Benner v. St. Paul Pub. Sch.

Decision Date03 May 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 17-cv-1568 (SRN/KMM)
Citation380 F.Supp.3d 869
Parties Aaron A. BENNER, Plaintiff, v. ST. PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, I.S.D. #625, and Lisa Gruenewald, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

J. Ashwin Madia, Cody Blades, and Joshua Newville, Madia Law LLC, 333 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401 for Plaintiff.

Sarah Bushnell, Jeffrey Markowitz, and Kari Marie Dahlin, Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, PA, 81 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

This case aptly illustrates the adage that there are always "two sides to every story." On the one hand, Plaintiff Aaron Benner ("Benner") claims that, after he (a tenured African-American elementary school teacher) spoke against Defendant St. Paul Public Schools' ("SPPS") "racial equity policy" during a widely-covered May 2014 school board meeting, SPPS worked with his new Principal (Defendant Lisa Gruenewald) to "paper" his then-impeccable record with "bogus" investigations and disciplinary measures, so as to make him a ripe target for termination. After enduring this "retaliation" for the entire 2014-2015 school year, and fearing that he could be fired at any moment, Benner resigned from SPPS in August 2015 and instead began working at a local charter school. In Benner's view, all of this occurred because, as an African-American school teacher publicly standing against a District policy aimed at aiding African-American students, he presented a unique "threat" to SPPS's policy goals.

On the other hand, Defendants contend that any "disciplinary measures" they took against Benner were wholly unrelated to either his race or his public policy stances, and that each "disciplinary measure" was fully justified by Benner's (allegedly improper) in-school actions. Moreover, Defendants argue, Benner was not "forced" to resign, or otherwise "retaliated against." Rather, Defendants submit, at the end of the 2014-2015 school year Benner simply chose a job that better suited his career aspirations.

Defendants now move for summary judgment as to all four of the claims Benner has brought against them, arguing that the factual record is sufficiently clear for the Court to rule in their favor as a matter of law.

The Court largely disagrees; the factual disputes in this case are simply too wide, and too important, for the Court to deny Benner a jury trial as to all of his claims. However, because of controlling legal standards, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on two of the claims Benner has brought against them (Title VII retaliation and First Amendment retaliation). The other two claims (Minnesota Whistleblower Act retaliation and Title VII race discrimination) will proceed to trial. The Court explains its reasoning at greater length below.

I. BACKGROUND

For ease of understanding, the Court will divide this factual narrative into four parts. First , the Court will discuss the relevant factual events up through, and including, Benner's May 20, 2014 speech to the St. Paul school board. In so doing, the Court will also provide some background on the "suspension gap" and "racial equity" issues that undergirded Benner's speech. Second , the Court will detail the various investigations, reprimands, and alleged hardships that Benner endured during the 2014-2015 school year, while he was a fourth-grade teacher at John A. Johnson Elementary School in St. Paul. Third , the Court will recount how these incidents resulted in Benner leaving SPPS. Finally , the Court will review this litigation's procedural history.

Because this case is in a summary judgment posture, the Court will consider this factual background "in the light most favorable" to Benner, and will "mak[e] every reasonable inference" in Benner's favor. Bradford v. Palmer , 855 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2017).

A. Relevant Events Prior to the 2014-2015 School Year
1. The "Suspension Gap" and SPPS's "Racial Equity" Response

Before delving into the details of this case, the Court will first discuss the educational policy problem known as the "suspension gap," and how SPPS was attempting to remedy this problem during the years relevant to this litigation. This background is essential to understanding why Benner believes his May 20, 2014 speech posed a "threat" to SPPS's then-leadership, such that they would have any reason to "retaliate" against him.

It is well established that, in many urban school districts across the country, including SPPS, the suspension rate for African-American students is vastly disproportionate to the percentage of African-American students in the school district. (See Defs.' Ex. 7 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("May 29, 2013 Minnesota Spokesman-Reporter Article") (noting that, according to a UCLA research report, "St. Paul was among several U.S. urban school districts ... where it was found that Black students in 2009-10 were suspended at least three times more often than Whites, and almost twice as often as Latinos"); cf. Michael Rocque & Raymond Paternoster, Understanding the Antecedents of the "School-to-Jail" Link: The Relationship Between Race and School Discipline , 101 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 633, 651 (2011) (finding that, even as early as elementary school, "[b]lack students [are] ... more than two times as likely to receive at least one disciplinary report compared with students of all other races").) This disparity is often called the "suspension gap." (See, e.g. , Defs.' Ex. 6 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("Summer 2012 City Journal Article") at 5.) There is a vigorous public debate over the causes of this gap, as well as over what, if anything, should be done about it. Compare, e.g. , Derek W. Black, Reforming School Discipline , 111 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1, 47-57 (2016) with Gail Heriot & Alison Somin, The Department of Education's Obama-Era Initiative on Racial Disparities in School Discipline: Wrong for Students and Teachers, Wrong on the Law , 22 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 471 (2018).

In recent years, SPPS has undertaken numerous policy efforts to try and reduce its "suspension gap." Many of these policy efforts were spearheaded by Valeria Silva, who was SPPS's Superintendent from 2009 to 2016. (See Defs.' Ex. 20 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("Aug. 25, 2016 American Public Media Article") at 12; accord Silva Dep. [Doc. No. 89-5] at 41 (describing these policies as one of her "top priorities").) For example, in 2009, SPPS began training its teachers in Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports ("PBIS"), which ask teachers to focus on positive reinforcement for good behavior rather than negative, "punitive" consequences for bad behavior. (See Defs.' Ex. 9 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("May 2, 2014 Twin Cities Daily Planet Article").) In 2010, SPPS also hired a consultancy called the Pacific Education Group ("PEG") to help train the district's (mostly white) teachers and administrators as to how racial awareness could reduce the need for disciplinary measures, especially with respect to African-American students. (See id. ; see also Pl.'s Ex. 156-159 [Doc. Nos. 89-111 to 89-114] (learning materials provided by PEG).)1

Most importantly for present purposes, though, in July 2013 SPPS adopted an official "racial equity" policy. (See Pl.'s Ex. 22 [Doc. No. 89-34] ("SPPS Racial Equity Policy").) At the time, local press reports described the policy as "groundbreaking." (See Pl.'s Ex. 161 [Doc. No. 89-115] ("July 15, 2013 Pioneer Press Article").) Although the exact content of this policy was somewhat amorphous, "racial equity" appeared to be a multi-faceted effort aimed at "eliminating" SPPS's "institutional racism," so as to "increase achievement ... for all students, while narrowing the gaps between the highest-and-lowest-performing students." (SPPS Racial Equity Policy at 1 (emphasis in original); see also July 15, 2013 Pioneer Press Article ("[The policy] says the district will work to recruit and retain a ‘racially conscious and culturally competent’ staff and embrace ‘culturally responsive’ practices in the classroom and beyond.").) As part of this policy, SPPS also appeared to encourage its administrators and principals to collect race-specific data and then focus on reducing the racial disparities measured in that data, particularly with respect to African-American and white students. (See, e.g. , Pl.'s Ex. 158 [Doc. No. 89-113] ("Guide for Principals Implementing Racial Equity") at 2.) For instance, one internal SPPS document from the 2013-2014 school year appeared to encourage school administrators to reduce "suspensions" and "office discipline referrals" for "African-American male students" and/or "students of color" by specific numeric percentages over the course of the school year. (See Pl.'s Ex. 155 [Doc. No. 89-110] ("SPPS PBIS Behavior Goals"); accord Silva Dep. at 150-51.) Similarly, during at least one school year, SPPS provided a financial bonus to principals who "reduced suspensions for students of color." (See May 2, 2014 Twin Cities Daily Planet Article (describing this policy, before then noting that it was "discontinued" after the 2012-2013 school year); accord Silva Dep. at 98-99).)

SPPS's "racial equity" policy provoked controversy, at both a local and national level. (See generally Defs.' Ex. 4-20 (various national and local newspaper articles describing community responses to the policy).) In recent years, moreover, SPPS appears to have modified (but not eliminated) its policy in response to a variety of critiques and suggestions. (Id. )

2. Benner Begins to Critique SPPS's Implementation of "Racial Equity"

With this context in mind, the Court now turns to Aaron Benner. Benner is an African-American elementary school teacher who began his teaching career with SPPS in 1995. (See Defs.' Ex. 2 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("Benner Resume").) After receiving tenure from SPPS in 1999 (see Defs.' Ex. 1 [Doc. No. 78-1] ("Letter Conferring Tenure")), Benner took a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • TallBear v. Soldi Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • May 14, 2020
    ...actually violated the FLA is not dispositive of TallBear's MWA claim. (Pl.'s Mem. at 8) (citing Benner v. St. Paul Public Schools, I.S.D. #625, 380 F. Supp. 3d 869, 904 (D. Minn. 2019) (finding that an employee need not show that the conduct described in their report "was actually unlawful,......
  • Bernard v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., Case No. 17-cv-3853 (SRN/SER)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 10, 2019
    ...employment action" is somewhat less demanding in the context of retaliation claims. See generally Benner v. St. Paul Public Schools , 380 F.Supp.3d 869, 896–97 (D. Minn. 2019) (discussing the distinction); accord Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53, 63-68, 126 S.Ct. 2405......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT