Gannon v. Cannon Cnty.
| Decision Date | 29 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:10-cv-00847 |
| Parties | TERRY GANNON, Plaintiff, v. CANNON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Cannon County, Tennessee, Board of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (Doc. No. 17), filed with a Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 18), Statements of Undisputed Material Fact (Doc. No. 19), and supporting depositions (Doc. No. 20-1 & 20-2). Plaintiff Terry Gannon filed a Response (Doc. No. 21), a supporting Brief (Doc. No. 22), a Response to Defendant's Statements of Undisputed Material Fact (Doc. No. 23), and an additional Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. No. 24). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff was initially employed by Defendant in the fall of 1981 at Cannon County High School, where he taught three subjects and was the head coach of the boys' basketball team.Plaintiff continued to teach and coach at Cannon County High School until 1990, when he was appointed principal of East Side Elementary School. He also coached boys' basketball at East Side for two years and girls' basketball for the last two years he served as principal.
Edd Diden was appointed to be the Director of Schools by the Cannon County Board of Education and assumed the position on July 1, 2004. Plaintiff testified that he performed his position as principal without incident or reprimand before Defendant hired Mr. Diden. Shortly after becoming Director of Schools, Mr. Diden met with the principals of the Cannon County schools in an effort to get to know them and the needs of the schools. Mr. Diden met with Plaintiff in September of 2004. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Diden questioned him about his health problems at the meeting, including how much time Plaintiff would be away from work due to those health problems. Plaintiff responded that he would miss work "from time to time." Plaintiff further testified that Mr. Diden questioned whether Plaintiff had considered retiring due to his health problems.
Mr. Diden testified that his impression from conversations and visits to East Side was that Plaintiff appeared to be absent from East Side often. Mr. Diden also testified that he received reports that Plaintiff was often arriving late to school, leaving early, running errands and leaving to get coffee. Plaintiff and the five other elementary school principals in Cannon County were given a Principal's Performance Contract during the first year of Mr. Diden's tenure as the Director of Schools. After his first year as Director of Schools, Mr. Diden went over a number of his concerns about Plaintiff's performance with Plaintiff. However, Mr. Diden reappointed Plaintiff as principal annually for three years. Plaintiff also began coaching the girls' basketball team in the 2006-2007school year.
Plantiff was reprimanded on two occasions for incidents during the 2007-2008 school year. On March 26, 2008, Mr. Diden met with Plaintiff and advised him that his principals' contract would not be renewed and that he would become a physical education teacher at Auburn Elementary School beginning with the 2008-2009 school year. Plaintiff was replaced by Karen King, who, to Plaintiff's knowledge, does not suffer from any disability. The parties agree that it was solely Mr. Diden's decision to remove Plaintiff as principal.
Mr. Diden claims that he made the decision not to retain Plaintiff as a principal due to ongoing performance problems. Mr. Diden testified that Plaintiff showed a lack of assertive leadership about structural issues within the school and that some faculty and staff were dissatisfied with his performance. Plaintiff states in an affidavit that he had been led to believe that he was performing well at the time of his demotion. Mr. Diden admitted that during the school year prior to removing Plaintiff as principal, he did not have any complaints about Plaintiff's attendance or any complaints from the teachers working under Plaintiff. Two witnesses testified that East Side performed at the same level as or typically higher than the other five elementary schools in Cannon County.
Plaintiff suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, congestive heart failure, and chronic bladder problems. Plaintiff claims that his arthritis and heart problems occasionally cause him to be very weak and lethargic so that he is unable to perform any physical activity. Plaintiff sees a physician four times a year for his arthritis and has done so for approximately thirty-four years. In or around January of 2006, Plaintiff had a cardiac defibrillator implanted. He sees a cardiologist four times a year and a specialist for the defibrillator every six months. Plaintiff also underwent a number ofsurgeries related to his arthritis, the most recent of which occurred in 1998.
Plaintiff testified that Mr. Diden informed him that the decision to demote him was due to Plaintiff's health issues. Mr. Diden admitted in his deposition that removing Plaintiff as principal caused concern within the community, and that several parents and concerned citizens confronted Mr. Diden about the removal. Three individuals declared in affidavits that Mr. Diden told them that Plaintiff was not retained as principal due to his health problems. Two of the declarants aver that Mr. Diden told them that it would be better for Plaintiff to "go ahead and retire due to [Plaintiff's] health problems." Mr. Diden recorded the conversations that he had with parents and concerned parents regarding Plaintiff's removal and claims to have left the tapes with an employee of Defendant, Marcia Melton. Ms. Melton has denied that the tapes were left with her.
Plaintiff testified that he missed work occasionally, including twelve days during the last year that he served as principal at East Side, and that all or most of his absences were due to his arthritis or congestive heart failure. Plaintiff's affidavit states that when he was unable to work he informed the school that he would be absent, and upon his return he provided documentation to the Board of Education explaining that he was absent due to his health problems. Plaintiff also states that he began directly notifying Mr. Diden of the time he missed because he was concerned about the conversation Mr. Diden initiated about his health conditions in September of 2004.
Plaintiff performed his duties at Auburn without incident for two years until he retired in May of 2010. Plaintiff admits that he never requested accommodation for his medical conditions while at Auburn, but claims that he could not withstand the physical demands of being a physical education teacher and felt that he had no other option but to retire. Plaintiff did not apply for another position after his transfer and admits that he was not aware of any available positions duringhis tenure that he was able to perform with or without reasonable accommodation.
Plaintiff initiated this suit against the Cannon County Board of Education on September 9, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) Based on Plaintiff's demotion, the original Complaint alleged claims of interference and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA)2 ; and discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (Id.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 7, 2011, asserting the same claims but adding constructive discharge as an adverse employment action for the purposes of the discrimination claims. (Doc. No. 13.)
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 19, 2011 (Doc. No. 17), along with a Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 18), Statements of Undisputed Material Fact (Doc. No. 19), and supporting depositions (Doc. Nos. 20-1 & 20-2). On October 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. No. 21), a supporting Brief (Doc. No. 22), a Response to Defendant's Statements of Undisputed Material Fact (Doc. No. 23), and an additional Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiff simultaneously filed an Appendix with supporting documents. (Doc. No. 25.)
Summary judgment is rendered when "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). The moving partymust demonstrate that the non-moving party has failed to establish a necessary element of that party's claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted if "the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Lexington-South Elkhorn Water Dist. v. City of Wilmore, 93 F.3d 230, 233 (6th Cir. 1996). The movant has the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis of the summary judgment motion and identifying portions of the record which lack a genuine issue of material fact to support the non-movant's case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
The non-moving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the complaint, but must delineate specific evidence that shows there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324. A "mere possibility" of a factual dispute is not sufficient to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Baird v. NHP Mill Creek Apartments, 94 F. App'x 328, 330-31 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Gregg v. Allen-Bradley Co., 801 F.2d 859, 863 (6th Cir. 1986)). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if a reasonable factfinder could find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A party asserting or denying that a fact is genuinely disputed may support its position by (1) citing to particular parts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial