The same two panel members sat on every decision – now the Title VII claim moves forward
Four promotions, four rejections, and two of the same decision-panel members every time – one Arkansas officer's discrimination case is moving forward.
On April 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Arkansas handed down a decision allowing a Title VII employment discrimination claim to proceed against a state law enforcement agency. The case centers on allegations by Officer Raunona Mays, an African American woman who has served with the Arkansas Highway Police since 2004, that she was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less-qualified candidates.
Between 2022 and 2023, Mays applied for four lieutenant-level positions within the agency. She did not get any of them. According to her complaint, each role went to a candidate who was either less qualified or no more qualified than she was.
The first promotion went to Doug Lafferty, who Mays alleges had six fewer years of seniority, held a degree in art history compared to her criminal justice degree, and had been sanctioned for failing to document verbal discipline he had given to another officer. The second and third promotions went to Chad Heath, a Caucasian male who Mays says had no more time in service and no higher academic degree than she did. The fourth went to Sergeant Winfrey, who she alleges had less service time and less education.
One detail stands out across all four promotion cycles: the same two individuals – Nancy Harmon and Captain Pete Lopez – sat on every decision panel. After the first denial, Mays filed an internal grievance naming both. She received no relief. She alleges the subsequent denials amounted to retaliation.
Mays then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging race and sex discrimination. The EEOC dismissed the charge and issued a right-to-sue letter. She took the matter to court, suing the agency for race and gender discrimination and retaliation under multiple federal and state laws.
The agency pushed to have the entire case thrown out on sovereign immunity grounds, arguing that as a state entity it could not be sued. The circuit court disagreed and denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court split the difference.
The court found that three of Mays's claims – brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act – could not proceed. The § 1983 and Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims failed because those laws only allow claims against individuals, not state agencies, and Mays had named only the agency as defendant. The § 1981 claim failed because states are shielded from such claims under the Eleventh Amendment, and that protection extends to state courts as well. Since Mays did not sue any individual officers in their personal capacities, those claims could not survive.
Her Title VII claim, however, survived. Unlike the other statutes, Title VII explicitly covers government employers. The court found that Mays's complaint laid out enough specific facts to establish a prima facie case: she is a member of a protected class, she was qualified for the positions, she was denied each one, and the roles went to applicants outside her protected class. That was sufficient to clear the bar at this stage.
The decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice Karen R. Baker agreed with dismissing the state-law claims but argued that sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution should not bar any of Mays's federal claims, including those under § 1983, § 1981, and Title VII. She would have allowed all the federal claims to proceed, reasoning that article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution cannot serve as a bar to federal claims. Justice Shawn A. Womack reached a similar conclusion through different reasoning, arguing that the Supremacy Clause prevents Arkansas from using its sovereign immunity provision to categorically block federal causes of action in state courts. Both dissented from the majority's decision to dismiss the § 1983 and § 1981 claims.
The case now returns to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, where Mays's Title VII claim will proceed. For HR professionals, the allegations in this case offer a pointed reminder: when the same panel members repeatedly select candidates over a long-tenured employee from a protected class – without a clear qualifications edge – the pattern itself can become the evidence. And as this case shows, that kind of pattern can survive even the toughest procedural defenses.
All factual claims described above are allegations from Mays's complaint and have not been proven at trial.
