Cannady v. Person County Board of Education

• Decision Date: 27 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. C-252-D-71.,C-252-D-71.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Annis J. CANNADY, Plaintiff, v. PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants.

375 F. Supp. 689

Annis J. CANNADY, Plaintiff, v. PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants.

No. C-252-D-71.

United States District Court, M. D. North Carolina, Durham Division.

March 27, 1974.

J. LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C., and Adam Stein, Chapel Hill, N. C., for plaintiff.

Richard G. Long, Roxboro, N. C., and Richard M. Hutson, II, Durham, N. C., for defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION

GORDON, Chief Judge.

In this case the plaintiff seeks, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the following relief:

1. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from discriminating on the basis of race and color in the operation and administration of the Person County public schools.

2. An order that the plaintiff be reinstated in the same or comparable position held prior to her dismissal, with back pay and reimbursements for all expenses and losses incurred as a result of her dismissal.

3. An order awarding costs and reasonable attorney fees.

The case was heard by the Court sitting without a jury on August 20-21, 1973.

Having now carefully considered all of counsel's proposals, arguments and contentions, as well as the testimony, stipulations, briefs and exhibits submitted, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the Court pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact

1. The plaintiff, Annis J. Cannady, filed this action on November 18, 1971, alleging that she was discharged by the Person County Board of Education as a teacher because of her race and color and that she was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. The plaintiff is a 49 year old black, female, elementary school teacher. Plaintiff received her Bachelor of Arts Degree from Shaw University, Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1946. She has done graduate work in remedial reading at the University of California at Berkeley (1953), and more recently, in 1969, while renewing her teaching certificate. She studied nongraded team teaching at North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina. Plaintiff holds a Class A Teacher's Certificate in elementary education from the State of North Carolina.

3. Plaintiff began her teaching career in Georgia in 1946, and remained there until 1952. Commencing in 1952, plaintiff was employed by the Person County Board of Education, continuously, until her employment was terminated at the completion of the 1970-71 school year.

4. From 1952 through the 1968-69 school year, the plaintiff taught at the Roxboro Elementary School, a school with an all black faculty and student body. The Person County School System became fully integrated in the 1969-70 school year at which time the name of Roxboro Elementary School was changed to South Elementary School.

5. At the beginning of the 1969-70 school year, the Person County Board of Education initiated and implemented, upon the recommendation of the North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, a program at the elementary level providing for individualized instruction and team teaching. Individualized instruction means adapted instruction based on individual children's interests and tailoring instruction to fit the needs of the individual. It consists of providing alternatives to individuals in a group situation and accepting the responses of individuals to a common stimulus and not requiring all children to respond in the same way. Each child is placed in a small instructional group within his class in which he can make the most progress from level to level at his own rate. The grouping is flexible and may be changed whenever the need arises. Because regrouping is frequently necessary to satisfy the instructional needs of children, the need for team teaching arises.

Team teaching is a group of two or more teachers assuming the responsibility for the total instructional program for two or more classrooms of children. Each team groups their students in the manner in which they deem best. These teachers, complementing each others talents, have common responsibility for planning, fulfilling and evaluating the total education program for their students. A teacher who has a high degree of knowledge or skill in one area will instruct all students of the team. This allows the student to derive the maximum benefit from a teacher's strengths.

In a classroom employing individualized instruction, the students would be divided into several small groups working at different levels. The teachers would rotate among these groups and guide the instruction.

6. At the beginning of the 1969-70 school year, all teachers in the Person County School System were given a choice of assignment in view of the implementation of total integration, and team teaching and individualized instruction in some, but not all of the schools. The plaintiff chose to be assigned to South Elementary School where team teaching and individualized instruction were to be utilized. Prior to the opening of the 1969-70 school year, the entire faculty of South Elementary School participated in a one week training session. The training was directed towards instruction in the areas of scheduling, materials, techniques of team teaching, grouping and ways of individualizing instruction.

