# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 19 93

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Tab by But le r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Cri tt en de n C ou nt y , Arka ns as ; R. E. (Dic k) Bu sb y , Cri tt en de n C ou nt y Sh eri ff, In di vi du al ly & in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty; W . A. W ren , Chi ef En fo rcem en t Offi cer, Cri tt en de n C ou nt y

Sh eri ff's Depa rtment, In di vi du al ly & in Offic ia l Ca pa ci ty; Ro dn ey Str on g, Su pe rv is or , Cri tt en de n C ou nt y Sh eri ff's Depa rtment, In di vi du al ly & i n Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 13 Fil ed : M arch 5, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Tab by Bu tl er is an Afri can Am eri can wom an who wor ke d as a de pu ty jail er in
th e Cri tt en de n Co un ty jail fro m 20 00 un ti l he r em pl oym en t was te rm in at ed in 20 08

.F o l lo win g he r te rm in at io n Bu tl er fil ed cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia l s al le gi ng un la wfu l su sp en si on an d di sc ha rg e, se x di sc riminat io n, ret al ia ti on , vi ol at io n of he r pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s, an d ci vi l co ns pi racy, ci ti ng 42
U.S.C. §§ 19 81
, 19 83
, an d 19 85 an d th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 91

. Sh e al so br ou gh t

st at e la w cl ai m s. Su m

m ary jud gm en t was gr an te d to th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls aft er th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th a t Bu tl er ha d fai le d to sh ow ei th er race or se x 1
di sc riminat io n or ci vi l co ns pi racy. It de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on

ov er he r st at e la w cl ai m s. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c)( 3)

. Bu tl er ap pe al s, an d we affi rm

.

I.

Bu tl er was hi red in Decem be r 20 00 as a de pu ty jail er at th e Cri tt en de n Co un ty jail to gu ard bo th juv en il e an d ad ul t in mat e s

. B e gi nn in g in 20 08 Bu tl er rece iv ed

se ve ral di sc ip li na ry warn in gs

. A Mar ch 20 08 m em or an du m ch arg ed he r wit h be in g
ta rd y a to ta l of ni ne ti m es si nc e Feb ru ary of th at ye a r an d in fo rm ed he r th at th ere

wou ld "b e n o fu tu re warn in gs co nc ern in g t hi s t ard y is su e."

Ro dn ey St ro ng be c a me B u t l er's su pe rv is or in Aug us t 20 08

. Acco rd in g to
Bu tl er, St ro ng be ga n ha ras si ng he r by " as ki ng [h er] t o go on da te s," "t ry in g to gi ve [h er] m on ey ," an d "i nv i t [ i n g ] [h er] to hi s ho us e fo r di nn er." Bu tl er es ti m at ed th at
St ro ng in vi te d he r ou t be twee n th irt y an d fo rty ti m es

. On Sep te m be r 19
, Bu tl er was writ te n up fo r be in g in su bo rd in at e to St ro ng ; sh e refu se d to si g n t h e d i sc ip li na ry
rep or t. Late r th at m on th St ro ng an d an ot he r of fic er vi si te d a ho sp it al whe re a juv en il e in m at e was be in g tre at ed

, an d Bu tl er do cu m en te d th e vi si t in th e jail 's lo g bo ok

. The

ne xt da y ch ie f jail er The res a Bo nn er cal le d Bu tl er to he r of fic e to in fo rm he r th at sh e

was be in g su sp en de d fo r in su bo rd in at io n, un sa ti sf act or y be ha vi or , an d "wri ti ng
st at em en ts th at are d et rimenta l ab ou t [h er] su pe rv is or in th e . . . log bo ok ."

The Hon or ab le J. Leon Hol m es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-On Octo be r 7, Bu tl er wro te a le tt er to Bo nn er and a jail ad m in is tra to r st at in g:

Ro dn e y S t r o ng ha s be en m ak in g se xu al ad va nc es to ward m e fo r ap pr ox im at el y 3 m on th s. He ha s as ke d m e ou t on da te s, of fere d m on ey , qu es ti on ed m

y pe rs on al /d at in g li fe, as ke d to to uc h m y ha i r , o f f e red to
pa y fo r m

y lu nc h, an d in vi te d m e to hi s ho m e fo r di nn er. I ha ve

co nt in ua ll y tu rn ed do wn th es e ad va nc es , be cau se I am no t in te res te d in h im

. All of St ro ng 's in ap pr op ria te an d un wan te d ad va nc es ha ve mad e

m e u nc om fo rta bl e in th e wor k e nv iro nm en t.

Afte r m eet in g wit h B u t l er to di sc us s he r co m pl ai nt , The res a Bo nn er an d th e jail
ad m in is tra to r ad vi se d S tro ng to sp eak wit h Bu tl er on ly reg ard in g wo rk m at te rs an d

to st op co m

pl im en ti ng he r an d of

feri ng to bu y he r lu nc h. St ro ng ag reed wit h t he se

res tri ct io ns bu t rem ai ne d Bu tl er's su pe rv is or

. Bu tl er ad m it s th at St ro ng ch an ge d hi s

co nd uc t to ward he r aft er h i s m eet in g wit h Bo nn er an d th e jail ad m in is tra to r, bu t
Bu tl er ne ve rth el es s ga ve a co py of he r Octo be r le tt er reg ard in g St ro ng to S h eri ff
Bu sb y on Nov em

be r 17 . There aft er St ro ng was re lo cat ed to an ot he r pa rt o f th e jail

so th at he no lo ng er s up erv is ed Bu tl er.

In Decem be r Bu tl er ha d an al te rcat io n wit h a co wor ke r. W he n th e ch ie f jail er
rep rimand ed Bu tl er fo r he r te nd en cy to la sh ou t wit h ha rs h wor ds

, Bu tl er rep li ed th at
sh e "d oe sn 't fo ol wit h de vi li sh pe op le ." Bu tl er al so co nt in ue d to be ta rd y fo r wor k.
Sh e was ta rd y m or e th an si xt y ti m es in 20 08
, an d by he r own ad m is si on was writ te n
up fo r ta rd in es s "a nu m

be r of ti m es ." The reaf

te r on Decem

be r 26
, sh e was su sp en de d
fo r two da y s fo r "ch ro ni c ta rd in es s."

In a di sc ip li na ry st at em en t, Bu tl er's su pe rv is or wro te th at on Ch ris tm as da y Bu tl er "was 30 m in [u te s] la te an d sh e di d no t cal l an d sh e ha s be en ta lk ed to ov er an d

ov er ag ai n ab ou t ge tt in g to wor k on ti m e, I ha ve be en le ni en t ov er an d ov er bu t co ul d

no lo ng er du e to th e fact th at [th is ] is an on go in g pr ob le m ." Bu tl e r was te rm in at ed

on Decem be r 30

. Ch ie f

jail er Bo nn er te st ifi ed th at Bu tl er was te rm in at ed be cau se sh e

-3

-fai le d t o resp ect th e ch ai n of com m an d, was di sr es pe ct fu l t o s up eri or s, an d a ccu se d

ot he rs of b ei ng ev il , cla im in g t he jail was fu ll of e vi l s pi rit s.

Bu tl er fil ed a cl ai m wit h th e EEOC fo r se xu al ha ras sm en t an d ret al ia ti on

. Sh e

rece iv ed a rig ht to su e le t t e r o n Sep te m be r 25
, 20 09 whi ch pe rm it te d he r to fil e a fed eral la wsu it ag ai ns t th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls wit hi n 90 da y s of he r rece ip t of th e

no ti ce. Mo re th an ni ne m on th s la te r, on J u l y 2 2
, 20 10
, Bu tl er fil ed he r co m pl ai nt

ag ai ns t Cri tt en de n Co un ty, sh eri ff Bu sb y , St ro ng , an d Ch ie f Enfo rcem en t Offi cer W

. A. W ren

. Sh e al le ge d th at th ey ha d vi ol at ed 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81
, 19 83
, an d 19 85
, th e Ci vi l Rig ht s Act of 19 91
, an d t he Arka ns as Civ il Rig ht s Act of 1 99 3. But le r st at ed
in pa rti cu la r th at th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls ha d un la wfu ll y su sp en de d an d te rm in at ed
he r ba se d on he r ge nd er an d he r co mpla in ts ab ou t se xu al ha ras sm en t. Sh e al so al le ge d th at th ey ha d co ns pi red to de pr iv e he r of fed eral ly pr ot ect ed rig ht s an d st at e
pr op ert y rig ht s.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d s u mm a r y ju dg m en t to th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls

. It fir st no te d th at Bu tl er's cl ai m s ap pe ared to be ti m e ba rred be cau se sh e ha d no t fil ed

su i t w i th in 90 da y s of rece iv in g he r rig ht to su e le tt er. It no ne th el es s pr oc eed ed to
ad dr es s he r cl ai m s on th e m eri ts an d co nc lu de d th at Bu tl er ha d fai le d to sh ow race or
ge nd er di sc riminat io n un de r an y of he r th eo rie s. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t al so reject ed
Bu tl er's ci vi l co ns pi racy cl ai m s an d de cl in ed to ex erci s e ju ris di ct io n ov er he r st at e la w cla im s.

Bu tl er ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th at th e reas on s gi ve n fo r he r te rm i n a t i o n w ere
pr et ex ua l an d in ret al ia ti on fo r he r c o mp l a i n t s ab ou t St ro ng an d he r no ta ti on in th e lo g bo ok

, th at he r te rm in at io n was "ev id en ce of

. . . se xu al an d raci al di sc riminat io n,"
th at he r "ri gh ts of free do m of sp eech an d eq ua l pr ot ect io n" un de r th e F irs t an d
Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts ha d be en de nied, an d th at St ro ng 's co nd uc t am ou nt ed to qu id

-4

-pr o qu o se xu al ha ras sm en t. The co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls co nt en d th at al l of Bu tl er's 2
cl ai m s ar e ti m e b arre d b ecau se sh e d id no t ex ha us t Ti tl e VII's req ui rem en ts

.

II.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t ' s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e

co un ty an d it s of

fic ia ls

, vi ewin g th e fac t s i n t h e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bu tl er an d gi vi ng he r th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m th e reco rd

. Mi nn

. ex rel

. N.
Pac. Ct r., In c. v. BNSF R.R. Co
., 68 6 F.3 d 56 7, 57 1 (8 th Ci r

. 20 12 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te on ly whe re th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e " a s t o a ny m at eri al
fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law." Id.

W e fir st ad dr es s th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at Bu tl er's cl ai m s m ay be ti m e ba rred be cau se sh e di d no t fil e su it wit hi n 90 da y s of rece iv in g he r rig ht to su e le tt er. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on la ng ua ge in Ty le r v. Uni ve rs it y o f A r k an sa s Bo ard of
Treas ur ers , 62 8 F.3 d 98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), to co nc lu de th at Tit le VII 's ex ha us ti on
req ui rem en t ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to Bu tl er's § 1 98 3 d is cri m in at io n c la im s.

W e di sa gr ee th at Bu tl er's cl ai m s are ti m e ba rred un de r Ty le r. The pl ai nt iff in Ty le r ha d rece iv ed a rig ht to su e le tt er fro m th e EE O C b a s e d on hi s al le ga ti on s of

ret al ia ti on an d race di sc riminat io n, bu t in hi s co m pl ai nt he rai se d a ne w cl ai m fo r se x di sc riminat io n un de r § 19 83 as well

. Id

. at 98 9. Alt ho ug h we sp ok e th ere ab ou t Ty le r fai li ng to pr es erv e hi s § 19 83 se x di sc riminat io n cl ai m be cau se "[a ]s a Tit le VII pl ai nt iff

, [h e] was req ui red to ex ha us t hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s

. . . be fo re br in gi ng

a fo rm al act io n" un de r § 19 83
, id

., we ha ve si nc e m ad e cl ear th at th e ex ha us ti on
req ui rem en t ap pl ie s on ly to Tit le VII pl ai nt iff s li ke Ty le r, whi le "an em pl oym en t

Bu tl er do es no t id en ti fy th e pa rts of th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r fro m whi ch sh e 2
ap pe al s. Si nc e sh e ha s no t refe rred to he r st at e la w or ci vi l co ns pi racy cl ai m s, we do

no t co ns id er th em he re. See Bl ak le y v. Sch lu m be rg er Tech

. Co rp ., 64 8 F.3 d 92 1, 93 3 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

-5

-di sc riminat io n pl ai nt iff as se rti ng a v io la ti on of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht m ay bri ng su it

un de r se ct io n 19 83 al on e, wit ho ut ha vi ng to pl ead co nc ur ren tl y a vi ol a t i o n of Tit le
VII an d co m

pl y wit h th e Act's pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts ," Hen le y v. Bro wn, 68 6 F.3 d
63 4, 64 2– 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Si nc e Bu tl er's race an d ge nd er di sc riminat io n cl ai m s un de r § 19 83 are ba se d on al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns , sh e

was no t req ui red to co m pl y wit h Ti t l e VII's pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts to m ai nt ai n th em

.

Turn in g t o B ut le r's su bs ta nt iv e cl ai m s, s he fir st co nt en ds th at he r su sp en si on

an d te rm in at io n am ou nt ed to qu id pr o qu o ha ras sm en t un de r § 19 83

. To pr ov e qu id

pr o qu o ha ras sm en t, Bu tl er m us t pr es en t ev id en ce de m on st rat in g th at "s ub m is si on of

un welc om e ad va nc es was an ex pr es s or im pl ie d co nd it io n fo r rece iv in g job be ne fit s

or [th at ] refu sa l to su bm it res ul te d in a ta ng ib le job de tri m en t." Newto n v. Cad well
Lab s., 15 6 F.3 d 88 0, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Bu tl er ha d

su ffer ed ta ng ib le job de tri m en ts in th e fo rm of he r s u s p e n s i o n an d te rm in at io n, bu t
it de te rm in e d t h a t Bu tl er ha d fai le d to sh ow th at he r reject io n of St ro ng 's ad va nc es

cau se d th at de tri m en t. W e ag ree. Bu tl er was s u s p en de d be fo re co m pl ai ni ng ab ou t
St ro ng 's be ha vi or , whi ch in di cat es th at he r su sp en si on was n o t c a u s ed by th at

co m pl ai nt

. The re is no di sp ut e th at St ro ng st op pe d bo th eri ng Bu tl er aft er Octo be r 6,

an d sh e was no t te rm in at ed un ti l Decem be r 30

. In th is cas e, "t he in te rv al

. . . be twee n th e co m pl ai nt an d [Bu tl er's ] te rm in at io n so di lu te s an y i n fere nc e of cau sa ti on th at

.

. . th e te m po ral co nn ect io n co ul d no t jus ti fy a fin di ng in [Bu tl er's ] fav or on th e m at te r of c a u s a l li nk ." Kip p v. Mo

. Hig hwa y & Tran sp

. Co m m 'n, 28 0 F.3 d 89 3, 89 7 (8 th
Ci r. 20 02 ).

Bu tl er ne xt as se rts a cl ai m fo r ho s t il e wor k en vi ro nm en t un de r § 19 83

. To

es ta bl is h a pri m a faci e ho st il e wor k env iro nm en t clai m fo r ha ras sm en t, Bu tl er m us t

p r o v e th at (1 ) sh e was a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) un welc om e ha ras sm en t

oc cu rred ; (3 ) th ere was a cau sa l ne xu s be twee n th e ha ras sm en t an d he r m em be rs hi p in a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; an d (4) th e ha ras sm en t affect ed a te rm , co nd it io n, o r pr iv il eg e

