. 2011) (considering a First Amendment retaliation

claim); Brown v. City of Jacksonville, 711 F.3d 883, 892 (8th Cir. 2013) (considering

an ACRA retaliation claim). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to DePriest, we assume that

DePriest has established a prima facie case for retaliation under the First Amendment,

Title VII, and ACRA. At the second step, Milligan offered several reasons for not

hiring DePriest in 2013, including that DePriest was not familiar with the new

4

 Our case law suggests two possible frameworks for evaluating First

Amendment retaliation claims: McDonnell Douglas (discussed above) and Mt.

Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977) (requiring that the

plaintiff “show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct

was a ‘substantial factor’ or . . . a ‘motivating factor’” in the adverse decision before

the burden shifts to the defendant to show “it would have reached the same decision

. . . even in the absence of the protected conduct”). Some cases suggest the two

frameworks may apply in distinct circumstances. See Davison v. City of Minneapolis,

Minn., 490 F.3d 648, 663 (8th Cir. 2007) (Colloton, J., dissenting in part and

concurring in part) (arguing Mt. Healthy applies where the retaliation claim is

supported by direct evidence, while McDonnell Douglas applies where direct evidence

is not available). The district court in this case considered DePriest’s claims under

both frameworks and concluded that summary judgment was appropriate regardless

of the standard applied. We agree.

-11-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236 
computer system.5

 In an attempt to show pretext, DePriest points to an isolated

statement from Milligan’s 2012 deposition to the effect that Milligan knows of no

legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his desire to not hire DePriest. This statement

was speculative as it was made before DePriest had applied for any job in the office. 

Moreover, we need not accept Milligan’s legal conclusion as fact. See Howard v.

Columbia Pub. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that we must

“disregard portions of . . . depositions that . . . purport to state legal conclusions as

fact”). The record shows that Milligan considered DePriest as one of three applicants

invited to interview for one of the open positions. The applicants that Milligan

subsequently hired had experience with the new computer system, which DePriest

admittedly lacked. Considering the evidence in the record, we conclude that DePriest

failed to show a genuine issue of material fact exists or raise an inference of unlawful

retaliation. See Fiero, 759 F.3d at 880. We affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment as to DePriest’s retaliation claims.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment and its decision to dismiss the state law claims.

______________________________

5

 Our review of Milligan’s deposition reveals at least two other reasons behind

his decision not to hire DePriest: (1) he “ha[s] the right as an elected official to hire

who [he] want[s] to hire”; and (2) DePriest would not “work out well” in the office. 

While it is unclear how these reasons would support an inference of retaliation, we

conclude that Milligan’s assertion that DePriest is not trained in the new computer

system satisfies his burden to present a nonretaliatory reason for failing to hire her.

-12-

Appellate Case: 15-1365 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/26/2016 Entry ID: 4403236