Davis ex rel. E.D. v. Quaker Valley Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 13-1329 |
| Parties | SHINIC DAVIS, individually and also on behalf of E.D., her minor son as his mother and natural guardian Plaintiffs, v. QUAKER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BARBARA MELLETT, HEIDI ONDEK, JOSEPH CLAPPER and ERIK LINDEMANN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Shinic Davis ("Davis") accuses the Quaker Valley School District ("QVSD" or the "district"), Dr. Joseph Clapper ("Clapper"), Dr. Heidi Ondek ("Ondek"), Dr. Barbara Mellett ("Mellett"), and Erik Lindemann ("Lindemann" and collectively with QVSD, Clapper, Ondek, and Mellett, "defendants") of subjecting her son to repeated and wrongful discipline as compared to other students, as well as wrongfully denying her, as a parent, access to the school. Davis asserts race-based discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq ("Title VI") and a race-based discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on behalf of her son, E.D.1, a race-based discrimination claim under § 1981 and retaliation claims under Title VI and § 1981 on behalf of herself, and constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violationsof her free speech rights and both her son's and her equal protection rights. Davis additionally asserts companion retaliation claims for E.D. and herself under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 PA. STAT. §§ 951-963 (the "PHRA").2
Presently before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims asserted by Davis on her behalf and on behalf of her son. (ECF No. 46). Defendants also filed a brief in support of their motion, (ECF No. 47), a concise statement of material facts, (ECF No. 48), an appendix, (ECF No. 49), a reply brief, (ECF No. 59), a response to Davis's counterstatement of material facts, (ECF No. 60), and a supplemental appendix, (ECF No. 61). In response to the motion, Davis filed an opposition brief, an appendix, a statement of material facts that both responded to defendants' concise statement of material facts and included a separate counterstatement, and a sur-reply brief. (ECF Nos. 53-55, 66). The parties also jointly submitted a combined concise statement of material facts. (ECF No. 65).
The matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow in this memorandum opinion, defendants' motion will be granted and judgment will be entered against Davis on all claims.
All material facts set forth below are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Additional material facts may be discussed elsewhere in this memorandum opinion, in context. The parties' combined concise statement of material facts ("CCSMF") is docketed at ECF No. 65 and is cited to that docket number. The CCSMF in this case is especially convoluted. The underlying recordhad to be reviewed in order to determine those facts that are reasonably disputed, and those that are not. In doing so, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of Davis, the nonmoving party. Inferences based upon speculation or conjecture, however, do not create a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 382 n.12 (3d Cir. 1990).
E.D. was a second-grade student at Osborne Elementary School ("Osborne" or the "school") during the 2011-2012 school year. (ECF No. 65 ¶ 1). Osborne is part of QVSD. (Id.). At all relevant times, defendant Clapper was the superintendent of QVSD; defendant Ondek was the assistant superintendent of QVSD; defendant Mellett was the principal of Osborne; and defendant Lindemann was E.D.'s primary second-grade teacher. (Id. ¶ 2). Lindemann has been a teacher for sixteen years. (Id. ¶ 6).
E.D. attended first grade at Edgeworth Elementary School ("Edgeworth"), which is the other elementary school in the district. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4). Davis transferred her son to Osborne for the next school year. (Id. ¶ 5). She testified that she felt the teachers at Edgeworth did not always treat her son fairly, but that those situations were satisfactorily resolved. (ECF No. 49 at 17 (Davis Depo. at 63:2-17)). Her reasons for transferring E.D. to Osborne were because she moved and a new person was to going to become the gifted services teacher at Edgewood. (Id. at 15 (Davis Depo. at 55:11-56:10)).
Lindemann's second-grade class consisted of sixteen students, and although there were students from a number of backgrounds, E.D. was the only African American student. (ECF No. 65 ¶ 7). Lindemann organized the desks in his classroom into clusters and would sometimeshave the students rotate from one cluster to another to work on different subjects while he moved around the room. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). Because of the number of students, there was always a cluster of desks open. (Id. ¶ 8). Students were generally expected to stay in their seats during direct instruction and while working independently, but defendants acknowledge that there is often a lot of activity in a second-grade classroom and some amount of movement is expected and tolerated. (Id. ¶ 10).
Davis testified that, as early as September 2011, she began having concerns that the school was treating E.D. unfairly and accusing him of things he did not do. (ECF No. 49 at 26 (Davis Depo. at 99:21-100:11)). These concerns were based upon her conversations with E.D. (Id.).
E.D. and other students attended a program at the YMCA in the morning and then rode a bus to the school. (Id. ¶ 14). Emails from Lindemann and Mellett to Davis reported problems with E.D.'s behavior on the bus in October 2011. (ECF No. 49-2 at 322, 324-26 (Emails)). Lindemann describes one incident where E.D. was moving too fast and bumping into people while getting off the bus and that he would not listen to the teacher on duty. (Id. at 322 (Lindemann Email)). Lindemann told Davis that E.D. denied having done anything wrong when he spoke with him afterwards. (Id.). E.D. and D.I., another student who rode the bus and attended the program at the YMCA, often came into conflict. (ECF No. 65 ¶ 14). The court will discuss D.I. in more detail later.
In another incident early in the school year, several first-grade girls told school officials that E.D. hit them in the face in the cafeteria. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 26; 49-1 at 185 (Mellett Depo. at 52:13-53:3)). Security camera footage showed E.D. walking toward the girls, but the camerarotated away from the scene. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 26; 49-1 at 185 (Mellett Depo. at 53:7-12)). Mellett attempted to discuss the alleged incident with E.D., but Davis picked him up from school before she could finish the conversation. (ECF No. 49-1 at 186 (Mellett Depo. at 54:8-13)). Davis denies that E.D. struck the first-grade girls, and the parties appear to dispute whether E.D. was punished for this incident. (ECF No. 65 ¶ 26).
This lawsuit primarily centers on E.D.'s behavioral problems in Lindemann's classroom and the school's handling of that conduct. The parties present starkly different depictions. Generally speaking, defendants aver that E.D. had significant behavioral problems, and while other students occasionally engaged in the same behaviors as E.D., no other student did so with the same frequency or intensity. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 31; 49 at 134, 139, 166 (Lindemann Depo. at 45:5-6, 64:9-66:5, 170:1-171:2)). According to Lindemann, these behaviors included outbursts of anger, screaming, and crying; jumping, and squirming in his seat; throwing his pencil; rolling around the floor; and pushing and bumping into other students. (ECF No. 49 at 134, 139, 166 (Lindemann Depo. at 45:5-6, 63:9-66:5, 170:1-172:21)). Lindemann testified that E.D. threw his chair in the "proximity" of other students on at least one occasion, although Lindemann did not know whether E.D. intended to throw the chair at the other students. (Id. at 161 (Lindemann Depo. at 151:19-152:11)). Lindemann testified that E.D. would often tease other students, get in their faces, and once told a girl that he was going to make a robot and send it to her house to kill her parents. (Id. at 164 (Lindemann Depo. at 164:22-165:9)).
E.D. testified that while he was not perfect, he generally did not misbehave and that he would often be blamed and punished for things he did not do, while other students would not bepunished for similar conduct.3 (Id. at 117-19 120 (E.D. Depo. at 58:12-15, 65:1-14, 66:10-23, 72:21-73:8)). Davis likewise avers in her filings that the school often accused her son of things he did not do, and that, while not perfect, his behavior was typical of a seven-year-old child and similar to other students in the class. (ECF Nos. 55 at 3 (Pl.'s Brief); 65 ¶¶ 30, 41, 84). However, Davis admits that she was never present during any of the times school officials claim her son misbehaved and that her knowledge of E.D.'s behavior comes from conversations with E.D. and others. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 30; 49 at 52 (Davis Depo. at 202:3-21)).
Lindemann testified that other parents who volunteered in his classroom commented that E.D.'s behaviors were bad for the class environment. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 36; 49 at 158-59 (Lindemann Depo. at 141:18-142:4)). Davis testified that when she spoke to other parents about E.D.'s behavior, they said they did not see anything out of the ordinary. (ECF Nos. 65 ¶ 36; 49 at 50 (Davis Depo. at 194:8-16)).
The parties agree that Lindemann would sometimes have E.D. sit by himself in an open cluster of desks, but they disagree about the reason. (ECF No. 65 ¶ 33). According to defendants, Lindemann would move E.D. when he misbehaved; a strategy that teachers employ to help a student regroup and refocus. (Id. ¶ 33). Davis denies that it was an isolated occurrence or a response to a specific act on the part of her son. (Id.). Mellett testified that "the behaviors [E.D.] exhibited created a situation whereby we needed to be more mindful of what he was doing in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial