Warren v. Kemp

• Docket Number: 22-2067,22-2169
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: Janice Hargrove Warren Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mike Kemp, in his official capacity as a Member of the Board of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Linda Remele, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Shelby Thomas, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Alicia Gillen, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Eli Keller, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Brian Maune, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Pulaski County Special School District Defendants - Appellants Janice Hargrove Warren Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mike Kemp, in his official capacity as a Member of the Board of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Linda Remele, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Shelby Thomas, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Alicia Gillen, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Eli Keller, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Brian Maune, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Pulaski County Special School District Defendants - Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

1

Janice Hargrove Warren Plaintiff - Appellee v. Mike Kemp, in his official capacity as a Member of the Board of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Linda Remele, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Shelby Thomas, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Alicia Gillen, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Eli Keller, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Brian Maune, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Pulaski County Special School District Defendants - Appellants Janice Hargrove Warren Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mike Kemp, in his official capacity as a Member of the Board of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Linda Remele, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Shelby Thomas, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Alicia Gillen, in her official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in her individual capacity; Eli Keller, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Brian Maune, in his official capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Special School District and in his individual capacity; Pulaski County Special School District Defendants - Appellees

Nos. 22-2067, 22-2169

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

August 22, 2023

Submitted: June 15, 2023

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge

After being passed over for a superintendent role, Dr. Janice Warren sued her employer, Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), and its board members, for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A jury found in her favor on her Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims and awarded damages including punitive damages. The defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and the punitive damages award. Dr. Warren cross-appeals the district court's denial of her request for front pay, additional back pay, and equitable relief. We vacate the judgment for Dr. Warren.

I.

Dr Warren works for PCSSD. PCSSD has been under federal court supervision since 1982 when the predominately black Little Rock School District sued the predominately white PCSSD, North Little Rock School District, as well as the state of Arkansas. We ordered the schools to develop desegregation plans to establish unitary, racially integrated districts. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 404, 434-36 (8th Cir. 1985). In 2000, the parties in that case reached an agreement (the "Plan 2000") whereby PCSSD promised it would "prepare . . . a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive, and equal."

In 2011, the district court found that PCSSD was not in compliance as to facilities because it had "devoted a disproportionate share of its facilities spending to predominantly white areas." Little RockSch. Dist. v. Arkansas, 664 F.3d 738, 753 (8th Cir. 2011). PCSSD then decided to build a new Mills High School in a predominantly black area and to convert Robinson High School to a middle school in a predominantly white area.

In 2012, Dr. Warren was hired to be the director of PCSSD's elementary education program. A year later, she also became the interim assistant superintendent for equity and pupil services. Then, in 2017, the PCSSD board (consisting of Alicia Gillen, Eli Keller, Mike Kemp, Brian Maune, Dr. Linda Remele, Shelby Thomas, and Tina Ward), hired Dr. Warren to be the interim superintendent for one year. Her contract stated that afterward, she would return to her previous position as assistant superintendent for equity and pupil services.

At the end of August 2017, Dr. Warren was notified of significant differences between the construction of the Robinson Middle School and the Mills High School. For example, Robinson's weight room was 2,700 square feet larger than the one at Mills. And Robinson had theater-style padded seats in its basketball arena while Mills had "glorified folding chairs" in its gymnasium.

After investigating, Dr. Warren called the board members and PCSSD's attorney in the desegregation case to notify them of the differences. An upcoming status hearing in the ongoing desegregation case had already been scheduled for early September, so PCSSD's attorney updated PCSSD's status report to include information about the differences in the facilities. After the report was filed, tension developed between Dr. Warren and some of the board members. For example, some board members alleged Dr. Warren revised and submitted the status report without them seeing it, and Dr. Remele was upset about the status report being published in the newspaper.

Before Dr. Warren's interim superintendent contract expired, the board began to search for a permanent superintendent. There is conflicting evidence about whether the search began before or after the September status update. In any event, it was after the status update that the board hired Ray &Associates, a national school-executive-search organization, to help find a permanent superintendent.

Dr. Warren applied for the permanent superintendent position. Nine top candidates, including Dr. Warren, were selected for the board to review. After reviewing each candidate's video presentation and application package, each board member completed a "consensus-building matrix." Ray &Associates then ranked the candidates using the collective matrix scores, and the board chose three finalists to interview. Dr. Warren was not a finalist, though no one disputes that she was qualified for the position. Dr. Warren believes she was not a finalist because Gillen and Dr. Remele scored her very low when completing the matrix to bring her overall score down. Ultimately, the board hired someone else to be the superintendent, and Dr. Warren returned to her prior position.

After being passed over for the superintendent position, Dr. Warren sued PCSSD and the board members in their individual capacities for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981 and for breach of contract. As to retaliation, she alleged that the defendants declined to interview or hire her because she reported the disparity in the facilities. She requested back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other equitable relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Dr. Warren did not engage in protected conduct for her retaliation claims. Their motion was denied.

At trial, the defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, raising the same purely legal questions as at summary judgment. Their motion again was denied. The jury found in Dr. Warren's favor only on her Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims for not being hired as superintendent. For those claims, the jury instructions contained a single retaliation instruction that did not distinguish between Title VII and § 1981. The jury awarded her back pay and other compensatory damages and also punitive damages against PCSSD, Dr. Remele, and Gillen. The district court then granted the defendants' earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages against PCSSD, agreeing that they are not available against political subdivisions like school districts.

Dr. Warren asked to be reinstated, for front pay, for an order to increase her salary, for pre- and post-judgment interest, and for other equitable and declaratory relief. The defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the protected-conduct issue. They also moved, in the alternative, to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded against Dr. Remele and Gillen. As to Dr. Warren's motion, the district court denied her request for front pay, additional back pay, and other equitable relief, but it awarded her pre- and postjudgment interest on her lost wages and benefits. As to the defendants' motion, the district court upheld the jury's verdict and affirmed the award of punitive damages. The defendants appeal the denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Warren cross-appeals, renewing her requests for increased back pay, front pay, and reinstatement.

II.

We begin with the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. We review the district court's denial de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661, 666 (8th Cir. 2006). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if there is no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1).

The jury found in Dr. Warren's favor for retaliation. Because the jury instructions did not distinguish between the Title VII and § 1981 claims, we assume that the jury found for Dr. Warren as to both.

Title VII bans discrimination with respect to "compensation terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of [an] individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In addition, Title VII "prevents...