Hamner v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Sch. Sys.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2021
• Docket Number: 7:18-cv-01838-LSC
• Parties: SHANNON HAMNER, Plaintiff, v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

SHANNON HAMNER, Plaintiff, v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.

7:18-cv-01838-LSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION

February 17, 2021

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Shannon Hamner ("Hamner") brings this action against her former employer, Defendant Tuscaloosa County School System ("TCSS"), and three of TCSS's employees, Defendants Walter Davie ("Davie"), Allison Mays ("Mays"), and Clifton Henson ("Henson") (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"). In Count I of Hamner's complaint, she asserts claims against TCSS and the Individual Defendants (collectively, "Defendants") for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹ In Counts III and VI, Hamner asserts claims against TCSS for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). In Count IV, Hamner asserts a gender discrimination claim against TCSS under Title VII. In Count V, Hamner alleges she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by TCSS in violation of Title VII. In Count VII, Hamner asserts a state law claim for battery against Henson.

Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 84 & 86); TCSS's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 90); Defendants' Motions to Strike (docs. 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 114, 117, 118, 119, & 120); and TCSS's Motion to Deem Statements of Facts Admitted (doc. 115). The motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are due to be granted in part, denied in part, and terminated as moot in part; TCSS's Motion for Reconsideration is due to be denied; TCSS's Motion to Deem Statements of Facts Admitted is due to be denied; and Defendants' Motions to Strike are due to be terminated as moot in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND²

Hamner, a Caucasian female, was employed by TCSS for over twenty years. Most recently, she worked as a guidance counselor at Hillcrest Middle School ("HMS") and later at Collins-Riverside Middle School ("CRMS").

While at HMS, Hamner filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). She alleged that she had been harassed and discriminated against because of her race and gender. This EEOC charge was the basis of a lawsuit filed on June 3, 2015 against TCSS and two employees who are not part of the instant case. See generally Hamner v. Pruitt, No. 7:15-cv-00925-LSC (N.D. Ala. June 2, 2015) [hereinafter "Hamner I"].³

As Hamner I was pending, Hamner requested a transfer from HMS to CRMS. The parties dispute the circumstances surrounding this transfer. Hamner states thatshe was "coerced" by Davie, the superintendent of education, into submitting a request for a voluntary transfer.⁴ (Doc. 92-2 at 31.) Hamner further states that Defendants did not process her request as a voluntary transfer for a tenured employee, but rather they "unassigned" and "reassigned" her to a temporary position at CRMS, which was only guaranteed funding for one year.⁵ She contends that this was not proper procedure for considering a voluntary transfer request from a tenured employee, and that she was entitled to notice and the opportunity torequest a hearing before her transfer to CRMS was approved.⁶ Regardless, Hamner's request was approved by TCSS, and she was transferred to CRMS effective August 16, 2016.⁷ Hamner asserts that when TCSS approved her transfer, her pending lawsuit was also discussed, but this is not supported by the record.⁸ After her transfer, the parties reached a settlement agreement in Hamner I, and that matter was dismissed on October 24, 2016.

While at CRMS, Hamner reported being subjected to poor working conditions. She states that her office "had a crumbling, leaking hole in its ceiling" that she claims was "contaminated by mold and asbestos." (Doc. 111 at 22 ¶ 55.) She filed an injury report and submitted documentation from her doctors concerning health issues she believes arose from her working conditions at CRMS.⁹ (See doc. 83-4 at 39-42.) She requested a transfer to a different office at CRMS, which was denied. The counselor who shared an office with Hamner was allowed to move to a newer office. Hamner noted that her working conditions were markedly different from those at HMS.

In addition to her work as a guidance counselor, Hamner was also the chairperson for the "504 Teams" during her time at HMS and CRMS. Schools are required to provide "504 Plans" for qualified students to aide them as they pursue their education. These teams are comprised of employees and parents of qualifying children. In addition to Hamner, other employees on CRMS's 504 Team included Henson, the principal at CRMS; Marlana Mason ("Mason"); and Becky Stephens ("Stephens").

The parties dispute what the responsibilities of the chairperson were versus the responsibilities of the other members of the 504 Team. Hamner asserts that (1) she lacked any supervisory authority over members of the 504 Team; and (2) all members of the 504 Team were responsible for compiling plans, scheduling, and providing notice of meetings to parents to discuss the plans.¹⁰ TCSS asserts that as chairperson, Hamner was responsible for those duties.

In May 2017, employees noticed that the 504 Plans submitted by Hamner had photocopied, pre-signed, and postdated pages indicating the team members agreed with the proposed plans. Greg Hurst ("Hurst"), TCSS's 504 Plan coordinator for all students in the school system, was notified about this situation.

Meanwhile, Hamner notified Mays, the senior director of human resources, of concerns she had regarding Henson. Hamner reported a series of incidents involving Henson: (1) he drove the wrong way on a one-way street while Hamner was chatting with another teacher outside of the school; (2) he emailed herconcerning an absence from school; (3) he allegedly went through her phone log and desk; and (4) Henson reportedly told employees at CRMS to provide him with their system passwords. After receiving this report, Mays scheduled a meeting with Hamner to discuss her concerns. This meeting took place on July 28, 2017. At the end of this meeting, Hamner was placed on administrative leave with pay by Davie pending an investigation into her 504 Plans.

As the meeting ended, Hamner reported she was sexually harassed on multiple occasions by Henson.¹¹ Hamner states that Henson "suggestively touched [her] hand" on two occasions and that Henson "pressed the front of his body against the back of [her] body" until she asked him to stop.¹² (Doc. 92-1 at 20 ¶¶ 55 & 56.)All of these interactions were offensive to Hamner. Henson denied that these interactions occurred. Mays investigated all of Hamner's allegations concerning Henson and found them to be meritless. Hamner was informed of these conclusions on September 1, 2017.

While Mays investigated Hamner's allegations against Henson, TCSS's investigation into Hamner's 504 Plans revealed irregularities. Defendants state that 504 Teams hold meetings to discuss 504 Plans. During these meetings, attendees must sign forms stating whether they agree or disagree with the proposed plans. Defendants discovered that Hamner used pre-signed and postdated forms instead of having all members sign the plans during the meeting. Hamner states that she was encouraged to do this by Hurst, which he denies. Defendants assert that Hamner photocopied these pre-signed forms and used them on eighteen occasions to indicate that team members approved of 504 Plans, and that in many instances the required meetings never took place. TCSS also states that Hamner used these forms without the other team members' permission.¹³ Additionally, TCSS states that Hamnerchanged language on the meeting notice forms, which TCSS argues discouraged parents from participating in 504 Plan meetings. Davie also states that the investigation revealed that Hamner mishandled confidential student records, which she disputes.

On September 7, 2017, Davie, Mays, Hamner, and Hamner's Alabama Education Association representative participated in a meeting regarding her 504 Plans. Hamner admitted to having used pre-signed and postdated signature pages, stating that this was common practice among 504 Teams throughout TCSS. Hamner also stated that she had been engaged in this practice at HMS prior to Hamner I, as the assistant principal at HMS supported using pre-signed and dated forms for 504 Plans.¹⁴ Hurst reviewed and approved Hamner's 504 Plans from HMS and CRMS.TCSS disputes this assertion, pointing out that the plans Hurst reviewed were copies that "would not show that signatures were not original signatures," thus he would have been unaware that Hamner was using pre-signed forms. (Doc. 130 at 3.) Hamner states that Hurst supported this practice as well, which he denies.

Hamner believes her 504 Plans were suddenly scrutinized because of her participation in Hamner I. Hamner asserts that Reba Box, the previous chairperson at CRMS, submitted altered forms as part of her 504 Plans, and she was not investigated and terminated for this.¹⁵ Additionally, Hamner states that BradArmstrong, the chairperson of the 504 Team at another TCSS school, submitted altered forms as well.¹⁶

At the conclusion of the investigation, Hamner received a letter on September 14, 2017, stating that Davie was recommending that TCSS terminate her employment. Davie informed Hamner that she had the right to request a hearing before TCSS on this matter, which she did. After the hearing, TCSS voted to terminate her employment. Hamner appealed her termination, and the decision was affirmed. TCSS reported her termination to the Alabama Department of Education. After Hamner was terminated, she filed an EEOC charge, which is the basis of the present lawsuit.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any...