loss of prestige is not enough to establish actionable adverse action
How later courts described this case
- loss of prestige is not enough to establish actionable adverse action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRIAN K. MITCHELL PLAINTIFF
VS. NO. 4:21CV000917
CHRISTINA DRALE,
In her individual and official capacities;
SARA BETH ESTES, in her individual capacity;
JESS PORTER, in his individual capacity; and
BLENDA BLEVINS-KNABE,
in her individual capacity DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pending is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Docket # 53). A
hearing was held on this matter on April 5, 2023. During the hearing, Plaintiff conceded to the
dismissal of all claims contained in the amended complaint except the claim against the
individual defendants for employment discrimination relating to the Institutional Review Board
proceedings and decision. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants discriminated against him based on race
and retaliated against him when the Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) made a finding of
noncompliance against him with regard to a research project. First, in order to succeed in his
employment discrimination claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered an adverse
employment action. See e.g., Wimbley v. Cashion, 588 F.3d 959, 962 (8th Cir.2009). Plaintiff
did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of the findings of the IRB review board.
Although Plaintiff alleges that this finding threatens his professional reputation, he was not
suspended, demoted nor was his pay cut. Because the finding had no tangible effect on Plaintiff’s
employment, it does not constitute adverse employment action. See, Spears v. Missouri Dep't of
Corr. & Hum. Res., 210 F.3d 850, 854 (8th Cir. 2000) (loss of prestige is not enough to establish
actionable adverse action).
In addition, the Court finds that the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiff claims that he requested Drale, Estes and Porter to assist him with the IRB review board
but his concerns were not addressed. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must
dismiss a complaint against a government official in his individual capacity that fails to state a
claim for violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Again, Plaintiff
suffered no adverse employment action as a result of the review board findings. Further,
Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim that similarly situated individuals were treated
differently. Plaintiff alleges no facts which would demonstrate that the Defendants lacked an
honest belief that Plaintiff violated the policy on human subject research. Plaintiff has failed to
state a plausible claim for a violation of a constitutional or statutory right which was clearly
established at the time.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs remaining discrimination claim on the basis of the IRB
review board findings 1s dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6" day of April, 2023.
United States District Judge