Raunona Mays, an African American woman who has worked as a sergeant with the Arkansas Highway Police since 2004, sued her employer after being denied four promotions between 2022 and 2023. Mays alleged that all four positions went to Caucasian males who were less qualified, including Doug Lafferty, who received a First Lieutenant promotion despite having six years less seniority than Mays and a degree in art history rather than criminal justice. The case centers on $50,000-plus lieutenant positions and whether state agencies can use Arkansas's constitutional sovereign immunity clause to block federal civil rights lawsuits.
Writing for the majority, Justice Wood drew sharp distinctions between state and federal claims, explaining that while Section 1983 and Section 1981 claims 'must be brought against a person, not an agency,' Title VII explicitly allows suits against state employers. 'A "person" is defined to include "governmental agencies," and it refers to discriminatory employment action by "employers,"' Wood wrote, noting that Mays had adequately pleaded facts showing she was qualified, applied for open positions, was denied, and the positions went to people outside her protected class.
The court delivered particularly forceful language in rejecting Mays's state law claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, stating flatly that 'a state agency is not a person under the ACRA' and that Mays 'failed to sufficiently plead claims under § 1983 or § 1981 to overcome the state's sovereign-immunity defense.' Wood emphasized that Arkansas's constitutional provision declaring that 'The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts' creates an absolute bar unless specific exceptions apply.
The case reached the Arkansas Supreme Court after Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Cara Connors denied the Arkansas Highway Police's motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. AHP, represented by the state attorney general's office, argued that all of Mays's claims should be dismissed because the agency enjoys sovereign immunity under Article 5, Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. The appeal was filed as an interlocutory appeal specifically challenging the sovereign immunity ruling.
AHP contended that even federal claims should be barred by state sovereign immunity, but the court majority rejected this argument for Title VII claims specifically. 'Unlike the above claims, an employment-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may proceed against a state agency,' Wood wrote, distinguishing Title VII from other federal civil rights statutes that require individual defendants rather than institutional ones.
The ruling produced a sharp split among the justices, with Chief Justice Karen R. Baker and Justice Shawn A. Womack both filing opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Womack argued that Arkansas cannot 'invoke its own constitution to categorically disable federal causes of action in its courts,' writing that such selectivity creates 'a constitutionally problematic asymmetry' under the Supreme Court's Haywood v. Drown precedent.
The fractured decision reflects broader tensions over state sovereign immunity in employment discrimination cases. While the majority allowed Mays to proceed on her Title VII claim, she lost her state law claims and additional federal claims under Sections 1983 and 1981. This creates a narrower path for public employees challenging discrimination, though Title VII remains available for employment-specific violations.
The case now returns to Judge Connors's court, where Mays can pursue her Title VII claims seeking monetary damages, a lieutenant position, and an injunction against future discrimination. The ruling may prompt other Arkansas public employees to focus their discrimination claims on Title VII rather than state civil rights laws, given the court's strict interpretation of sovereign immunity for state law claims.