Jestice v. Butler Technology and Career Development Schools Board of Education, No. 1:2011cv00101 - Document 30 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of defendants with costs to plaintiff. This case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 8/15/12. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jestice v. Butler Technology and Career Development Schools Board of Education Doc. 30 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON J U LI E J EST I CE, Pla int iff v. Ca se N o. 1 :1 1 -c vB1 0 1 -H J W BU T LER T ECH N OLOGY AN D CAREER DEV ELOPM EN T SCH OOLS BOARD OF EDU CAT I ON , De fe nda nt ORDER T his m a t t e r is be fore t he Court upon t he de fe nda nt =s AM ot ion For Sum m a ry J udgm e nt @ (doc . no. 1 8 ). Pla int iff ha s not oppose d t he m ot ion de spit e a m ple t im e t o do so. H a ving fully c onside re d t he re c ord, inc luding t he ple a dings, m ot ion, a nd propose d findings, t he Court w ill gra nt t he de fe nda nt =s m ot ion for t he follow ing re a sons: I. Ba c k ground a nd Proc e dura l H ist ory T he de fe nda nt ’s “Propose d Findings of Fa c t a nd Conc lusions of La w ” a re not disput e d, a re inc orpora t e d he re in by re fe re nc e , a nd ne e d only be sum m a rize d. I n August of 2 0 0 3 , J ulie J e st ic e (“pla int iff”) w a s hire d by t he But le r T e c hnology a nd Ca re e r De ve lopm e nt Sc hools Boa rd of Page 1 of 15 Dockets.Justia.com Educ a t ion (“de fe nda nt ” or “But le r T e c h”) t o t e a c h Spa nish. De fe nda nt is a public sc hool e nt it y in But le r Count y, Ohio. Pla int iff w a s e m ploye d pursua nt t o t he t e rm s a nd c ondit ions of a c olle c t ive ba rga ining a gre e m e nt (“CBA”) be t w e e n But le r T e c h a nd t he But le r Educ a t ion Assoc ia t ion. T he CBA provide s for a grie va nc e proc e dure t ha t e nds w it h binding a rbit ra t ion. I n 2 0 0 9 , due t o low e nrollm e nt , But le r T e c h e lim ina t e d it s fa c e -t o-fa c e Spa nish c la sse s in t he Se c onda ry Work forc e Division. But le r T e c h no longe r offe rs suc h c la sse s a nd did not re pla c e pla int iff w it h a ny ot he r e m ploye e in t ha t posit ion. As pla int iff a lso ha d t he ne c e ssa ry c e rt ific a t ion t o t e a c h spe c ia l e duc a t ion, she w a s a ssigne d in M a y of 2 0 0 9 t o t ha t posit ion. Subse que nt ly, st ude nt s, pa re nt s, a nd c o-w ork e rs c om pla ine d a bout he r w ork pe rform a nc e . She w a s pla c e d on pa id a dm inist ra t ive le a ve w hile But le r T e c h inve st iga t e d t he c om pla int s. V a rious subst it ut e t e a c he rs t e m pora rily fille d he r posit ion during t his t im e . Pla int iff w a s give n w rit t e n not ic e of t he pre -disc iplina ry he a ring. T he inve st iga t ion found t ha t pla int iff ha d fa ile d t o c om ply w it h he r st ude nt s' individua l e duc a t ion pla ns (“I EPs”), ha d im pose d una ut horize d Page 2 of 15 pe na lt ie s on st ude nt s, a nd ha d re fuse d t o pe rm it st ude nt s t o m a k e up w ork e ve n for e x c use d a bse nc e s. Pla int iff ha d fa ile d t o c om m unic a t e w it h pa re nt s suffic ie nt ly, fa ile d t o k e e p up-t o-da t e a c c ura t e gra de s, a nd fa ile d t o provide st ude nt s w it h gra de s. Pla int iff ha d be e n inst ruc t e d not t o t e a c h m a t e ria l out side t he Boa rd's c urric ulum , but did so a nyw a y. Pla int iff ha d use d But le r T e c h's t e c hnology a nd e quipm e nt t o furt he r he r ow n for-profit a c t ivit ie s a nd lie d in re sponse t o t he inve st iga t ors' que st ions. De fe nda nt provide d pla int iff w it h a c opy of t he le t t e r not ifying he r of t he c onc lusion of t he inve st iga t ion. Da n Sc hroe r, t he V ic e Pre side nt of Se c onda ry Work forc e , t he n re c om m e nde d t o t he But le r T e c h Boa rd of Educ a t ion t ha t pla int iff’s t e a c hing c ont ra c t be t e rm ina t e d. Pla int iff=s e m ploym e nt w a s t e rm ina t e d on J a nua ry 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 . A fe m a le subst it ut e t e a c he r fille d pla int iff’s posit ion for t he re m a inde r of t he sc hool ye a r. On M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 , pla int iff file d a c ha rge of ge nde r disc rim ina t ion a nd re t a lia t ion w it h t he Equa l Em ploym e nt Com m ission (AEEOC@) a nd t he Ohio Civil Right s Com m ission (AOCRC@). She re c e ive d a Anot ic e of suit right s@ le t t e r on N ove m be r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 (doc . no. 1 , Ex . A). Page 3 of 15 Pla int iff a lso file d a grie va nc e unde r t he CBA. Aft e r a rbit ra t ion, t he a rbit ra t or c onc lude d t ha t pla int iff ha d e nga ge d in se ve re m isc onduc t m e rit ing disc ipline , but t ha t it did not m e e t t he re quire m e nt s for t e rm ina t ion for “just c a use ” unde r t he CBA. T he a rbit ra t or found t ha t 1 ) "[J e st ic e ] provide d subst a nda rd pe rform a nc e in t he short pe riod of t im e she w as t e a c hing spe c ia l e duc a t ion;" 2) he r "de fic ie nc ie s a nd short c om ings w e re inde e d se rious;" 3 ) she w a s "not fort hc om ing" in he r re sponse s t o t he inve st iga t ion; 4 ) she "m isre pre se nt e d or e m be llishe d t he fa c t s w he n she re pre se nt e d t ha t she w a s in c ont a c t w it h m a ny pa re nt s;" 5 ) he r c onduc t w a s "ine x c usa ble ;" a nd 6 ) she ha d "possibly viola t e d t he polic y forbidding t he use of t he sc hool's e -m a il syst e m for he r pe rsona l use ." De spit e t he findings re ga rding pla int iff’s pe rform a nc e a nd m isc onduc t , t he a rbit ra t or orde re d pla int iff re inst a t e d t o he r posit ion, a s of M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , but w it hout ba c k w a ge s or be ne fit s. But le r T e c h re inst a t e d pla int iff. M e a nw hile , on Fe brua ry 1 7 , 2 0 1 1 , pla int iff file d a six -c ount fe de ra l c om pla int a lle ging a ge a nd se x disc rim ina t ion, re t a lia t ion, a nd bre a c h of c ont ra c t , pursua nt t o T it le V I I of t he Civil Right s Ac t , a t 4 2 U .S.C. ' Page 4 of 15 2 0 0 0 e , Ohio Re vise d Code ' 4 1 1 2 .0 2 (A), a nd Ohio c om m on la w . She se e k s c om pe nsa t ory da m a ge s, punit ive da m a ge s, a nd a t t orne y fe e s. De fe nda nt a nsw e re d a nd m ove d for pa rt ia l judgm e nt on t he ple a dings (doc . nos. 5 , 1 0 ). De fe nda nt a sse rt e d t ha t : 1 ) pla int iff fa ile d t o e x ha ust a dm inist ra t ive re m e die s for he r fe de ra l a ge disc rim ina t ion c la im ; 2 ) t he st a t e la w a ge disc rim ina t ion c la im is ba rre d be c a use pla int iff w a s subje c t t o a binding a rbit ra t ion c la use in t he CBA a nd ha d t he opport unit y t o a rbit ra t e he r c la im ; 3 ) t his Court la c k s subje c t m a t t e r jurisdic t ion ove r Count Five be c a use Ohio=s St a t e Em ploym e nt Re la t ions Boa rd (ASERB@) ha s e x c lusive jurisdic t ion ove r c la im s for bre a c h of a CBA; a nd 4 ) Count Six m e re ly sought punit ive da m a ge s a nd did not st a t e a c a use of a c t ion. Pla int iff c onc e de d t he se a rgum e nt s (doc . no. 1 5 a t 2 ). T he Court dism isse d t he st a t e a nd fe de ra l c la im s of a ge disc rim ina t ion, t he bre a c h of c ont ra c t c la im , a nd t he c la im for punit ive da m a ge s (doc . no. 1 7 AOrde r@). T he only re m a ining c la im s a re for se x disc rim ina t ion a nd re t a lia t ion unde r Ohio la w a nd T it le V I I . On N ove m be r1 , 2 0 1 1 , de fe nda nt se nt w rit t e n disc ove ry re que st s t o pla int iff. Aft e r t he t im e for re sponding pa sse d, de fe nse c ounse l se nt Page 5 of 15 se ve ra l w rit t e n inquirie s, but pla int iff did not re spond. Pla int iff w a s de pose d on J a nua ry 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 , a nd a t t ha t t im e , de fe nse c ounse l a sk e d pla int iff=s c ounse l for t he disc ove ry re sponse s, w it hout re sult . On J a nua ry 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 , de fe nda nt m ove d for sum m a ry judgm e nt (doc . no. 1 8 ), follow e d on Fe brua ry 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 by a m ot ion t o c om pe l disc ove ry (doc . no. 1 9 ). U pon re fe rra l, t he M a gist ra t e J udge gra nt e d t he m ot ion t o c om pe l a nd orde re d pla int iff t o re spond t o disc ove ry w it hin fift e e n da ys (doc . no. 2 1 ). T he doc k e t doe s not re fle c t t ha t pla int iff did so. Pla int iff did not re spond t o t he m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt . On April 1 8 , 2 0 1 2 , t his Court orde re d pla int iff t o show c a use w hy t he m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt should not be gra nt e d (doc . no. 2 2 ). On M a y 4 , 2 0 1 2 , pla int iff’s c ounse l indic a t e d t ha t t he de la y w a s “due t o his pe rsona l a nd profe ssiona l re a sons w hic h c a m e t o a he a d in t he la t e pa rt of 2 0 1 1 a nd e a rly 2 0 1 2 ” a nd a ssure d t he Court t ha t “if a llow e d t o re spond t o t he m ot ion, pla int iff w ill file a re sponse w it hin one w e e k of t he orde r a llow ing for a n e x t e nsion of t im e a nd w ill furt he r provide int e rroga t ory re sponse w it hin t ha t t im e ” (doc . no. 2 3 ). T he Court ga ve pla int iff’s c ounse l t he be ne fit of t he doubt a nd a llow e d t he c a se t o Page 6 of 15 proc e e d (doc . no. 2 5 ). T he Court orde re d de fe nda nt t o file propose d findings a nd orde re d pla int iff t o file his re sponse a nd high-light e d ve rsion of t he propose d findings. De fe nda nt t im e ly c om plie d (doc . no. 2 6 ), but t o da t e , se ve ra l m ont hs pa st t he de a dline se t by t he Court , pla int iff ha s st ill not file d a re sponse or t he high-light e d ve rsion of t he propose d findings. T his Court ha s a lre a dy give n pla int iff e x t e nsions of t im e a nd a m ple not ic e re ga rding t he ne e d t o re spond t o t he m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt . T he Court w ill now c onside r t he unoppose d m ot ion. II. St a nda rd of Re vie w Rule 5 6 (a ) of t he Fe de ra l Rule s of Civil provide s in re le va nt pa rt : A pa rt y m a y m ove for sum m a ry judgm e nt , ide nt ifying e a c h c la im or de fe nse or t he pa rt of e a c h c la im or de fe nse on w hic h sum m a ry judgm e nt is sought . T he c ourt sha ll gra nt sum m a ry judgm e nt if t he m ova nt show s t ha t t he re is no ge nuine disput e a s t o a ny m a t e ria l fa c t a nd t he m ova nt is e nt it le d t o judgm e nt a s a m a t t e r of la w . Fe d.R.Civ.P. 5 6 (a ). U nde r Rule 5 6 , t he m oving pa rt y be a rs t he burde n of proving t ha t no ge nuine disput e of m a t e ria l fa c t e x ist s. M a t sushit a Ele c . I ndus. Co. v. Z e nit h Ra dio Corp., 4 7 5 U .S. 5 7 4 , 5 8 6 (l9 8 6 ). T he c ourt m ust c onst rue t he e vide nc e a nd dra w a ll re a sona ble infe re nc e s in fa vor of t he Page 7 of 15 nonm oving pa rt y. I d. a t 5 8 7 ; J a k ubow sk i v. Christ H osp., I nc ., 6 2 7 F.3 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ), c e rt . de nie d, 1 3 1 S.Ct . 3 0 7 1 (2 0 1 1 ). Onc e a m oving pa rt y ha s m e t t he init ia l burde n of show ing t he a bse nc e of a ge nuine issue of m a t e ria l fa c t , sum m a ry judgm e nt should be gra nt e d unle ss t he non-m oving pa rt y de signa t e s spe c ific m a t e ria l fa c t s ge nuine ly in disput e . Ce lot e x Corp. v. Ca t re t t , 4 7 7 U .S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 4 (1 9 8 6 ). T he non-m oving pa rt y m ust pre se nt “a ffirm a t ive e vide nc e ” in re sponse t o a w e ll-ple a de d m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt . St re e t v. J .C. Bra dford & Co., 8 8 6 F.2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 9 -8 0 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 9 ) (quot ing Ande rson v. Libe rt y Lobby, I nc ., 4 7 7 U .S. 2 4 2 , 2 5 7 (1 9 8 6 )). T he c ourt m ust de t e rm ine w he t he r t he e vide nc e pre se nt s a suffic ie nt disa gre e m e nt t o re quire subm ission t o a jury or w he t he r it is so one -side d t ha t one pa rt y m ust pre va il a s a m a t t e r of la w . Libe rt y Lobby, 4 7 7 U .S. a t 2 5 1 -5 2 . A ge nuine disput e e x ist s only w he n t he re is suffic ie nt e vide nc e on w hic h t he jury c ould re a sona bly find for t he pla int iff. I d. a t 2 5 2 . III. Disc ussion I n support of it s m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt , t he de fe nda nt point s t o e vide nc e inc luding 1 ) t he Affida vit of Ed Pok ora , t he Chie f Page 8 of 15 Fina nc ia l Offic e r of But le r T e c h (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 1 -2 ); 2 ) t he Affida vit of Da n Sc hroe r, t he V ic e Pre side nt of Se c onda ry Work forc e (doc . no. 1 8 -3 ); 3 ) not ic e le t t e rs re ga rding pla int iff’s a dm inist ra t ive le a ve , pre disc iplina ry he a ring, a nd t he c onc lusion of t he inve st iga t ion int o he r m isc onduc t (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 3 -7 ); 4 ) pla int iff’s lic e nse a nd c e rt ific a t ion hist ory (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 8 -9 ); 5 ) t he le t t e r a ssigning pla int iff t o spe c ia l e duc a t ion (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 1 0 ); 6 ) pla int iff’s EEOC c ha rge (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 1 1 -1 3 ); a nd 7 ) t he a rbit ra t ion de c ision (doc . no. 1 8 -1 a t 1 4 -3 0 ). A. Pla int iff’s St a t e a nd Fe de ra l Cla im s of Se x Disc rim ina t ion I n Count s One a nd T hre e , pla int iff a lle ge s se x disc rim ina t ion in viola t ion of 4 2 U .S.C. ' 2 0 0 0 e a nd Ohio R.C. ' 4 1 1 2 .0 2 (A). T he se c la im s a re a ppropria t e ly c onside re d t oge t he r. Ge t t ings v. Bldg. La bore rs Loc a l 3 1 0 Fringe Be ne fit s Fund, 3 4 9 F.3 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ). T o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of se x disc rim ina t ion ba se d on indire c t e vide nc e , pla int iff m ust show t ha t (1 ) she is a m e m be r of a prot e c t e d c la ss; (2 ) she w a s subje c t e d t o a n a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion; (3 ) she w a s qua lifie d; a nd (4 ) she w a s re pla c e d by som e one out side of t he prot e c t e d c la ss, or a sim ila rly sit ua t e d, non-prot e c t e d Page 9 of 15 e m ploye e w a s t re a t e d m ore fa vora bly. Pe lt ie r v. U nit e d St a t e s, 3 8 8 F.3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ); M it c he ll v. T ole do H osp., 9 6 4 F.2 d 5 7 7 , 5 8 2 -8 3 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 2 ). I n he r c om pla int , pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t she is fe m a le , w a s disc ha rge d, w a s qua lifie d for he r job, a nd w a s re pla c e d by a m a le t e a c he r. T o t he e x t e nt she a lle ge s a ny dispa ra t e t re a t m e nt on t he ba sis of ge nde r, t he ot he r inc ide nt s a bout w hic h pla int iff c om pla ins (e .g., not be ing se le c t e d t o go on a fie ld t rip) a re t oo t rivia l t o c onst it ut e m a t e ria lly a dve rse a c t ions a nd did not a ffe c t t he t e rm s, c ondit ions, or st a t us of he r e m ploym e nt . De fe nda nt point s out t ha t no ot he r t e a c he r a t But le r T e c h w a s “sim ila rly-sit ua t e d” t o pla int iff w it h re spe c t t o he r re c ord of poor pe rform a nc e a nd m isc onduc t . U nde r t he burde n-shift ing e vide nt ia ry fra m e w ork of M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. v. Gre e n, 4 1 1 U .S. 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ), de fe nda nt m ust a rt ic ula t e a le git im a t e non-disc rim ina t ory re a son for t he a dve rse a c t ion, i.e ., t he re a sons for pla int iff’s t e rm ina t ion. T he burde n t he n shift s ba c k t o pla int iff t o show t ha t t he st a t e d re a sons w e re m e re ly a pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion. Wright v. M urra y Gua rd, I nc ., 4 5 5 F.3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 6 -7 0 7 (6 t h Page 10 of 15 Cir. 2 0 0 6 ). Pre t e x t m a y be de m onst ra t e d by show ing t ha t t he proffe re d re a sons: (1 ) ha d no ba sis in fa c t , (2 ) did not a c t ua lly m ot iva t e t he a c t ion, or (3 ) w e re insuffic ie nt t o m ot iva t e t he a c t ion. Che n v. Dow Che m . Co., 5 8 0 F.3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). “T hroughout t his burde n-shift ing a pproa c h, t he pla int iff c ont inue s t o be a r t he ult im a t e burde n of proving, by a pre ponde ra nc e of t he e vide nc e , t he int e nt t o disc rim ina t e .” Wright , 4 5 5 F.3 d a t 7 0 7 (c it ing St . M a ry's H onor Ct r. v. H ic k s, 5 0 9 U .S. 5 0 2 , 5 1 1 (1 9 9 3 )). Alt hough de fe nda nt c onc e de s t ha t pla int iff ha s se t fort h a prim a fa c ie c a se , t he re c ord doe s not re fle c t t ha t pla int iff w a s “re pla c e d” by a m a le t e a c he r. Pla int iff’s Spa nish c la ss w a s e lim ina t e d due t o low e nrollm e nt . Whe n she w a s la t e r a ssigne d t o spe c ia l e duc a t ion a nd t he n put on le a ve for inve st iga t ion of m isc onduc t , he r c la ss w a s t a ught by a va rie t y of short -t e rm subst it ut e t e a c he rs. U pon pla int iff’s t e rm ina t ion, he r c la ss w a s c ove re d by a fe m a le subst it ut e t e a c he r for t he re st of t he ye a r. Pla int iff w a s t he n re inst a t e d. Eve n a ssum ing a prim a fa c ie c a se , de fe nda nt c ont e nds it a ppropria t e ly disc ha rge d pla int iff for poor pe rform a nc e a nd m isc onduc t Page 11 of 15 (doc . no. 2 6 a t ¶ 9 8 ). Give n t he num e rous c om pla int s a bout pla int iff by st ude nt s, pa re nt s, a nd c o-w ork e rs, a s w e ll a s t he findings of t he inve st iga t ion a nd t he a rbit ra t or, t he se re a sons ha d a ba sis in fa c t a nd w e re suffic ie nt t o m ot iva t e t he de c ision. U nc ont rove rt e d e vide nc e of re c ord indic a t e s t ha t t he se re a sons a c t ua lly did m ot iva t e t he disc ha rge . Se e Sc hroe r Affida vit , a t ¶ ¶ 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 9 ). Pla int iff ha s m a de no e ffort t o re but t he se le git im a t e non-disc rim ina t ory re a sons for he r t e rm ina t ion. T he re c ord doe s not re fle c t a ny e vide nc e sugge st ing a ny ge nuine disput e s of m a t e ria l fa c t . T he se c la im s a re prope rly subje c t t o sum m a ry judgm e nt in t he de fe nda nt ’s fa vor. B. Pla int iff’s St a t e a nd Fe de ra l Cla im s of Re t a lia t ion I n Count s T w o a nd Four, pla int iff a lle ge s re t a lia t ion in viola t ion of T it le V I I a nd Ohio R.C. ' 4 1 1 2 .0 2 (I ). T it le V I I prohibit s a n e m ploye r from disc rim ina t ing a ga inst a n e m ploye e w ho oppose s a ny pra c t ic e m a de a n unla w ful e m ploym e nt a c t ion unde r T it le V I I . 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e -3 (a ). Sim ila rly, Ohio la w m a k e s it unla w ful t o disc rim ina t e a ga inst t hose w ho oppose a ny unla w ful disc rim ina t ory pra c t ic e , or w ho m a k e a c ha rge , or pa rt ic ipa t e in a ny disc rim ina t ion inve st iga t ion or proc e e ding. Ohio Re v. Page 12 of 15 Code § 4 1 1 2 .0 2 (I ). T he se c la im s a re a ppropria t e ly c onside re d t oge t he r. T o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of re t a lia t ion, pla int iff m ust show t ha t : (1 ) she e nga ge d in prot e c t e d a c t ivit y unde r T it le V I I ; (2 ) de fe nda nt k ne w of t he prot e c t e d a c t ivit y; (3 ) de fe nda nt t he n t ook a n a dve rse , re t a lia t ory e m ploym e nt a c t ion a ga inst he r, a nd (4 ) t he re w a s a c a usa l c onne c t ion be t w e e n t he prot e c t e d a c t ivit y a nd t he a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion. H unt e r v. Se c 'y of U .A. Arm y, 5 6 5 F.3 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). In he r c om pla int , pla int iff va gue ly a lle ge s t ha t she “w a s disc rim ina t e d a ga inst ba se d upon he r support for union c a ndida t e s not fa vore d by t he Boa rd, inc luding . . . fa ilure t o be c hose n for fie ld t rips, sum m e rs proje c t s, a nd furt he r be ing pla c e d in e m ploym e nt posit ions for w hic h I c ould not be suc c e ssful" (doc . no. 1 a t ¶ 1 0 ). She doe s not spe c ific a lly a lle ge t ha t she e nga ge d in a ny prot e c t e d a c t ivit y for purpose s of T it le V I I . She provide s no da t e s or de t a ils for a ny a lle ge d “prot e c t e d a c t ivit y.” De fe nda nt c orre c t ly a sse rt s t ha t pla int iff ha s not pre se nt e d a ny e vide nc e t o subst a nt ia t e he r a lle ga t ions of re t a lia t ion. At t his st a ge in t he lit iga t ion, a pla int iff m a y no longe r re ly sole ly on he r ple a dings a nd Page 13 of 15 m ust c om e forw a rd w it h "proba t ive e vide nc e t e nding t o support t he c om pla int ." St e w a rd v. N e w Chrysle r, 2 0 1 1 WL 3 3 8 4 5 7 , * 7 (6 t h Cir. (M ic h.)) (quot ing Libe rt y Lobby, 477 U .S. at 2 5 6 ). Ac c ording to de fe nda nt , pla int iff ne ve r c om pla ine d t o a ny m e m be r of But le r T e c h’s a dm inist ra t ion t ha t she w a s be ing re t a lia t e d a ga inst for "support of union c a ndida t e s." De fe nda nt e x pla ins t ha t t he spa nish c la ss w a s e lim ina t e d due t o low e nrollm e nt a nd t ha t pla int iff w a s a ssigne d t o spe c ia l e duc a t ion so she w ould not lose he r job. De fe nda nt ha s subm it t e d t he a ffida vit of M r. Sc hroe r, w ho indic a t e s he did not k now t ha t pla int iff ha d e x pre sse d support for a ny union c a ndida t e s a nd t ha t w he n he re c om m e nde d t e rm ina t ion of he r e m ploym e nt c ont ra c t , he w a s una w a re of a ny “prot e c t e d a c t ivit y” by pla int iff (doc . no. 1 8 -3 , Sc hroe r Affida vit , ¶ ¶ 1 9 , 2 1 ). T hus, e ve n a ssum ing t he e x ist e nc e of a ny “prot e c t e d a c t ivit y,” it c ould not ha ve m ot iva t e d t he de c ision t o t e rm ina t e pla int iff. De fe nda nt ’s e vide nc e is unc ont rove rt e d. Pla int iff ha s show n no c a usa l c onne c t ion be t w e e n a ny a lle ge d prot e c t e d a c t ivit y a nd he r t e rm ina t ion. I V . Conc lusion Page 14 of 15 I n c onc lusion, But le r T e c h ha s point e d t o support ing e vide nc e show ing t ha t t he re a re no ge nuine disput e s of m a t e ria l fa c t s re ga rding pla int iff’s st a t e a nd fe de ra l c la im s of ge nde r disc rim ina t ion a nd re t a lia t ion. For he r ge nde r disc rim ina t ion c la im , pla int iff ha s fa ile d t o show t ha t t he st a t e d re a sons for he r disc ha rge w e re pre t e x t ua l, a nd t hus, ha s not re but t e d t he de fe nda nt ’s st a t e d re a sons for he r disc ha rge . For he r re t a lia t ion c la im , pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t she e nga ge d in a ny prot e c t e d a c t ivit y, m uc h le ss t ha t t he re w a s a ny c a usa l c onne c t ion w it h he r t e rm ina t ion for poor pe rform a nc e a nd m isc onduc t . T he e vide nc e of re c ord is unc ont rove rt e d, a nd t he re c ord be fore t his Court doe s not re fle c t a ny t ria ble issue s. Ac c ordingly, t he AM ot ion For Sum m a ry J udgm e nt ” (doc . no. 1 8 ) is GRAN T ED in de fe nda nt ’s fa vor, w it h c ost s t o pla int iff; t his c a se is DI SM I SSED a nd T ERM I N AT ED on t he doc k e t of t his Court . I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court Page 15 of 15
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