-6

-of

em pl oym en t. J en ki ns v. W in te r, 54 0 F.3d 74 2, 74 8 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) . But le r m us t
sh ow t h a t th e jail was su bjec ti ve ly an d ob jecti ve ly "p erm eat ed wit h di sc riminat or y in ti m id at io n, rid ic ul e, an d in su lt th at [was ] su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e to al te r th e

co nd it io ns of [h er] em

pl oym en t an d crea te an ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t." Vajdl

v. Mes ab i Acad

. Of Kid sP eace , In c., 48 4 F.3 d 54 6, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo t a t i on

om it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Bu tl er co ul d no t es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e c a s e o f a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t be cau se sh e di d no t al le ge "s uf fic ie nt ly

se ve re or pe rv as iv e" co nd uc t. Vajdl

, 48 4 F.3 d at 55 0. Alt ho ug h th ere was ev id en ce th at St ro ng as ke d Bu tl er on se ve ral da te s, so ug ht to to uc h he r ha ir, an d co m pl im en te d
he r pe rfu m e, he ne ve r to uc he d he r in ap pr o p r i a t e l y or en ga ge d in "p hysic al ly
th reat en in g o r hu m il ia ti ng " co nd uc t. Sh eri ff v . M id wes t Heal th Part ne rs , P.C., 61 9
F.3 d 92 3
, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Mo reo ve r, he ceas ed hi s ad va nc es aft er jail
ad m in is tra to rs co nf

ro nt ed hi m ab ou t Bu tl er's co m pl ai nt an d la te r rem ov ed hi m fro m

su pe rv is io n ov er he r. W e co nc lu de th at in th es e ci rcu m st an ces St ro ng 's act s di d no t
ris e to th e le ve l o f a p rima facie cas e o f a h os ti le work en vi ro nm en t.

Bu tl er nex t argu es th at sh e su ffer ed race an d sex di sc riminat io n bas ed on he r

su sp en si on an d te rm in at io n. To su ccee d on a race or se x di sc riminat io n cl ai m , Bu tl er

m us t sh ow ei th er di rect ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n or ev id en ce th at is su ffi ci en t to

crea te an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en sh ift in g fram ewo rk

. You ng -Los ee v. Grap h i c P a c k ag in g In t'l

, In c., 63 1 F.3 d 90 9, 91 2 (8 th
Ci r. 20 11 ). Si nc e Bu tl er of fers no di rect ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n, we co ns id er he r cl ai m s un de r th e bu rd en sh ift in g fram ewo rk

. To crea te an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n Bu tl er m us t es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e, whi ch req ui res pr oo f th a t sh e (1 ) is a

m em be r of a pr ot ect ed cl as s, (2) was qua li fie d, (3 ) su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t

act io n, an d (4 ) can pr ov id e fact s th at gi ve ris e to an in fere nc e of un la wfu l se x or race di sc riminat io n. W el ls v. SCI Mg m t., L.P., 46 9 F.3 d 69 7, 70 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Onl y th e fo ur th el em en t is at is su e he re, whi ch Bu tl er m ay m eet by sh owi ng m or e fav or ab le

-7

-tre at m en t of si m il arl y si tu at ed em pl oyees ou ts id e th e pr ot ect ed cl as s. Py e v. Nu Aire

, In c., 64 1 F .3d 10 11 , 10 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Bu tl er co nt en ds th at ot he r jail em pl oyees w ere tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m he r, an d
th at if "s he ha d be en a whi te wom an , he r co m pl ai nt s ag ai ns t Mr. St ro ng wou ld ha ve be en res ol ve d im m ed ia te ly wit h se pa rat io n of th e two in th e wor k en vi ro nm en t." Sh e cl ai m s th at an ot he r em

pl oyee who al le ge d m is co nd uc t by St ro ng in a se pa rat e lo g was

no t su sp en de d, an d th at ot he r em pl oyees who ha d be en reg ul arl y ta rd y to wor k were

ne ve r te rm in at ed

. Sh e of fers no ev id en ce ab ou t th e race or ge nd er of t h e ot he r

em pl oyee who wro te in th e se pa rat e lo g an d no ev id en ce th at th e writ in g in th e

se pa rat e lo g vi ol at ed jail po li cy

. See Herv ey v. Cn ty. of Koo ch in hi ng , 52 7 F.3 d 71 1,
72 0– 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Bu tl er ha s si m il arl y fai le d to sh ow th at an y ot he r em pl oyee wit h a si m il ar ta rd in es s reco rd was no t te rm in at ed

. In he r pr of fere d li st of em

pl oyees wit h com pa rab le di sc ip li na ry

reco rd s, t he m os t tard y em pl oyee ha d 26 ta rd ie s in 18

m on th s, fewer th an ha lf of Bu tl er's ta rd ie s in 20 08

. W e co nc lu de th at B u t l e r ' s al le g a t i o n s o f di ffer en t tre at m en t are in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of
di sc riminat io n.

Bu tl er ne xt as se rts a r e ta li at io n cl ai m un de r § 19 81 an d a Fi rs t Am en dm en t
cl ai m un de r § 19 83

. Su ch cl ai m s are an al y zed un de r a bu rd en sh ift in g fram ewo rk
whi ch req ui res Bu tl er to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on by sh owi ng th at (1 )
sh e en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed act iv it y , (2 ) sh e su ffer ed an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n, an d (3 ) a cau sa l co nn ect io n ex is te d be twee n th e two

. Ta k e l e v. Mayo Cl in ic

, 57 6 F.3 d
83 4, 83 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Dav is on v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is

, Mi nn ., 49 0 F.3 d 64 8, 65 5 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

Bu tl er con te nd s th at sh e was su sp en de d and te rm in at ed fo r reject in g Stro ng 's
ad va nc es , writ in g in th e jail lo g bo ok

, an d fil in g a cl ai m wit h th e EEOC. The di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th at th es e fact s di d no t reas on ab ly st at e a cl ai m of race di sc riminat io n on th is reco r d

, an d § 19 81 do es no t en co m pa ss se x di sc riminat io n

-8

-cl ai m s. See DeGraff en rei d v. Gen

. Mo to rs Ass em bl y Div

., 55 8 F .2d 48 0, 48 6 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ). The di st ric t co ur t al so co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at Bu t l e r c o ul d no t

su st ai n a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m rel at ed to he r no ta ti on in th e lo g bo ok be cau se su ch

en tri es are pa rt of a jail er's "o ffi ci a l r e s p o ns ib il it ie s" an d are th us no t im m un iz ed

un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. See McGe e v. Pu b. W at er Su pp ly, Dis t. No. 2, 47 1 F.3 d
91 8, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Bu tl e r al so fai le d to es ta bl is h th e req ui si te cau sa l

r e la ti on sh ip to sh ow a vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t in res pe ct to he r EE O C
ch arg e an d he r co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t St ro ng

. Bu tl er was su sp en d e d b efo re fil in g he r EEOC ch arg e an d b e fo re sh e co m pl ai ne d ab ou t St ro ng 's ad va nc es

. Sh e was al so
te rm in at ed al m os t th ree m on th s aft er sh e co m pl ai ne d an d m or e th an on e m on th aft er St ro ng 's re m ov al as h er s up erv is or

.

Bu tl er fin al ly al le ge s th at he r Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s "o f du e pr oc es s

an d equ al pr ot ect io n" were vi ol at ed

, bu t sh e do es no t ar ti cu la te ho w th e co un ty an d
it s of fic ia ls vi ol at ed th os e rig ht s. Thi s co ur t "re gu la rly de cl in e[s ] to co ns id er cu rs or y

or su m m ary arg um en ts " un su pp or te d by fact s or le ga l au th or it ie s, Uni t e d S t a te s v. St uc ke y , 25 5 F.3 d 52 8, 53 1 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 01 ), an d we th us wil l no t co ns id er Bu tl er's
Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s h ere.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e co un ty an d it s of fic ia ls

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-