Garcia v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 July 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. C–10–300.
• Citation: 866 F.Supp.2d 646
• Parties: Rena GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

866 F.Supp.2d 646

Rena GARCIA, Plaintiff,

v.CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. C–10–300.

United States District Court,

S.D. Texas,

Corpus Christi Division.

July 28, 2011.

Robert J. Heil, Heil Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff.

Clay T. Grover, Rogers, Morris & Grover, LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

JANIS GRAHAM JACK, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Corpus Christi Independent School District's Motion for Summary Judgment. (D.E. 16.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, as detailed below.

I. Jurisdiction

The court has federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff's case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

II. Background

Plaintiff Rena Garcia was formerly employed by Defendant Corpus Christi Independent School District (“CCISD”) as a special education teacher at CCISD's Tom Browne Middle School in a program called Student Achievement in Inclusion Learning (the “SAIL” program). (D.E. 16, Ex. A (Garcia Depo.) at 22–33). Garcia began her employment at Tom Brown in January 2007. (D.E. 17–8 (Garcia Affidavit) at 1.) As a public school teacher, she was employed under a continuing contract as provided by Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code. (D.E. 16, Ex. B.) ¹

As a teacher in the SAIL program, Garcia was responsible for assisting special education students with social skills, adjusting to campus rules, and adjusting to class expectations so that the students could successfully transition into mainstream classes. (D.E. 16, Ex. A (Garcia Depo.) at 24–25). Many of the children Garcia taught in the SAIL program had severe behavioral problems and needed to be taught to “behave socially in an acceptable manner so that they could be integrated into the mainstream[.]” ( Id. at 25.) Garcia had never previously been a full-time teacher of behaviorally challenged students, and initially found the transition difficult. (D.E. 17–8 (Garcia Affidavit) at 1.)

When she began in the SAIL program, Garcia was assisted by two younger, experienced paraprofessionals, who helped her discipline and manage her students. (D.E. 16, Ex. A (Garcia Depo.). at 45–46.) In 2008, one of the two paraprofessionals working with Garcia was reassigned, and the other was transferred to another position. Garcia was provided a new paraprofessional on a temporary basis for the remainder of the school year. At the beginning of the next school year, CCISD provided a substitute paraprofessional until October 10, 2008, when the District hired a new full-time paraprofessional, Jose Fernandez. ( Id. at 47–49.)

Initially, the principal at Tom Browne Middle School, Donna Adams, was supportive of Garcia, (D.E. 17–8 (Garcia Affidavit) at 1), and gave her good teacher evaluations for the 2007–2008 school year. (D.E. 17–3 (Recommendation of Hearing Examiner Linda Flores Resendez) at 8, ¶ 22 (referencing Adams' evaluation dated April 28, 2008)). However, at some point during the 2007–2008 school year, Adams began to express concern with Garcia's job performance. (D.E. 14, Ex. C (Adams Affidavit) at 2).

On March 7, 2008, Adams issued Garcia a letter of reprimand, itemizing a number of concerns with her performance. ( Id. at 3.) Adams contends that Garcia was insubordinate and continually failed to comply with Adams' directives. Among her various complaints are that Garcia placed a special education student in regular classes even though Adams had ordered her to develop a “transition plan” for the student first, ( id. at 2–3); that Garcia let a special education student roam the halls unattended; and that Garcia failed to plan and prepare curriculum materials. ( Id. at Adams–1.) Adams advised Garcia that any further failure to comply with her directives could result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. ( Id. at 3.)

Garcia's problems with Principal Adams came to a head in October 2008 when Adams became aware of Garcia's efforts to discipline one of her students. ( Id. at 3.) On October 14, 2008, she asked Garcia's new paraprofessional Fernandez how things were going. Mr. Fernandez told her that on his first day as Garcia's paraprofessional he witnessed Garcia put her foot on the back of a rowdy child who was lying on the floor and step into him. ( Id.; D.E. 16, Ex. D (Statement of Jose Fernandez.))

Adams, concerned about this report, had the incident investigated by the CCISD administration and by Child Protective Services (“CPS”). (D.E. 16, Ex. C (Adams Affidavit) at 3.) She also wrote a letter to CCISD's Superintendent Scott Elliff recommending that Garcia's continuing contract be terminated. ( Id. at Adams–3.) Elliff agreed with Adams' recommendation and proposed the termination of Garcia's contract to CCISD's Board of Trustees. (D.E. 16, Ex. E (Notice of Proposed Termination dated February 23, 2009) at 1).

On February 23, 2009, Garcia was advised of the proposed termination and notified of her right to a hearing before a Hearing Examiner appointed by the Texas Education Agency. ( Id.) Garcia requested a hearing, and she and CCISD proceeded to an adversarial hearing before a certified Hearing Examiner, Linda Flores Resendez, on May 13 and 14, 2009. (D.E. 16, Ex. F (Recommendation of Hearing Examiner Linda Flores Resendez)).

After hearing the evidence, the Hearing Examiner concluded that Garcia's “acts of misconduct [were] not serious or significant enough to justify discharge.” ( Id. at 19.) With respect to CCISD's primary complaint about Garcia's use of physical force on her student, the examiner noted that CPS had conducted an investigation into the use of force and found that there had been no physical abuse. (D.E. 16, Ex. F at 11.) In addition, she noted that this particular student was frequently rowdy and that his own mother, who believed Garcia to be a “good advocate” for her son, ( id. at 11), attested that he “often requires physical contact.” ( Id. at 10.) Indeed, “[s]ince Garcia left,” the examiner stated, “[the student's] behavior ha[d] gotten worse” and “he was suspended from the Tom Browne Middle School.” ( Id. at 11.) Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner found that CCISD had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “good cause” for the discharge of Garcia. ( Id. at 20.) The Hearing Examiner prohibited the district from terminating Garcia's contract. ( Id.)

CCISD's Board of Trustees reviewed the record of the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner and heard oral argument. (D.E. 16, Ex. G (Transcript of Consideration of Appeal Hearing dated July 13, 2009)). At oral argument, counsel for CCISD contended that, in making the recommendation to retain Garcia, the examiner had focused primarily on the allegation of use of inappropriate physical force and had “failed to note that there were two days worth of testimony in which the use of inappropriate physical force was only one of the reasons that was enumerated in the Board's letter of discharge.” ( Id. at 8.) These additional reasons included: making false statements, failing to maintain student records and documents, failing to provide documents and records upon request, failing to develop individual education plans, and failing to follow SAIL program guidelines for students. (D.E. 16, Ex. I (CCSID Board of Trustees' Decision Regarding Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner) at 3.)

The Board ultimately decided to alter the Hearing Examiner's ruling, finding there was good cause for termination, and subsequently moved to terminate Garcia's contract on July 27, 2009. (D.E. 16, Exh. H (Minutes of Meeting of CCISD's Board of Trustees held on July 27, 2009) at ¶ 19; Ex. I (Board of Trustees' Decision Regarding Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner) at 30.) Garcia appealed the Board's decision to the Commissioner of Education. (D.E. 16, Ex. A (Garcia Depo.) at 77.)

On October 5, 2009, the Commissioner granted Garcia's appeal and reversed the Board's decision. (D.E. 17–3 (Decision of the Commissioner) at 2–3). Like the Hearing Examiner, the Commissioner found that there was not good cause to fire Garcia, stating that the only allegation that could be considered “good cause per se” was Garcia's allegedly inappropriate use of force against a student and that the hearing examiner had determined that Garcia did not use inappropriate physical force. ( Id.)

The Commissioner ordered either that Garcia be reinstated or that the Board “buy out” Garcia's contract by paying her one year's salary from the date she would have been reinstated, as allowed under the Texas Education Code. ² ( Id. at 5). On October 19, 2009, the Board chose to “buy out” Garcia's contract in lieu of reinstatement. (D.E. 16, Ex. J (Minutes of Meeting of CCISD's Board of Trustees held on October 19, 2009.))

Unable to agree as to the correct amount of the buy out, CCISD and Garcia entered into a compromise agreement entitling Garcia to $72,364.02, less applicable taxes. (D.E. 16, Ex. L (Agreement Concerning the Texas Commissioner of Education Ruling of Case No. 74–R2–0809)). On February 26, 2010, CCISD's administration paid Garcia a check for $53,225.43. (D.E. 16, Ex. L.)

On December 30, 2009, Garcia filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC complaining of age discrimination and retaliation. (D.E. 16, Ex. K) (EEOC Charge of Discrimination filed by Rena B. Garcia on December 30, 2009). She then timely filed a complaint with this Court on September 15, 2010, bringing the following causes of action: (1) gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., (2) age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and (3) breach of contract. (D.E. 1 at 4–5.)

Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's...