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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 28 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Keit h J on es

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of St . Lou is , Mis so ur i, a M un ic ip al Co rp or at io n a nd a po li ti cal su bd iv is io n o f th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri

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 M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 9, 2 01 4 Fil ed : M ay

23 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Keit h Jo ne s, an Afri can -Am eri can el ect ric ia n e mp lo y ed by th e Faci li ti es Man ag em en t Divi si on of th e Ci ty of St

. Lou is (Ci ty), br ou gh t a su it in 20 12 ag ai ns t th e Ci ty un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d Titl e VII, cl ai m in g th at he su ffer ed race -b as ed
ha ras sm en t, race di sc riminat io n, an d ret al ia ti o n

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th eco m

pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , an d Jo ne s ap pe al s. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we affi rm in pa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, a nd rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to

st at e a cl ai m

. See Brad le y v. Tim be rla nd Res ou rces v. Brad le y Lum be r Co
., 71 2 F.3 d
40 1, 40 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). Alt ho ug h a c o mp l a in t m us t co nt ai n

su ffi ci en t fact ua l al le ga ti on s to st at e a pl au si bl e cl ai m , se e Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S.
66 2, 67 7- 78 (2 00 9)
, an em pl oym en t-d is cri m in at io n co m pl ai nt ne ed no t co nt ai n
sp eci fic fact s es ta bl is hi ng a pr im a faci e cas e to su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re
to st at e a cl ai m , se e Swie rk ie wicz v. So rem a, 53 4 U.S. 50 6, 51 0- 12 (2 00 2) (p rima
faci e m od el is ev id en ti ary st an da rd
, no t pl ead in g req ui rem en t). Rat he r, Jo ne s ne ed ed

on ly to as se rt fact s th at affi rm at iv el y an d pl au si bl y su gg es te d th at he ha d th e rig ht th at he cla im ed , “ rat he r th an fact s th at [were ] m erel y co ns is te nt wit h su ch a ri gh t.” Se e Greg or y v. Di ll ard s, In c., 56 5 F .3d 46 4, 4 73 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc ).

Jo ne s no te d in hi s co m

pl ai nt th at he ha d fil ed a ch arg e of di sc riminat io n with
th e Mi ss ou ri Co m

m is si on on Hum an Ri gh ts an d th e Equ al Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on in Ju l y 2 0 0 9

. I n su pp or t of hi s cl ai m s, he m ad e th e fo ll owi ng al le ga ti on s, am on g
ot he rs

.

In Ja nu ary 20 09
, J o ne s was ch arg ed wit h fal si fy in g a ti m e reco rd
, fai li ng to

res po nd to an em erg en c y c al l, an d rece iv in g ov ert im e pa y fo r wor k no t pe rfo rm ed

. The Ci ty so ug ht to te rm in at e hi s em pl oym en t ba se d on th e ch arg es , bu t th e Bo ard of
Pu bl ic Serv ic e de te rm in ed th e ch arg es to be un fo un de d. Jo ne s su ffer ed em ot io na l
di st res s, an d m is se d fo ur m on th s of wor k. W he n he ret ur ne d, he ga ve th e Ci ty a rel eas e fro m

hi s h eal th -car e p ro vi de r, bu t h is su pe rv is or refu se d t o a ccep t i t. The n, f or th e pe rio d en di ng Ju ne 20 09
, Jo ne s rece iv ed an nu al -rev ie w rat in g s o f
“u ns uc ces sf

ul ” an d was pl aced on an im pr ov em en t pl an fo r 13 week s wit h a 10 %
red uc ti on in sa la ry

. The fo ll owi ng y ear, in Ju ly 20 10
, Jo ne s br ie fly pa ss ed ou t fro m he at ex ha us ti on whi le op erat i n g a C it y -o wne d ve hi cl e. His su pe rv is or reject ed a

-2

-p h ys i c i a n ’s he al th rel eas e fo r Jo ne s an d or de red Jo ne s to su bm it to a fit -fo r-d u t y

ex am in at io n. He al so res tri ct ed Jo ne s’s du ti es , reas si gn ed hi m to th e wareh ou se , an d

req ui red hi m to su bm it to a se co nd fit -fo r-d ut y ex am in at io n. The Ci ty’ s Ci vi l Serv ic e Co m m is si on ev en tu al ly ret ur ne d Jo ne s to hi s elec tri ci an job
, bu t on ly aft er he sp en t si x m on th s i n t he wareh ou se , du rin g whi ch ti m e h e su ffer ed a lo ss of o ve rti m e p ay

.

Jo ne s cl ai m ed th at he was tre at ed “ un li ke ” an d “ un eq ua l” to si m il arl y si tu at ed
whi te in di vi du al s. He al le ge d th at whi te in di vi du al s who were on cal l fo r

em erg e n c i e s w e r e no t su bjec te d to th e sa m e le ve l of sc ru ti ny an d rev ie w as he ha d
be en reg ard in g res po ns es to em erg en cy cal ls
, an d al th ou gh hi s su pe rv is or wou ld no t

acce pt th e h eal th rel eas e th at Jo ne s t en de red up on hi s fou r-m on th ab se nc e, th e Ci ty

acce pt ed ph y si ci an ’s st at em en ts fr o m w hi te el ect ric ia ns

. W it h res pe ct to th e
pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on , Jo ne s al le ge d th at h e h a d be en tre at ed un li ke si m il arl y si tu at ed whi te in di vi du al s- -an d in re t a li at io n fo r co m pl ai ni ng of th e Ci ty’ s di sc riminat or y co nd uc t-- in th at he ha d rece iv ed no pr io r feed ba ck
, warn in gs , or

co un se li ng , an d no ev id en ce or su pp or ti ng fact s reg ar d in g hi s pe rfo rm an ce were ci te d. W it h res pe ct to th e i n c i d e n t whe re he pa ss ed ou t, he al le ge d th at th e Ci ty

tre at ed hi m un li ke si m il arl y si tu at ed whi te in di vi du al s- -an d ag ai n, in ret al ia ti on fo r hi s di sc riminat io n co m

pl ai nt s- -b ecau se whi te in di vi du al s who ha d be en in acci de nt s in Cit y -o wne d v eh ic le s, an d wh it e in di vi du al s in Jo ne s’s d iv is io n wh o wer e u na bl e
t o p e r f o rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s of el ect ric ia n, were no t req ui red by th e Ci ty t o

un de rg o fi t-f

or -d ut y ex am in at io ns

.

W e co nc lu de th at Jo ne s fai le d to st at e a se ct io n 19 83 cl ai m , be cau se he di d no t al le ge th at th e act s a t i s s u e o ccu rred as a res ul t of a Ci ty po li cy or cu st om

. See
Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So c. Serv s., 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 69 0- 91 (1 97 8) (lo cal go ve rn m en t bo dy

m ay be he ld li ab le un de r § 19 83 on ly if al le ge d un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t im pl em en ts of fic ia l po l i c y o r c u s t o m). W e al so fin d th at he fai le d to st at e a Tit le VII cl ai m fo r ha ras sm en t, be cau se th e a l l e g e d f act s do no t in di cat e th at Jo ne s was su bjec te d to

se ve re or pe rv as iv e act s. See I q b a l
, 5 56 U.S. at 67 8 (co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n

-3

-su ffi c i e n t f

a c t ua l m at te r to st at e cl ai m pl au si bl e on it s face ); cf. Eli se rio v. Uni te d
St eel wor ke rs of Am

. Loc al 31 0, 39 8 F. 3 d 1 0 7 1
, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (em pl oyer vi ol at es Tit le VII ba se d on ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t if wor kp la ce is pe rm 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 su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e to al te r em pl oym en t co nd it io ns an d c reat e ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t).

W e co nc lu de
, ho wev er, tha t Jo ne s st at ed a Tit le VII cl ai m fo r di sc riminat io n. He al le ge d th at he su ffer ed ad ve rs e em pl oym e n t a c t io ns wit h ta ng ib le ne ga ti ve

co ns eq ue nc es an d t h a t si m il arl y si tu at ed whi te in di vi du al s were tre at ed m or e fav or ab ly tha n h e reg ard in g o ve rti m e pa y , em erg en cy cal ls , ph y si ci an s’ st at em en ts , pe rfo rm an ce rev ie ws, an d fit -fo r-d ut y ex am in at io ns

. W e al so c o n c l ud e th at Jo ne s

su ffi ci en tl y st at ed a Tit le VII cl ai m fo r ret al ia ti on , be ca u s e he al le ge d th at th e Ci ty

ga ve hi m ne ga ti ve pe rfo rm an ce rat in gs an d a te m po rary pa y cu t an d fo rced hi m to

un de rg o fi t- fo r- dut

y ex am ina tio ns an d wor k in a le ss de si rab le wareh ou se as si gn m en t, th is in ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t hi m fo r hi s op po si ti on to th e Ci ty’ s di sc riminat or y act io ns , whi ch he ha d ex pr es se d in hi s Ju ly 2 0 0 9 c h a r g e of di sc riminat io n. See 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -3 (a).

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e an d rem an d for furt he r pr oc eed in gs on Jo ne s’s Titl e VII cl ai m s of race di sc riminat io n an d ret al ia ti on

. In al l ot he r res pe ct s, th e jud gm en t is affi rm ed

.

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

-4

-