Franklin v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-02812-JPM-tmp |
| Decision Date | 15 December 2021 |
| Parties | CLEON L. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Defendant Shelby County Board of Education's (“SCBE”) Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October 4, 2021. (ECF No. 40; Memorandum, ECF No. 40-1.) Plaintiff Cleon L. Franklin (“Mr. Franklin”) filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 3, 2021. (ECF No. 48.) On November 17, 2021, Defendant filed a Reply. (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
This employment discrimination and retaliation action arises out of Defendant SCBE's alleged termination[1] of Plaintiff. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 31-43.) Plaintiff is a black male.
(Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, “Def. SUMF, ” ECF No. 41 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff began employment with SCBE, the public school district for Shelby County, Tennessee, in 2002 as a teacher and obtained tenure in 2005. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) From 2011 until his employment with SCBE terminated in 2018, Plaintiff held the position of Director of Virtual Schools and Online Learning (“Director of Virtual Schools”). (Id. ¶ 4.) As Director of Virtual Schools, Plaintiff: (1) “oversaw the Memphis Virtual School” (“MVS”), a fulltime online school for sixth- through twelfth-graders and adults working toward a high-school diploma; (2) “oversaw approximately 14 blended learning schools”; (3) was “in charge of the district's credit recovery program where students who had failed a course could” retake that course online[2]; and (4) helped the “college careers technology and education department to integrate technical courses in grades as early as kindergarten.” (Franklin Dep., ECF No. 41-1 at PageID 297-99.)
Most of the remaining material facts are disputed. The Court discusses in the sections that follow whether the Parties' evidence creates a dispute for trial as to the facts as they arise throughout the analysis. Plaintiff contends that in May 2018, he told his supervisor, Dr. Terrence Brown (“Dr. Brown”) that he and his wife, Anasa Franklin (“Mrs. Franklin”), were going to sue SCBE and that Dr. Brown responded, “That type of shit will get you fired.” (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 32.) Defendant contends that this exchange never occurred. (ECF No. 40-1 at PageID 270; Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 32.) Plaintiff also contends that immediately following the alleged exchange and through July 2018, Dr. Brown and, in some cases, Dr. Brown's direct supervisor, Dr. Joris Ray (“Dr. Ray”), the Assistant Superintendent of Academic Operations (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 6-7), left Plaintiff out of meetings, denied him a periodic check-in, made him conduct inventory, which was someone else's job, and “openly harassed [him] about speaking out against late enrollments and his refusal to change grades.”[3] (ECF No. 48 at PageID 549-50 ¶ 18, 20, 22, 24-27.) (citations omitted.) Plaintiff also contends that, on June 13, 2018, he received an “email announcement from Drs. Brown and Ray that MVS was under investigation and to stop all VS movement.”[4] (Id. at PageID 549 ¶ 21.) (citing ECF No. 49-22; ECF No. 49-1 ¶ 49.)
On August 10, 2018, Chantay Branch (“Ms. Branch”), Defendant's Employee Relations Director, who was “responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by SCBE employees” (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 8), sent an email to Plaintiff (see ECF No. 49-25). In the email, Ms. Branch states, (Id.) During her investigation, in July 2018, Ms. Branch interviewed the following individuals who Plaintiff had supervised: Katrina Creswell (“Ms. Creswell”), an academic manager; Scott Holcomb (“Mr. Holcomb”), a former learning management support advisor who was no longer employed by SCBE at the time of his interview; Renea Brown (“Ms. Brown”), a course design associate in the Virtual Schools Department who subsequently also provided a written statement to Ms. Branch; Debra Wallace (“Ms. Wallace”), the then-acting operating manager in the Virtual Schools Department; and Lisa White (“Ms. White”), who also provided a written statement. (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶¶ 913.) As a whole, Ms. Branch's interview notes and the statements from Ms. Brown and Ms. White allege that Plaintiff often made demeaning comments to his staff, called them the “N” word on various occasions and used other profanity, and failed to adequately manage his team. (See id.) (citations omitted.) (See also ECF No. 41-2 at PagelD 489-96; ECF No. 41-4 at PagelD 505-06.) Four out the five interviewees alleged or otherwise referenced an incident in which Plaintiff called either Mr. Holcomb specifically “n[ ]r” / “n[---]a” or all of his staff in attendance “n[ ]rs” / “n[---]as”; Mr. Holcomb stated that he was not a “n[----]r” / “n[---]a” or that he was offended by the comment; and Plaintiff began to explain the “N” word's meaning. (See ECF No. 41-2 at PagelD 489, 492-93, 495-96; ECF No. 41-4 at PagelD 505.) The fifth interviewee, Ms. Wallace, also noted that Plaintiff called his team “[d]umb n[---]as”; it is unclear if this was in regard to the same purported event. (ECF No. 41-2 at PageID 494.)
