EEOC v. SOMERSET COUNTY BD. OF EDUC., Civ.A. No. R-90-2161.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ.A. No. R-90-2161. |
| Citation | 788 F. Supp. 249 |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Arlene T. Shadoan, Regina M. Andrew and David Norken, E.E.O.C., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Douglas M. Topolski, Miles & Stockbridge, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
Pending before the Court in the above-captioned case is defendant Somerset County Board of Education's ("Board") motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.1989), the Court will decide the motion without need for a hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.1
Summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure serves the important purpose of "conserving judicial time and energy by avoiding unnecessary trial and by providing a speedy and efficient summary disposition" of litigation in which the plaintiff fails to make some minimal showing that the defendant may be liable on the claims alleged. Bland v. Norfolk & Southern R.R. Co., 406 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir.1969). The applicable standards for analyzing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 are well-established. The defendant2 seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the defendant has sustained this burden, this Court must consider whether, when assessing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a "fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff...." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Pulliam Investment Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.1987). That is, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient" to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id., see also Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 958-59 (4th Cir.1984).
Particular care is required when motive is at issue, as "summary judgment is seldom appropriate in cases wherein particular states of mind are decisive as elements of claim or defense." Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979). This is bolstered by the fact that "resolution of intent depends so much on the credibility of the witnesses, which can best be determined by the trier of facts after observation of the demeanor of the witnesses during direct and cross-examination." Morrison v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 601 F.2d 139, 141 (4th Cir.1979). It is against these standards that the Court shall review defendant's motion.
Reading the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court finds the following record upon which it must determine if summary judgment is appropriate.
Joanne Scott ("Scott"), the person who was allegedly discriminated against on the basis of her age, was born on March 15, 1941, and therefore was 47 years old when the challenged decision of the Board was made in the summer of 1988. Scott has been employed by the Board since September 1969. From 1969 until 1975 she served as a teacher at Westover Elementary School ("Westover"). In 1975 Scott became a teaching vice principal at Westover, where she taught a full class schedule while performing administrative duties. In 1978 she was appointed to the position of teaching principal at Westover, a position that she continued to hold until 1988.
Scott's tenure as teaching principal at Westover was interrupted briefly in 1986. Pursuant to a proposed redistricting plan, the student population at Westover was to have been increased from 120-140 to 300-400 students. The then superintendent of schools, John Lynch ("Lynch"), proposed moving Scott from the teaching principal position back into a full-time classroom position. Scott contacted Lynch and requested to be moved to another school. Lynch honored the request by assigning Scott to a teaching position at Crisfield Elementary School. Lynch then changed his mind and assigned Scott to the principal position at Princess Anne Elementary School ("Princess Anne"). The redistricting plan, however, was rejected by the State Board of Education and Scott was returned to her previous position, as principal of Westover.
In June of 1988, Lynch resigned as superintendent and was replaced by Dr. H. DeWayne Whittington. Whittington had served previously as the assistant superintendent. In addition to replacing the superintendent, the school board decided to consolidate four teaching principal positions into two principal positions. One of the consolidations involved the merger of the Westover teaching principal position with that of another elementary school to form one principal position.
On June 23, 1988, Whittington met with Scott and explained to her that she would have to apply for the consolidated principal positions if she were interested. Whittington also suggested that Scott apply for the principal position at Princess Anne as the position had recently become vacant.
On June 28, 1988, Scott sent a letter to Whittington along with a resume requesting to be considered for the two consolidated elementary principal positions and the principal vacancy at Princess Anne.
Pursuant to Board policy, Whittington had the discretion to transfer those persons holding supervisory or administrative positions to principal positions without Board approval. As to persons not holding supervisory or administrative positions, appointment to a principal position required a nomination by the superintendent and the approval of the Board. Because Scott's position involved supervisory and administrative functions, she could have been transferred to a principal position at Whittington's discretion, without Board approval.
Whittington elected to fill the two consolidated principal positions by transfer, and therefore neither vacancy announcements nor interviews were necessary in connection with those positions. The persons chosen to fill the positions were Mauguerite Robinson, born on July 24, 1933 and Frank O'Rourke, born on October 3, 1937.
Whittington, however, elected to fill the Princess Anne Principal position by announcing a vacancy and accepting applications rather than transferring eligible persons from within the system. The vacancy announcement for the Princess Anne Principal position listed the following as required qualifications: 1) certification as an elementary school principal or be eligible for said certification under the requirements adopted by the Maryland State Board of Education; 2) a minimum of five years successful teaching experience; 3) knowledge of the elementary school program and a sound understanding of elements of good instruction; 4) demonstrated a successful experience in previous positions; 5) a strong background in the area of elementary and middle school education; 6) knowledge of current curriculum practices and trends; and 7) the ability to develop an effective working relationship with students, staff, and the general public.
Whittington was charged with the responsibility of recommending a candidate to the Board for the Princess Anne position. The Board instructed Whittington to adhere to the following guidelines in making his recommendations: 1) the best qualified candidate was to receive first consideration; 2) present employees of the board were to receive preference if their qualifications were essentially the same as an outsider; 3) gender and age, among other things, were to be given no consideration; and 4) the candidates were required to be evaluated and assessed in the areas of (a) teaching experience, (b) supervisory and administrative experience, (c) work experience, (d) efficiency ratings and/or recommendations, (e) personal qualifications, and (f) eligibility for certification by the Maryland Board of Education.
Prior to Whittington making his recommendation, the candidates were to be interviewed by a committee of six individuals ("Interview Committee") that had been selected by Whittington and the Board. The Interview Committee was charged with making a recommendation to Whittington, in rank order, of those candidates that the Interview Committee deemed worthy of consideration for the position. After interviewing 10 candidates over two days the Interview Committee ranked Scott first, and Cheryl Richardson second among the five persons found to be worthy of consideration. Despite Scott's number one ranking by the Interview Committee, Whittington elected to recommend Richardson to the Board. The Board then approved Whittington's choice.
At the time of her selection Richardson was 30 years old and her qualifications included: 1) a Bachelor's Degree in special education; 2) a Master's Degree in Communicative Disorders; 3) high school special education teacher in Somerset County for 8 years; and 4) GED instructor for 2 years. Richardson had no elementary teaching or administrative experience.
Scott had the following relevant qualifications at the time of her denial: 1) Master's Degree in Education with a concentration in Administration and Supervision; 2) an Advanced Professional Certification equalling thirty credit hours; 3) certification by the State of Maryland for the position of principal/supervisor; 4) elementary school teacher for 25 years; 5) elementary school vice principal for 2 years; 6) and teaching principal for 10 years.
Over the twenty year period Scott had been employed by the Board, she had received periodic performance appraisals all of which rated her work as commendable. From 1980 through 1988, a period during which Scott served as a teaching principal, former superintendent Lynch evaluated Scott's performance in planning and organization, personnel management, administrative functions, community-public relations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial