# Byrd v. Tapley

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · July 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088985

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088985

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRITTANY BYRD PLAINTIFF
v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01208-BSM
CHIEF WILLIAM TAPLEY; ASSISTANT
CHIEF CHRIS HARRIS; MAJOR CLAYTON
SMITH; LT. ANDREW BURNINGHAM;
MAYOR BART CASTLEBERRY; MAJOR
MIKE WELSH, In Their Individual and Official
Capacities; and THE CITY OF CONWAY DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 133] is denied on plaintiff’s
failure to promote sex discrimination, Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act, and Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act claims. The motion is granted on all other claims and
those claims are dismissed with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts as set forth in plaintiff’s response to defendants’ statement of
undisputed material facts (SUMF), Doc. No. 150, are as follows.
Brittany Byrd began working for the Conway Police Department in April of 2015 as
a patrol officer. SUMF ¶¶ 1, 4. Three years later, she was selected to be a K9 officer. Id.
¶ 14. There were three other K9 officers at the time: Matthew Edgmon, Rick Shumate, and
Dan Mullaney. Id. ¶ 19. When Edgmon was promoted to sergeant, Tanner Williams

replaced him as K9 officer. Id. ¶¶ 55, 91. William Tapley became the chief of the Conway
Police Department in July 2020. Id. ¶ 80.
A. Tarheel Training Inquiry
Major Clayton Smith engaged Sean Siggins to conduct a decoy certification camp for
the Conway Police Department and for a private club with which Smith is associated. Id. ¶¶

38, 59. In June 2019, Byrd told then Chief of Police Jody Spradlin and Major Laura Taylor
that she was not comfortable participating in the decoy training because it was closely related
to Smith’s personal dog business. Id. ¶ 48. After this meeting, Byrd felt that Smith began
to treat her unfairly. Id. ¶¶ 51, 61–62. Later that year, Byrd told Spradlin and Taylor that

she was having difficulty getting approval for equipment for her K9 because Smith was using
the funds to pay for his friend, Siggins, to provide decoy training. Id. ¶ 63.
B. On-Call Schedule
When Edgmon was promoted to K9 supervisor, he changed the on-call schedule to
a weekly rotation. Id. ¶¶ 91, 93. Before the January 2022 change, Byrd and Williams worked

twelve-hour patrol shifts and were the only officers who participated in on-call shifts. Id.
¶ 95. Because they were the only on-call K9 officers, if Byrd took time off, Williams would
have to cover her. Id. ¶ 94.
When called out, on-call officers must put on their uniforms and gear, put on their
K9s’ gear, load their K9s into their cars, and allow their K9s to take breaks. Id. ¶ 261. The

officer’s response time is twenty to thirty minutes. Id. ¶¶ 263, 265. The typical on-call shift
was four to twelve hours but Byrd was occasionally on-call 24 hours. Id. ¶ 272. While on
call, Byrd was not required to be at the station, was not required to listen to the monitor, and
was able to do things near her home. Id. ¶¶ 267–69.
2
Shumate was removed from the on-call rotation. Id. ¶ 97. K9 officers were directed
to report to Lieutenant Andrew Burningham and Byrd notified Burningham that she was
concerned about the on-call rotation. Id. ¶ 101; Addendum, Ex. 1, Byrd Dep. I. 114:12–24.

In August 2022, Burningham notified the K9 unit that everyone was being placed back on
a four-week rotation, and Byrd thought this was fair. SUMF ¶¶ 127–28. In March 2023, the
K9 on-call rotations ended and K9 officers no longer had on-call shifts. Id. ¶ 177.
C. Bite Suits

K9 officers use bite suits for protection when conducting apprehension training. Id.
¶ 226. When Byrd first joined the K9 unit, the department only had one bite suit and it was
fitted for a larger man. Id. ¶ 228. When Byrd wore the bite suit, it would bunch up around
her joints. Id. ¶ 229. In June 2021, Sergeant Danny Worley ordered two new bite suits that
were intended to be better fitting. Id. ¶ 84. The new suits were still too large for Byrd. Id.

¶¶ 85, 230. Byrd never complained to Burningham, Smith, or Edgmon about the bite suits.
Id. ¶¶ 232–234. Two additional bite suits, including one that properly fit Byrd, were ordered
in late 2023 and those suits were received in January 2024. Id. ¶ 224.
D. 2023 Sergeant Promotion
In May 2023, police chief Tapley began the process of hiring a new sergeant, and the

department conducted a sergeant promotion test. Id. ¶ 185. When the unofficial test results
were scored, Kelton Smith and Byrd were ranked one and two respectively, and Michael
Jones, Matthew Holland, James Burroughs, and Steven Spurgers tied for third place. Id. ¶¶
186–87. The candidates were then interviewed by Tapley and four lieutenants. Id. ¶¶
3
189–90. One of the interviewers was Ryan Britton, who was candidate Burroughs’s
supervisor in the SWAT unit. Addendum, Doc. No. 149, Ex. 95, Dep. William Tapley
141:6–20. Although Burroughs tied for third on the test, he was promoted. Id. ¶ 191.

Byrd, who ranked second on the test, attempted to appeal the decision but was told
that there was no appeal process in place. Id. ¶ 192. Tapley told Byrd that the decision to
promote Burroughs was final and that Byrd’s claims of retaliation, favoritism, and
discrimination were baseless. Id. ¶ 193. Byrd filed a grievance claiming that Tapley’s hiring

decision violated department policy because it was based on his personal relationships with,
and preference for, other candidates. Id. ¶ 194. She also wrote that the decision was
discriminatory and retaliatory and that Tapley failed to provide a reason for his decision other
than his belief that Burroughs was the most qualified despite the fact that she scored higher
on the exam and had more qualifications. Id.

E. Byrd Disciplinary
Major Mike Welsh was assigned as the K9 supervisor in March 2023. Id. ¶ 183.
When Byrd’s K9, Leo, was diagnosed with heart worms in July 2023, Welsh told Byrd to
keep Leo out of her vehicle while he received treatment. Id. ¶ ¶ 195, 197. Welsh also told
Byrd to drive a regular patrol vehicle until Leo returned to duty. Byrd Dep., Vol. I,

258:24–25.
In August 2023, Byrd attempted to leave Leo at the department’s kennel during her
shift, but could not find the key to the lock on the outside kennel door. SUMF ¶ 204. It was
a hot day, and Leo was not supposed to be in the heat while on his heart worm medication.
4
Id. Byrd, therefore, conducted her patrol with Leo in her K9 vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 204–05. Welsh
wrote Byrd a disciplinary for failing to follow his orders. Id. ¶¶ 207, 210. Byrd filed a
grievance about the disciplinary; however, Tapley upheld it. Id. ¶¶ 211, 213.

Byrd is suing the City of Conway, and William Tapley, Chris Harris, Clayton Smith,
Andrew Burningham, Bart Castleberry, Mike Welsh in their individual and official capacities
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Rehabilitation Act, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and

the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act. Defendants are moving for summary judgment on all
claims.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986). Once the moving party
demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the non-moving party may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials in her pleadings. Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336,
340 (8th Cir. 2011). Instead, the non-moving party must produce admissible evidence
demonstrating a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Id. All reasonable inferences must

be drawn in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Holland v. Sam’s Club, 487
F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir. 2007). The evidence is not weighed, and no credibility
determinations are made. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 750 (8th Cir. 2008).

5
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Although confusing, it seems Byrd admits that the City of Conway is entitled to summary

judgment on all claims under section 1983 and all claims under the ACRA except retaliation.
See Resp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 11, Doc. No. 147; see also Br. Supp. Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. (Byrd Br.) at 17–18, Doc. No. 148. Byrd also concedes that Castleberry,
Harris, Smith, and Burningham are entitled to summary judgment on all of her retaliation

claims. See Br. Supp. Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 12. Byrd has waived her
Rehabilitation Act, Family Medical Leave Act, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act disability
discrimination claims because she did not respond to defendants’ summary judgment motion
addressing those claims. Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trs., 558 F.3d 731, 735
(8th Cir. 2009).

A. Sex Discrimination
Summary judgment is denied on Byrd’s failure to promote sex discrimination claim
and granted on her claim regarding the bite suit. Sex discrimination claims brought under
section 1983 are analyzed similarly to those brought under Title VII. Humphries v. Pulaski
Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 580 F.3d 688, 692 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying McDonnell Douglas

burden shifting test). Unlike cases brought under Title VII, sex discrimination claims
brought under section 1983 may be brought against individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b);
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
Byrd does not have direct evidence of sex discrimination, so she is attempting to show
6
that discrimination can be inferred by defendants’ actions. See McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Fiero v. CSG Sys., Inc., 759 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir
2014). This requires Byrd to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell

Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. If she does this, the burden shifts to defendants to provide
legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for each of their decisions. Id. If defendants meet this
burden, the burden shifts back to Byrd to show that the reasons provided by defendants are
merely pretext for discrimination. Id. at 804. Discrimination claims arising under 42 U.S.C.

section 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act are analyzed under the same standard.
DePriest v. Milligan, 823 F.3d 1179, 1185 (8th Cir. 2016).
1. Promotion
Summary judgment is denied on Byrd’s failure to promote claim because there are
material issues of fact in dispute requiring the weighing of evidence.

Defendants concede that Byrd has established a prima facie case: (1) she is a member
of a protected group; (2) she applied for a promotion to a position for which she was
qualified; (3) she was not promoted; and (4) a male applicant was promoted. Torgerson v.
City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1046 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc); see Reply Supp. Defs.’
Mot. Summ. J. 9–10, Doc. No. 153. In response, defendants argue that Burroughs was

promoted because he was senior to Byrd, held a commission on law enforcement standards
and training senior certificate, had patrol and narcotics experience, had military service, and
served in leadership roles. SUMF ¶ 303.
Byrd argues that defendants’ response is pretextual because (1) Burrough’s
7
supervisor, Lieutenant Britton, assisted in conducting interviews; (2) the hiring process
violated state law; (3) Chief Tapley has shown bias against females in the past; and (4) Byrd
was more qualified than Burroughs. Byrd Br. 5–9. As to her first argument, simply having

a supervisor of one candidate participate in the interviews does not infer sex discrimination.
See Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1049 (subjectivity in interviews does not give rise to an inference
of discrimination where objective criteria is used as well). Byrd’s second argument, that
defendants violated Arkansas Code section 14-51-306 because the oral interviews were not

fair and impartial as explained in Bennett v. Blytheville Civil Service Commission, 733
S.W.2d 414 (Ark. 1987), is misguided. Bennett merely holds that evaluations used by civil
service commissions to certify candidates must be preserved so that they can be judicially
reviewed to ensure that the examiners have not been entirely guided by their own subjective
discretion. Id. at 416. The written test was the only metric the Conway Civil Service

Commission used to certify candidates. SUMF ¶ 186.
Whether Chief Tapley is biased against women, and whether that bias influenced his
decision to deny Byrd the promotion, are fact-intense questions. In support of her position,
Byrd argues that he once ignored reports that Major Smith strangled his wife and he once
implied that an allegation that a male officer made sexual remarks in front of a female officer

was not serious enough to justify the use of a voice stress test. Byrd Resp. 6–7.
As to whether Tapley ignored Smith’s strangulation of his wife, Tapley testified that
an investigation was initiated once he was notified of the allegation. Tapley Dep. 17:6–23.
Byrd’s bald statement, taken alone, is not enough to create an issue of fact because it is self
8
serving and totally unsupported by anything else in the record. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (for an issue of fact to be genuine, the
non-moving party must show more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”);

Viewpoint Neutrality Now! v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 109 F.4th 1033 (8th Cir.
2024), cert. denied sub nom., Viewpoint Neutrality Now v. Bd. of Regents Univ. MN, No.
24-655, 2025 WL 1151234 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2025) (a plaintiff may not merely rely on
unsupported self-serving allegations, but must have sufficient probative evidence that would

permit a finding in plainitff’s favor; the purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and
dispose of factually unsupported claims).
As to whether Tapley remarked that inappropriate sexual remarks were insufficient
to warrant a stress test, it appears that Byrd’s recollection does not comport with the actual
facts. Rachel Kear, the female officer who reported the inappropriate sexual remark and

requested the stress test, testified that Chris Harris, not Chief Tapley, stated that the
inappropriate sexual remark was not serious enough to justify a voice stress test. Addendum,
Doc. No. 149, Ex. 112, Dep. Rachel Kear 29:2–30:20.
Byrd’s fourth argument, that she was more qualified than Burroughs, is not a cut-and-
dry question. Byrd Br. at 8–9. Byrd scored higher on the exam and had more training hours

than Burroughs. SUMF ¶ 187, Additional Facts Supp. Br., Doc. No. 149, Ex. CC, Byrd’s
Training Hours, Ex. DD, Burroughs’s Training Hours. Burroughs, however, was employed
by the department four years longer than Byrd and had high performance evaluations. SUMF
¶¶ 1, 296, Addendum, Ex. 104, Burroughs Personnel File at 14782, 14778, 14880, 14885,
9
14906, 14914, 14928, 14948, 14958, 14962, 14979, 14985, 14992, 14996, 15003, 15008.
Burroughs also had a senior certification as a certified law enforcement officer whereas Byrd
had a less advanced certification. See Additional Facts Supp. Br. Exs. CC, DD. This dispute

is close enough to warrant consideration by a jury. Finally, Tapley is not immune because
Byrd is asserting that Tapley violated her clearly established right to equal opportunity in
employment. Okruhlik v. Univ. of Ark. ex rel. May, 255 F.3d 615, 626 (8th Cir. 2001) (the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of sex).

2. Ill-Fitted Bite Suit
Summary judgment is granted on Byrd’s claim of discrimination based on the
department’s failure to provide her with a properly fitting bite suit. To create an inference
of discrimination, Byrd must show that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) met the
department’s expectations; (3) suffered adverse employment action; and (4) the

circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination. Young v. Builders Steel Co., 754
F.3d 573, 578 (8th Cir. 2014). Defendants concede that Byrd has met the first two elements.
Reply Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 29. An adverse employment action is one that produces
an employment disadvantage and Byrd argues that she suffered a disadvantage during K9
training due to the ill-fitted suit. See Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 601 U.S. 346, 359

(2024); Byrd Dep I 81:21–82:23. The problem for Byrd is that nothing in the record infers
discrimination was at play because the record does not show that more favorable treatment
was given to similarly-situated male employees. See Young, 754 F.3d at 578. Indeed, Byrd
admits that the department attempted to procure her a properly fitted bite suit in June 2021
10
and in October 2023. SUMF ¶¶ 84, 216–17.
B. Retaliation
Summary judgment is granted on Byrd’s retaliation claims against Tapley and Welsh

because she has failed to show a causal connection between an adverse employment action
and protected activity. See Jackman v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800,
804 (8th Cir. 2013). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Byrd must show that (1)
she engaged in protected activity; (2) she suffered a materially adverse employment action;

and (3) there was a causal connection between elements one and two. Id. Byrd satisfies the
first element because she engaged in protected activity when she spoke to Spradlin and
Taylor in June 2019 about her concerns with Smith’s potential misuse of public funds. See
Gagnon v. Sprint Corp., 284 F.3d 839, 854 n.4 (8th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds
by, Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (internal or informal complaints to superiors

are protected under Title VII); SUMF ¶ 48. Byrd alleges she suffered adverse employment
actions when she was passed over for the sergeant promotion by Tapley in June of 2023 and
when she was issued a disciplinary by Welsh in August of 2023. The problem Byrd has is
that there is nothing in the record showing a causal connection between her statements to
Spradlin and Taylor and Tapley’s decision to promote Burroughs over her or Welsh’s

decision to write her a disciplinary. Indeed, there is not even an inference of retaliation
because the time between her statements and the actions are too attenuated. See Trammel v.
Simmons First Bank of Searcy, 345 F.3d 611, 616 (8th Cir. 2003) (two months is too long
to support an inference of causation). Thus, Byrd has not established a prima facie case of
11
retaliation.
Summary judgment is granted on Byrd’s retaliation claim against the City of Conway
under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act for the same reason discussed above; she has failed to

present a prima facie case of discrimination. See James v. George's, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 238,
243 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022) (elements of an ACRA retaliation claim).
C. FLSA and AMWA Claim
Summary judgment is denied on Byrd’s wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor

Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act because these claims require a weighing
of the facts. See Yasevich v. Heritage Co., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-00019 KGB, 2023 WL
5670774, at *16 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 1, 2023) (FLSA and AWMA claims analyzed similarly);
Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 133 (1944) (this answer to this question depends
on a number of circumstances). On one side, it is undisputed that when called out, Byrd had

twenty to thirty minutes to respond. SUMF ¶ 263. On-call shifts typically lasted from four
to twelve hours but could occasionally last 24 hours. Id. ¶ 272. Byrd was not required to
be at the station while on call and was not required to listen to the police monitor Id. ¶¶
267–68. On the other side, Byrd was essentially confined to her home because she was not
able to go to friends’ houses, go to town, or go to restaurants when she was on-call. Byrd Br.

at 13; see Watson v. Surf-Frac Wellhead Equip. Co., No. 4:11-CV-00843-KGB, 2013 WL
5524122, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2013) (where plainitffs were on-call 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, deciding whether their time was compensable was a factual issue for the jury).

12
D. Arkansas Whistle-Blower Claim
Summary judgment is denied on Byrd’s Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act claim. To
succeed, Byrd must show that she suffered an adverse employment action because she
reported a waste of public funds or suspected violation of law. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-603.
Adverse action occurs when a public employee is discriminated or retaliated against in any
manner that affects her employment. /d. § 21-1-602. Byrd has shown that in June 2019 and
November 2019 she communicated, in good faith, a waste of public funds when she spoke
to Spradlin and Taylor about the K9 funds being used to support Smith’s private dog training
business. SUMF 49 48, 63. Byrd claims she suffered adverse employment action when
Smith began to treat her differently based on that report. Byrd Br. Supp. at 11; SUMF 61,
63. This is enough to create a factual dispute for the jury to resolve.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted on all claims
except for the failure to promote sex discrimination, Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, and Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11088985. Public record. Not legal advice.