Ms. Brown additionally provided Ms. Branch with a recording of a meeting in which Plaintiff “(1) admits to yelling at and cussing out his subordinates (11:20 mark); (2) uses profanity (12:40/23:00 mark); and (3) uses the racial slur ‘n[----]r' (21:00 mark).” (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 35.) (citations omitted.)
Following Ms. Branch's interviews, on July 18, 2018, Ms. Branch and Employee Relations Manager Michael Woods (“Mr. Woods”) met with Plaintiff “regarding the allegations against him.” (Id. ¶ 14.) During the meeting, Plaintiff stated (Id.) Plaintiff contends that, as a result of an SCBE-organized professional development training with John Norris (“Mr. Norris”) in June 2017, Plaintiff “implemented ‘safe spaces' where [he] and his staff could openly discuss personal biases and ways to eradicate them from the workplace in a judgment free environment”; he asserts that all of his comments “were made during a safe space meeting in November 2017.” (ECF No. 48 at PageID 548-49 ¶ 15, 561.)
During the July 18, 2018 meeting, Ms. Branch told Plaintiff that she was going to recommend to the Superintendent that Plaintiff be terminated. (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 15.) (citing Branch Dep., ECF No. 41-2 at PagelD 477.) (See also ECF No. 41-2 at PagelD 481.) The reasons for the termination were that Plaintiff engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession through his inappropriate comments and behavior that he demonstrated with his staff and leadership failures, i.e., lack of systems, protocols, processes. (Id.) (citing Branch Dep., ECF No. 41-2 at PageID 477.) “Plaintiff's use of racial epithets with his staff factored into Ms. Branch's recommendation because such slurs are inappropriate for any SCBE employee and especially so for high-level employees such as directors.” (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 16.) (citing Branch Dep., ECF No. 41-2 at PageID 477:2-21.)
Defendant asserts that “[o]n July 23, 2018, Ms. Branch sent Plaintiff a letter confirming that he had been placed on [unpaid] administrative leave effective July 19, 2018, and that a recommendation to dismiss him as a tenured teacher would be made to SCBE's board.” (Id. ¶ 17.) (citing ECF No. 41-2 at PagelD 476; id. at PagelD 497.) Plaintiff responds that, in the July 18, 2018 meeting, Ms. Branch (ECF No. 48-1 ¶ 17.) (citing ECF No. 49-13.) “On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to Ms. Branch and others indicating that he was resigning his employment with SCBE.” (Def. SUMF, ECF No. 41 ¶ 20.) (citing ECF No. 41-1 at PagelD 320-21; id. at PagelD 350-51.)
A white male, Vinson Thompson (“Mr. Thompson”) was hired to replace Plaintiff as Director of Virtual Schools. (Id. ¶ 21.)
On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed charges of race and gender discrimination and retaliation against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the EEOC dated August 12, 2020. (ECF No. 1-1.) On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges gender discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. (Id. ¶ 37-39.) On October 4, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 40; Memorandum, ECF No. 40-1.) Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 3, 2021. (ECF No. 48.) On November 17, 2021, Defendant filed a Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 60.)
A party is entitled to summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A fact is ‘material' for purposes of summary judgment if proof of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial