Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–2288.,11–2288. |
| Citation | 710 F.3d 668 |
| Parties | Geraldine A. FUHR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HAZEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ON BRIEF:Mark Granzotto, Mark Granzotto, P.C., Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellant. Timothy J. Mullins, John L. Miller, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Appellee. Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
In 1999, Plaintiff–Appellant Geraldine Fuhr filed a successful lawsuit to be instated as varsity boys basketball coach at Hazel Park High School, where she had been employed as varsity girls basketball coach. For five years she coached both the girls and boys varsity basketball teams. In 2006, she was removed from her position coaching varsity girls basketball. In this action, she claims that her dismissal as the varsity girls basketball coach and other acts of harassment are a result of her 1999 suit. The district court granted Defendant–Appellee Hazel Park School District's motion for summary judgment, finding that Fuhr had failed to state a prima facie case for her claims. In this appeal, Fuhr is only pursuing her retaliation claim and has abandoned her claims for gender discrimination and hostile work environment. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Multiple cases are involved in the background of this case. Although the parties dispute some of the facts, they are presented as characterized by Plaintiff Geraldine Fuhr because at the summary judgment phase the court views all of the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Tysinger v. Police Dep't of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 569, 572 (6th Cir.2006).
Since 1989 Fuhr has been employed as a teacher and athletic coach by Defendant Hazel Park School District (“Hazel Park”) at Hazel Park High. In October 1999, Plaintiff, then varsity girls basketball coach, sued Defendant in federal court. See Fuhr v. Sch. Dist. of the City of Hazel Park, 131 F.Supp.2d 947 (E.D.Mich.2001) (“Fuhr I ”). In that case, Fuhr alleged that Defendant had discriminated against her because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”), and Michigan's Title VII parallel, the Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan Compiled Laws § 37.2101 (“ELCRA”), by failing to hire her as the head coach of the high school boys varsity basketball team. In August 2001, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff. In October 2001, in response to Fuhr's post-trial motion for equitable relief, the court ordered that she be instated as the varsity boys basketball coach.
Per the district court's order, Hazel Park installed Fuhr as head coach for the boys varsity basketball team. Hazel Park also allowed her to remain coach for the girls varsity basketball team. However, Hazel Park appealed the district court's judgment, and it was not made final until it was affirmed by this Court in 2004. See Fuhr v. Sch. Dist. of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753 (6th Cir.2004). Fuhr served in both positions from 2001 to 2006.
As Fuhr I continued through the courts, an unrelated case was filed in 2001 by Michigan parents against the Michigan High School Athletic Association (“MHSAA”) alleging in part that it violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, because the girls basketball season was not held at the same time as the boys season. A federal district court ordered that the girls and boys seasons be realigned so that the boys and girls played at the same time. See Cmtys. for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 178 F.Supp.2d 805 (W.D.Mich.2001), vacated in part,544 U.S. 1012, 125 S.Ct. 1973, 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005). This order was affirmed, vacated, reheard, and affirmed again up and down the federal courts; in April 2007 the order to realign the girls and boys seasons was made final. See Cmtys. for Equity v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 459 F.3d 676 (6th Cir.2006), cert. denied,549 U.S. 1322, 127 S.Ct. 1912, 167 L.Ed.2d 566 (2007).
As both Fuhr I and the MHSAA case made their way through the courts, the atmosphere at Fuhr's workplace, Hazel Park High, was quite contentious. Fuhr had a rocky relationship with a number of her colleagues, superiors, and the parents of team members. The following acts occurred:
• Defendant disciplined some of Plaintiff's best players, suspending them from team participation. Defendant submitted evidence justifying the disciplinary action.
• The school's booster club bought an ice machine and decided to place the machine in the football coach's office, an area only accessible by males. Hazel Park High's athletic director and Plaintiff's supervisor, Tom Pratt, did not tell Plaintiff of the existence of the booster club's ice machine when the school's main ice machine malfunctioned.
• Defendant denied the varsity boys basketball team permission to use the football locker room, which is the locker room closest to the main gym.
• Hazel Park High's athletic director and Plaintiff's supervisor, Tom Pratt, ordered the varsity boys basketball team's custom uniforms late, causing the uniforms to arrive after the basketball season began. Pratt has been late ordering uniforms for other school teams as well.
• One of Plaintiff's teams was denied the use of the school gym because the City Recreation Center had already reserved the gym for the time Plaintiff wanted.
• Defendant denied Plaintiff's request for funds to pay an athletic trainer to do injury evaluation of the varsity basketball players during basketball practice. Due to the denial, Plaintiff had to secure a trainer through funds from a basketball account. For budgeting reasons, this policy applies to all sports.
• Pratt did not comply with his responsibility as athletic director to evaluate all of Hazel Park High's coaches on an annual basis. Pratt evaluated Plaintiff only once in the five years she was coach for both varsity basketball teams.
• Clint Adkins, the school board president, set up a room for community membersto complain about Fuhr at the city's community center. Additionally, Tom Pratt did not inform Fuhr about a petition circulated by parents which called for her removal as varsity boys basketball coach, even though he was aware of the petition.
In one November 2005 conversation Don Vogt, the principal of Hazel Park High, spoke with Fuhr, saying R. 96–4 at 417.
After Fuhr I became final in 2004, but before the MHSAA case became final in 2007, Defendant removed Plaintiff as the coach of the girls varsity basketball team on June 1, 2006. Plaintiff remained varsity boys basketball coach. Given the ongoing litigation in the MHSAA case at the time, Hazel Park defended Plaintiff's removal as an effort to be proactive should the boys and girls seasons need to be realigned pursuant to a court order. Hazel Park reasoned that one coach would have difficulty overseeing two teams that played simultaneously.
In February 2007 Fuhr filed a charge of discrimination with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”), alleging “[s]ince I won a gender-based lawsuit against the employer, I have been harassed, a varsity girls' basketball job has been taken away from me, my authority has been undermined, and I have not been supported.” R. 96–8. Plaintiff indicated she was alleging discrimination based on sex and in retaliation for Fuhr I. She reported that the earliest instance of retaliation occurred on April 27, 2006. Plaintiff went on to file two more charges with the MDCR for sex discrimination and retaliation in December 2008 and July 2009. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) attempted to mediate the lawsuit. After mediation between the parties failed, the EEOC issued Fuhr a right to sue letter.
On April 18, 2008, Fuhr filed the present action in district court. In her amended complaint, filed in August 2009, Plaintiff alleged that ever since she prevailed at the first trial, Defendant has discriminated and retaliated against her in various ways. Specifically, she argued that Defendant dismissed her as the girls varsity coach in retaliation for winning the first trial. She also alleged that “because of her sex,” or “because of her complaints” regarding her unfair treatment, Defendant conducted a biased internal investigation, has treated her differently than male coaches, and has demeaned and belittled her by, among other things, unfairly disciplining her team members, failing to provide her with “all resources she needs and accusing her of failing to comply with departmental regulations.” R. 41 ¶ 11(A)-(H).
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and ELCRA. On October 15, 2010, Hazel Park filed a motion for summary judgment. The essence of Plaintiff's retaliation claims was that Defendant's mistreatment of her is in retaliation for her current and prior lawsuits, her complaints with the EEOC and MDCR, and her “internal complaint against discrimination.” 1 Plaintiff filed a response to which Defendant replied. The district court issued an Opinion and Order granting Hazel Park's motion for summary judgment on all claims on September 19, 2011. Fuhr filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2011. Plaintiff limits her appeal to the grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claims. Appellant Br. at 2.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Tysing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Educ. of the Highland Local Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
...and retaliation claims." Nelson v. Christian Bros. Univ., 226 Fed.Appx. 448, 454 (6th Cir.2007) ; see also Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668, 673 n. 2 (6th Cir.2013).8 An analogy employed by another district court shows just why discrimination against a transgender employee consti......
-
George v. Youngstown State Univ.
...discrimination complaint and his ultimate termination is so long as to be fatal to his prima facie case. But Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District , 710 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Nassar , 570 U.S. 338, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503, on which the dissent relies, ......
-
Whitman v. City of Burton
...in time are certainly not sufficient to support causation—and, in fact, weigh against finding causation. See Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668, 675–676 (C.A.6, 2013) (holding in the context of a Title VII retaliation claim that a two-year gap between the plaintiff's protected acti......
-
Whitman v. City of Burton
...then whistleblowing and retaliation that occur far apart in time certainly weigh against finding causation. See Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668, 675–676 (C.A.6, 2013) (holding that in the context of a Title VII retaliation claim, a two-year gap between a plaintiff's protected ac......
-
Time Is On Your SideOr At Least, It Can Be
...a lack of temporal proximity alone can be fatal to an attempt to establish a causal connection." Fuhr v. Hazel Park School Dist., 710 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. Bottom Line While the Court tempered its statement by limiting it to "circumstances such as [Furh's]," without specifically clarifying wha......
-
The Supreme Court Chipping Away at Title VII: Strengthening It or Killing It?
...participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.”). 152. See Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668, 674 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The [retaliation] prima facie case consists of four elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in activity protected under Ti......