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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 23 21

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Don na Mo rro w

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Zale Co rp or at io n

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Zale Sto re 1 49 1; Jo hn Daug he rty

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

an t s

Zale Dela ware, In c.

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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 - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 9 , 20 15 Fi le d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 6 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Don na Mo rro w ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of he r fo rm er em

pl oyer, Zale Co rp or at io n, on he r Ti t l e V I I cl ai m of ge nd er di sc riminat io n. W e rev ers e th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, an d rem an d th e cas e to th e d is tri ct co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd pr es en te d a ge nu in e is su e of

m at eri al fact as to whe th er Jo hn Dau gh ert y was su ffi ci en tl y in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on to te r mi n a t e Ms

. Mo rro w to qu al ify as a de ci si on m ak er, gi ve n th at th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at he pa rti ci pa te d in th e in ve st ig at io n le ad in g up to he r te rm in at io n, an d th at he was th e on e who ul ti m at el y to l d h e r s h e was te rm in at ed

. W e al so co nc lu de th at th e su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd pr es en te d a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to whe th er Mr. Dau gh ert y ha d earl ie r to ld Ms . M or ro w t ha t s he sh ou ld st ep do wn be cau se sh e

was “ a fem al e” an d “ a si ng le m om ,” th at it was “ a m an ’s wor ld ,” an d th at sh e ne ed ed
to “ m an up .” Bec au se we co ns tru e su ch co m m en ts , if m ad e by a de ci si on m ak er, as di rect ev id en ce of a di sc riminat or y an im us , we fu rth er co nc lu de th at un de r a m ix ed

m ot iv e an al y si s, Ms

. Mo rro w m ay be en ti tl ed to so m e of th e rem ed ie s sh e so ug ht in he r co m pl ai nt , an d th a t su m

m ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te ly gr an te d. See Si m m on s v. New Pu b. Sch

. Dis t. No. Eig ht , 25 1 F.3 d 12 10 , 12 13 -1 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (s um m ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria t e w h e r e de ci si on m ak er’s st at em en ts th at “ a

wom an can ’t ha nd le [p la in ti ff’s] job ” an d th at pl ai nt iff was “ a wom an in a m an ’s job ”
pr ov id ed di rect ev id en ce th at ge nd er di sc riminat io n pl ay ed pa rt in ad ve rs e de ci si on ; be cau se di rect ev i d e nc e of ge nd er di sc riminat io n ex is te d, cas e was go ve rn ed by

m ix ed -m ot iv e a n a l ys is ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Torg ers on v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e al so Ri ch a r d s o n v. Su gg , 44 8 F.3 d 10 46 , 10 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (u nd er m ix ed -m ot ive an aly si s, on ce pl ai nt iff de m on st rat es th at il le ga l cri te rio n was m ot iv at in g fact or in em pl oym en t de ci si on , em

pl oyer m ay

co m e fo rward wit h affi rm at iv e de fen se th at it wou ld ha ve m ad e sa m e de ci si on ab se nt il le ga l crit eri on ; th is affi rm at iv e de fen se do es no t ab so lv e em pl oyer of li ab il it y , bu t

-2

-res tri ct s rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to pl ai nt iff ); Mo hr v. Dus tro l, In c., 30 6 F.3 d 63 6, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (n ot in g th at di rect -ev id en ce i n q u i r y i s no t li m it ed to th os e fo rm al ly

en tru st ed wit h de ci si on -m ak in g du ti es ; if reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d co nc lu de th at of fic ia l was cl os el y in vo lv ed in ad ve rs e de ci si on , t h e n co m m en ts m ad e by th at of fic ia l are rel ev an t to di rect -ev id en ce an al y si s) , a b ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Des ert Pal ace, In c v . Cos ta , 53 9 U.S. 9 0 (2 00 3)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t as to Ms

. Mo rro w’ s cl ai m of ge nd er di sc riminat io n, an d we r e man d t h e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-3

-