Dickerson v. Dist. of Columbia
| Docket Number | Civil Action 09-2213 (PLF) |
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Parties | KENNETH DICKERSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Kenneth Dickerson formerly an assistant principal at Woodrow Wilson High School (“Wilson”), brought this suit against the District of Columbia alleging discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code.[1] On July 26, 2018, this Court denied the District's motion to dismiss Dr. Dickerson's fourth amended complaint. See Dickerson v. District of Columbia, 315 F.Supp.3d 446 (D.D.C. 2018). Now pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 138], filed on July 2, 2021. Upon careful consideration of the parties' briefs, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant the District's summary judgment motion.[2]
In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No. Child Left Behind Act (“NCLBA”) into law. See No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002) (), amended by Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802 (2015). The NCLBA required each state and the District of Columbia “to implement statewide accountability systems for all public schools and their students, to define education standards, and to establish a system of assessments for measuring whether students have met those standards.” Center for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1153 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Under the NCLBA, “a school's continued failure to make adequate yearly progress [(“AYP”)] toward meeting proficiency goals [gave] rise to assistance and intervention.” Id. at 1153-54.
Central to this case, individual schools that failed to meet AYP standards for five consecutive years were required to undergo “restructuring” by implementing one or more “alternative governance” arrangements. See Wayne C. Riddle et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL31284, K-12 Education: Highlights of the No. Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) at 5-6 (2008); see also NCLBA, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1116(b)(8)(A), 115 Stat. at 1485. The NCLBA enumerated five such arrangements:
NCLBA, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1116(b)(8)(B), 115 Stat. at 1485 (emphasis added). Separately, the NCLBA required local educational agencies to develop plans for the involvement of parents in the process of school improvement, including restructuring. See id. § 1118(a)(2)(A), 115 Stat. at 1501.
Dr. Dickerson, an African-American man, first began teaching at Wilson High School as a music teacher in September 1996. See Dickerson Depo. at 15:5-16; Complaint at ¶ 5; Answer at ¶ 5.[4] In October 1999, he was promoted to the position of dean of students. See Dickerson Depo. at 15:20-16:20; Pl. Ex. 16 - October 12, 1999 Letter [Dkt. No. 141-7] at 4. In September 2000, Dr. Dickerson was promoted to the position of assistant principal. See Complaint at ¶ 6; Answer at ¶ 6; Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶ 15. He was initially appointed to serve as assistant principal for a one-year term, and until 2008, Dr. Dickerson was reappointed each year to serve an additional one-year term. Powe Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6; see Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶¶ 15, 17-18. Dr. Dickerson further asserts that he was Wilson's senior assistant principal and thus was designated to be in charge whenever Wilson's principal was absent. See Complaint at ¶ 6; Dickerson Depo. at 39:21-41:5. The District denies this assertion. See Answer at ¶ 6. In 2001, Dr. Dickerson received an end-of-year evaluation of “Satisfactory, ” and in 2002 and 2003, he received end-of-year evaluations of “Outstanding.” See Pl. Ex. 13 - Dickerson Performance Evaluations [Dkt. No. 141-6] at 26-35. Dr. Dickerson claims that he received evaluations of “Exceeds Expectations” from 2003 through 2007, although those evaluations are missing from his employee file. See Complaint at ¶ 10; Dickerson Depo. at 88:13-89:11. He also claims that he did not receive a performance evaluation during the 2007-2008 school year. Dickerson Depo. at 87:14-16.
During the 2007-2008 school year, Michelle Rhee was the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”). Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶ 1; Powe Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8. In accordance with D.C. law, principals and assistant principals in the DCPS system served in yearlong appointments at the discretion of the Chancellor. See Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶¶ 2-3; D.C. Mun. Regs. subtit. 5-E, § 520.1-.2 (1997). Wilson was put into restructuring in the 2007-2008 school year pursuant to the NCLBA because it had failed to meet its AYP goals for five consecutive years. See Pl. Opp Facts at ¶ 5; Powe Decl. at ¶ 7; see also Def. Ex. AB - Quality School Review Guide (“QSR Guide”) [Dkt. No. 138-6] at 3 (). Wilson was one of ten high schools - and one of twenty-seven District of Columbia schools - put into restructuring that academic year. See Def. Ex. D - School Restructuring Slides (“Restructuring Slides”) [Dkt. No. 138-11] at 11. Dr. Dickerson knew that Wilson was in restructuring by at least February or March 2008. Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶ 16.
As part of its restructuring, Wilson underwent a Quality School Review (“QSR”) process. See Def. Facts at ¶¶ 6-8; Restructuring Slides at 11-15; see generally QSR Guide at 3-11 (describing the QSR process). During this process, Wilson stakeholders (including teachers, administrators, students, and parents) assessed the high school along a number of benchmarks in a “school self-assessment.” See QSR Guide at 7. In addition, an external review team independently assessed Wilson along the same benchmarks and reported their findings to Chancellor Rhee in a comprehensive QSR report. See QSR Guide at 7-9. The District asserts that Chancellor Rhee relied in part upon information gathered through this QSR process in making her final restructuring decision for Wilson and in selecting an appropriate alternative governance arrangement mandated by the NCLBA. See Def. Facts at ¶ 8; Powe Decl. at ¶ 11; Wilson Restructuring Plan at 3 (). In response, Dr. Dickerson asserts that this is not true and that Chancellor Rhee did not rely on the QSR review in making her restructuring decision. See Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶¶ 6, 8.
Also during the 2007-2008 school year, the Wilson Local School Restructuring Team (“LSRT”), a working group composed primarily of Wilson parents and staff, made recommendations to Chancellor Rhee regarding the school's restructuring. See Def. Facts at ¶ 7; Powe Decl. at ¶ 10; Def. Ex. AC - May 13, 2008 LSRT Memo (“May 13 LSRT Memo”) [Dkt. No. 138-7] at 2. On May 13, 2008, the Wilson LSRT recommended “[b]ring[ing] in a permanent principal with a background of strong educational leadership who is committed to restructuring, ” and it also recommended partially reconstituting “the Wilson staff/function, ” including Wilson's assistant principals. May 13 LSRT Memo at 2. According to the District, this recommendation advocated the “establish[ment] [of] a new leadership team for the school.” See Def. Facts at ¶¶ 9-10; May 13 LSRT Memo at 2; see also Pl. Ex. 9 - February 2, 2008 LSRT Memo [Dkt. No. 141-5] at 49 ().
Dr. Dickerson disputes this characterization of the recommendation and asserts that Wilson LSRT's recommendation was narrower in scope and recommended only the removal of the school principal. See Pl. Opp. Facts at ¶¶ 9-10; Powe Decl. at ¶ 10 (); see also May 13 LSRT Memo at 16-17 ( the May 13, 2008 LSRT meeting minutes, that “the discussion centered on the functions that we wanted to be reconstituted . . . which we felt were either poorly defined, or carried out by multiple people instead of one individual, or in need of examination by the new principal” (emphasis added)).
On May 15, 2008, Chancellor Rhee and DCPS finalized the Wilson Restructuring Plan. See Def. Facts at ¶ 11; Def. Ex. E - May 15, 2008 Email [Dkt. No. 138-12] at 2. The restructuring plan chose to implement the second “alternative governance” arrangement under the NCLBA to “replac[e] all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress.” NCLBA, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1116(b)(8)(B)(ii), 115 Stat. at 1485; see also Def. Facts at ¶ 12. Under the plan, Wilson's “[p]rincipal w[ould] be replaced” and “[o]ther administrators [would] have the option to reapply if they wish[ed] to remain at...
To continue reading
Request your trial