Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C20-5224 JLR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | ERIC DODGE, Plaintiff, v. EVERGREEN SCHOOL DISTRICT #114, et al., Defendants. |
Before the court are (1) Defendants Evergreen School District #144 ("EPS") and Jenae Gomes's (collectively, the "District") motion for summary judgment (Dist. 2d MSJ (Dkt. # 53)); (2) Defendant Caroline Garrett's (collectively with the District, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment (Garrett 2d MSJ (Dkt. # 56)); (3) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages (Damages MSJ (Dkt. # 64)); (4) Plaintiff Eric Dodge's motion for summary judgment against Ms. Gomes and Ms. Garrett (Dodge MSJ (Dkt. # 82)); and (5) Defendants' motion to exclude certain witness testimonies (MTE (Dkt. # 83)). Mr. Dodge opposes the Defendants' motions , and Defendants oppose Mr. Dodge's motion . The court has considered the motions, the parties' submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. The court also heard oral argument on Thursday, April 29, 2021. (4/29/21 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 96).) Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Defendants' motions for summary judgment and DENIES as moot the remaining motions.
Mr. Dodge, a former teacher with EPS at Wy'East Middle School ("Wy'East"), alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights after he brought a "Make America Great Again" ("MAGA") hat to training sessions before the 2019-2020 school year.1 Wy'East is a middle school in Vancouver, Washington with a "rapidly rising population of Latino/Latina students, and in some cases, potentially undocumented students." (Garrett Decl. (Dkt. # 55) ¶ 2.) Ms. Garrett served as principal of Wy'East for nine and half years and oversaw a three-year school improvement process mandated by the Office of
//Superintendent of Public Instruction ("OSPI") to "address the academic needs of and become more culturally responsive to the ELL (English Language Learner) students." (Id. ¶ 3; see also 2/5/21 Safarli Decl. (Dkt. # 58) ¶ 2, Ex. 1 ("Garrett Dep.") at 73:10-13.2) The court details the factual background before turning to the procedural background.
This suit centers on two encounters between Ms. Garrett and Mr. Dodge on August 22 and 23, 2019, and the aftermath of those incidents. The court first recounts the events of those two days. It then reviews Mr. Dodge's Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying ("HIB") complaint against Ms. Garrett, the District's ensuing investigation, and Mr. Dodge's appeal to the school board. Finally, it reviews Mr. Dodge's leave details.
On August 22, 2019, as part of addressing "OSPI's objective of creating an atmosphere within the school of tolerance and cultural sensitivity," Wy'East required all faculty to attend a cultural sensitivity training hosted by Dr. Shameem Rakha. No school was in session that day, but state-mandated testing for ELL students was taking place on school grounds. (Garrett Decl. ¶ 4.)
Mr. Dodge, slated to teach science that year, reported to the cultural sensitivity training. (Dodge Dep. at 49:18-24, 71:15-17.) He wore his MAGA hat from the parking lot to the front doors of the school, where he took the hat off and brought it with him to the training. (Id. at 74:1-14, 76:20-25, 80:25-81:2.) During the training, Mr. Dodge did not wear the hat but had it visible on his table. (Dodge Dep. at 89:8-2. 90:24-91:3; Garrett Dep. at 121:22-122:2; 1/29/21 McFarland Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C ("Gomes Dep.") at 115:22-25.4) He did not have any negative encounters with anyone about the hat during the training. (Dodge Dep. at 92:15-93:7; see Garrett Dep. at 114:11-13.)
After the training, Dr. Rakha and teachers communicated concerns about Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat to Ms. Garrett. (Garrett Dep. at 113:10-25, 118:9-15.) Dr. Rakha approached Ms. Garrett immediately and conveyed that she was "intimidated," "didn't feel safe," and that having the MAGA hat at a cultural competence training felt "like a slap in the face." (Id. at 113:17-114:7; Prihoda Decl. (Dkt. # 76) ¶¶ 4, 7; see 2/22/21 Estok Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. 19 ("Final Hoff Rep.") at 17.) Teachers also "expressed shock" and being upset about the hat for both personal and professional reasons. (Prihoda Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; see 1/29/21 McFarland Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B ("Matsumoto Dep.") at 41:6-235 (describing MAGA hat as "threatening"); Final Hoff Rep. at 11.) Teachers who were minorities or immigrants felt "Mr. Dodge's hat really hit close to home," causing fear,confusion and sadness. (Prihoda Decl. ¶ 9; see Matsumoto Dep. at 43:1-4, 44:5-9.) They also felt "concerned about how the students or their families would feel if they saw Mr. Dodge wearing the hat"; one teacher who worked with migrant families knew some of those families viewed "the MAGA slogan as a symbol of intolerance." (Prihoda Decl. ¶ 9; Matsumoto Dep. at 41:11-23.) Other teachers shared these similar concerns. (Thompson Decl. (Dkt. # 75) ¶ 2; Hettman Decl. (Dkt. # 78) ¶ 2; Wilding Decl. (Dkt. # 77) ¶ 4 ().)
Upon hearing the concerns, Ms. Garrett worried whether "a faculty member wearing or displaying the hat would promote a lack of trust in the school . . . and create an atmosphere of fear and vulnerability for students and/or their family." (Garrett Decl. ¶ 6.) Specifically, she knew that in the past summer, there were "frequent news reports of Spanish-speaking students . . . being separated from their parents, deported, and/or incarcerated in cages." (Id. ¶ 7.) Thus, "[e]nsuring an atmosphere of safety and acceptance" was "of particular import," and she worried that "Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat, if observed by ELL students and/or their parents, would alienate and jeopardize [their] feelings of safety and inclusion," which would be "the antithesis of the safe learning environment the school was trying to create." (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.)
Ms. Garrett consulted with Ms. Gomes, then Chief Human Resources Officer for EPS, on how to proceed. (Garrett Dep. at 123:25-124:6; Gomes Dep. at 107:20-24; Gomes Decl. ¶ 4; Garrett Decl. ¶ 9.) Ms. Garrett shared that staff had communicatedtheir discomfort over Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat. (Gomes Dep. at 108:3-6, 109:16-110:2; Garrett Dep. at 124:13-17; Gomes Decl. ¶ 4.) Ms. Gomes asked whether the hat was "causing a disruption to the training," to which Ms. Garrett responded, "Yes." (Gomes Dep. at 108:17-20.) Ms. Gomes recommended that Ms. Garrett talk with Mr. Dodge about how his hat made other staff "uncomfortable." (Id. at 108:22-109:19; Garrett Dep. at 125:3-11; Gomes Decl. ¶ 4.) They did not discuss whether Mr. Dodge could wear his MAGA hat. (Gomes Dep. at 111:21-112:5; Garrett Dep. at 125:12-14.)
Ms. Garrett spoke with Mr. Dodge that afternoon. (Garrett Dep. at 122:9-17; Dodge Dep. at 96:5-21.) After a "cordial" discussion about how the hat may be offensive, she shared that although she "won't tell [him] that [he] can't wear the hat," she advised him to "use [his] better judgment." (Dodge Dep. at 98:12-99:11.) Mr. Dodge understood that to mean he should not wear a MAGA hat at Wy'East. (Id. at 99:20-100:7.) Ms. Garrett believed this agreement "not only safeguard[ed] the interests of [Wy'East] and its students, but also OSPI's objectives of ensuring the ELL students . . . achieved greater success." (Garrett Decl. ¶ 8.) After the conversation, Ms. Garrett let Ms. Gomes know that the conversation had gone well and that there was a "mutual understanding" about the hat. (Garrett Dep. at 126:4-7; Gomes Dep. at 112:6-9, 115:6-116:5; see Gomes Decl. ¶ 4.)
The next day, on Friday, August 23, 2019, Mr. Dodge attended a staff training session at Evergreen High School. (Dodge Dep. at 115:10-116:9.) He again wore the MAGA hat in the parking lot, took the hat off upon entering the building, and carried itwith him into the training. (Id. at 116:6-9, 117:6-9, 124:8-16.) He did not interact with anyone about the hat. (Id. at 116:6-117:5, 121:22-122:3.) However, teachers from Wy'East again saw his hat, and a group of teachers discussed how Mr. Dodge's hat "caused disruption and concern among EPS staff"; one teacher notified Ms. Garrett that Mr. Dodge had again brought the hat to a training and about the teachers' concerns. (Wilding Decl. ¶ 3; Prihoda Decl. ¶ 9; Matsumoto Dep. at 51:14-24, 52:12-16, 53:9-14; Garrett Dep. at 134:13-25.) Ms. Garrett reported feeling "upset that [Mr. Dodge] was being insubordinate" and had again upset his colleagues. (Garrett Dep. at 140:12-19.)
Ms. Garrett again consulted with Ms. Gomes on how to proceed. (See Gomes Dep. at 112:17-22; Garrett Dep. at 136:12-23, 139:15-19; Gomes Decl. ¶ 5.) Ms. Garrett informed Ms. Gomes that staff contacted her regarding Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat a second time. (Gomes Dep. at 112:19-22.) Ms. Gomes described the conversation as follows:
[T]he premise for me was, "Was it being a disruption to the school?" whatever was occurring. It didn't matter what the situation was. It was just "Is it disrupting?" That was the form of our conversation and where I kept my questions directed towards.
(Id. at 114:12-16.) Ms. Gomes recommended another conversation to set a "clear directive" about "not having the hat in the training where it was causing the disruption to staff." (Id. at 118:7-14; see also Gomes ...
To continue reading
Request your trial