7. At South Elementary School, the plaintiff was assigned to a team teaching position in the fourth grade with Mrs. Nancy Wagstaff and Mrs. Francis Wilkins, both of whom were white. Within the first six weeks of the school year, Mrs. Wilkins requested and was granted a transfer to another school not utilizing team teaching and individualized instruction. The evidence indicates that this transfer was made because of Mrs. Wilkins' inability to adjust to the team teaching techniques. Mrs. Wilkins' replacement in the team was Mrs. Greta Jeffers, who is black. The Wagstaff, Cannady, Jeffers team remained intact throughout the remainder of the 1969-70 school year. At the end of that year Mrs. Jeffers was promoted to Instruction Supervisor.

8. In the fall of 1969 difficulties began to arise in the team. The problems centered around plaintiff's lack of cooperation and seeming ambivalence to the entire team teaching concept. Both Mrs. Wagstaff and Mrs. Jeffers testified that the plaintiff was not cooperative and did not follow through on plans discussed and agreed upon in team meetings. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to meet her scheduled supervision for physical education, music and lunchroom as she had agreed with her team members. This failure did not happen occasionally but consistently, and eventually Mrs. Wagstaff and Mrs. Jeffers had to substitute in place of plaintiff. In addition to plaintiff's lack of cooperation vis-a-vis team teaching, plaintiff failed to implement individualized instruction. Both Mrs. Wagstaff and Mrs. Jeffers testified that they seldom, if ever, observed the plaintiff supervising individualized instruction, nor did she participate in the grouping of students.

9. Mrs. Jeffers and Mrs. Wagstaff eventually took their problems to Mr. Samuel Spencer, Principal of South Elementary School, and subsequently, in February or March of 1970, they met with Mr. Walter S. Rogers, Superintendent of the Person County Schools. Mr. Rogers requested that Dr. David W. Rogers, Associate Superintendent, and Mrs. Betty R. Stewart, Instruction Supervisor, go to the classroom, observe the plaintiff, and assist her in any manner they could.

10. Dr. Rogers visited the plaintiff in the classroom on several occasions thereafter. On each of these visits, Dr. Rogers observed that the plaintiff was not employing individualized group instruction and that many students did not appear to understand what they were doing. Dr. Rogers concluded that the plaintiff was not implementing individualized small group instruction; that there was a failure of student activity; that the instruction of the plaintiff was a surface treatment of the matters with little substance. Based upon his observation and conversations with the plaintiff, Dr. Rogers was of the opinion that the plaintiff was not competent to teach in the Person County Schools employing team teaching and individualized group instruction. These conclusions and opinions were reported to Superintendent Walter S. Rogers in the spring of 1970.

11. Mrs. Betty R. Stewart, Instruction Supervisor for the Person County Schools, also observed the plaintiff pursuant to Superintendent Roger's request. Mrs. Stewart was experienced in team teaching and individualized instruction, and had received training from the State Department of Public Instruction and attended several courses and lectures on the subject. Mrs. Stewart has been employed by the Person County School System for 22 years; 12 years as a classroom teacher, and 10 years as an Instruction Supervisor.

Mrs. Stewart testified that the plaintiff would not carry out or follow through with the plans of the team even though she participated in formulating them. On one occasion, Mrs. Stewart planned with the team to teach a science unit. It was agreed that Mrs. Wagstaff would be the lead teacher and Mrs. Stewart would be her aide. The plaintiff was to take one-half of the students to the library while the other half would stay for the instruction and on the next day, the students would reverse their positions. Schedules were carefully planned and worked out. On the day of the instruction, the class with nine group activities in progress had twenty minutes left when the plaintiff, in disregard of the plans, returned to the suite with the rest of the class. This completely disrupted the class and the returning students class the next day was not as effective since it was partially a repeat of the activities. Throughout the school year, Mrs. Stewart never observed the plaintiff...