Hines v. Bos. Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 15 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-cv-11897-DJC,15-cv-11897-DJC |
| Parties | FRANCES HINES, Plaintiff, v. BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Plaintiff Frances Hines ("Hines") asserts claims against Defendant Boston Public Schools ("BPS") arising under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B, § 4, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the "ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. for discrimination, retaliation and failure to accommodate based upon her alleged disability as well as for breach of contract. D. 22. The Court previously dismissed Hines' claim for a violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. D. 32. BPS has moved for summary judgment on all remaining counts. D. 44. For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS the motion.
The Court grants summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the undisputed facts demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is material if it carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law." Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Sánchez v. Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996)). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2000); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant meets its burden, the non-moving party may not rest on the allegations or denials in her pleadings, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986), but "must, with respect to each issue on which she would bear the burden of proof at trial, demonstrate that a trier of fact could reasonably resolve that issue in her favor." Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010). "As a general rule, that requires the production of evidence that is 'significant[ly] probative.'" Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249) (alteration in original). The Court "view[s] the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing reasonable inferences in [her] favor." Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2009).
The following facts are drawn primarily from BPS's statement of material facts, D. 44, Hines' statement of material facts, D. 46,1 and other supporting documents2 and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Hines has been an employee of BPS since 1995. D. 44 ¶ 1. Hines currently works at Higginson Lewis K-2 School. D. 44 ¶ 4. Prior to her position at Higginson Lewis, Hines worked at the Tynan School. D. 44 ¶ 3. Prior to her current position, Hines worked at the David Ellis School ("Ellis School") as a paraprofessional. D. 44 ¶ 1; D. 22 ¶ 4. As defined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Committee of the City of Boston and the Boston Teachers Union, a paraprofessional is a "non-certified individual employed by the Boston School Committee whose function is to assist teachers and other school personnel." D. 44 ¶ 1; D. 44-4 at 19. The job description for a paraprofessional for the Ellis School Special Education program describes a paraprofessional as someone who assists the classroom teacher with instructional activities, facilitates classroom discipline and performs "Lunch Duty/Bathroom Duty." D. 44 ¶ 1; D. 44-2 at 4.
Hines characterizes BPS' treatment of her from 2003 to 2015 as "abusive." D. 46-2 at 102. In 2003, before Hines worked at the Ellis School, Hines was issued a "letter of reprimand" for "insubordination" and "making inappropriate comments." D. 44 ¶ 6; D. 44-6 at 42. The letter explained that on several occasions, Hines has been "spoken to" about her behavior by the school principal, a union representative, the teacher in charge, Hines' previous teacher and the current classroom teacher. D. 44-6 at 42. Hines wrote a letter in response, asserting that she had followed instructions while colleagues had been "unprofessional" towards her and engaged in "inappropriate comment[s]." D. 44-6 at 44. She wrote further that, because another teacher'sinappropriate behavior had not been addressed in the meeting regarding Hines' reprimand, Hines felt there was "bias" against her. Id.
In 2004, Hines transferred to the Ellis School. D. 44 ¶ 1; D. 22 ¶ 4. Hines described her relationship with Ellis School principal Carlos Gibb ("Gibb") at the Ellis School as "not good." D. 46 at 23. Beginning with Hines' first year at the Ellis School (the 2004-2005 school year), Hines' superiors noted several issues with Hines' performance. D. 44-5 at 12-17. Hines was deemed to have "not met standards" in six categories out of seventeen total categories. Id. at 12-13. Hines' evaluator noted that Hines Id. at 17. Below her signature on the evaluation, Hines wrote that she "[did not] agree with the content of [the] evaluation." D. 44-5 at 12.
In 2005, Hines fractured her leg in a car accident. D. 46 at 16, 20; D. 46-2 at 19. Hines took six months of medical leave to undergo surgery and physical therapy before returning to the Ellis School. D. 44-4 at 2-5; D. 46 at 20; D. 46-2 at 19-20. Before Hines began working for BPS, Hines was diagnosed with a "cognitive impairment" that, according to Hines, means she needs "things written for [her]" and she does not "process as fast as somebody else." D. 46-2 at 22.
In September 2006, Hines filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") alleging that she had been discriminated against by BPS, Gibb and George Martin, the Ellis School assistant principal, on the basis of "Race [and] Color." D. 44 ¶ 8; D. 44-5 at 60-63; D. 46 at 11. Hines alleged that Gibb, who is Hispanic, and Martin, who is Caucasian, discriminated against her as an African-American woman by yelling at her, making rude hand gestures towards her and treating her differently than other employees. D. 44 ¶ 10;D. 44-5 at 60-63; D. 46 at 13. The MCAD issued a lack of probable cause finding on July 12, 2008. D. 44 ¶ 10; D. 44-5 at 65. Hines appealed and a hearing, the MCAD affirmed its finding. D. 44-5 at 73.
Hines continued to receive mixed performance evaluations. For example, in her evaluation for the 2006-2007 school year, an evaluator noted that Hines' "handling of discipline ha[d] improved over the past two years." D. 44-5 at 47. The evaluator also noted, however, that Hines failed to give "follow up [] directions" to students and did not "inform students what she expected." D. 44 ¶ 11; D. 44-5 at 46. That year, Hines was rated as "meets expectations" in all but two categories. D. 44-5 at 42-45.
In 2008, Hines underwent a follow-up surgery for her leg and received further physical therapy. D. 46-2 at 20. When Hines returned from medical leave, she was assigned to work in a classroom with Ms. Salant. D. 46 at 13. According to Hines, in October 2008, Salant yelled "so very loudly that one of [Hines'] students started crying uncontrollably." D. 46-1 at 9; D. 46 at 13. According to Hines, Hines requested a transfer, but her request was not granted. D. 46 at 13-14.
On November 20, 2008, Hines filed another complaint with the MCAD alleging retaliation by BPS for filing her previous MCAD complaint. D. 44 ¶ 14; D. 44-5 at 75; D. 46 at 11. Hines alleged that after returning from medical leave she had been assigned to work with a teacher (Salant) who BPS knew had "harass[ed]" and "disrespected" Hines in the past. D. 44-5 at 75. Hines further alleged that when she asked to switch to another classroom, she was ignored. Id. The MCAD issued a lack of probable cause finding as to the 2008 MCAD complaint on March 28, 2011. D. 44-5 at 79-82.
On November 21, 2008, Hines wrote to Gibb, the principal of the Ellis School, and requested an accommodation to enter school through the front door because walking around to theback entrance was made difficult by a "walking disability." D. 46 at 14; D. 46-2 at 47. BPS asserts that Hines did not submit this request to the BPS Office of Equity. D. 46-2 at 93.
In 2010, Patricia Niles-Randolph took over for Gibb as principal of the Ellis School. D. 44 ¶ 16. On April 9, 2010, Niles-Randolph wrote a letter to Hines regarding Hines "Leaving Students Unsupervised," "Leaving [the] School Building during Contractual Work Time" and "Disrupting the School Assembly by Shouting Derogatory and Threatening statements" concerning Hines' conduct on March 18, 2010. D. 44 ¶ 19; D. 44-7 at 10. The letter explained that Hines' conduct was "unacceptable." D. 44-7 at 10. On April 18, 2013, Hines wrote a letter in response, denying the allegations in the letter and explaining, among other things, that at the time in question, one of the students had "assault[ed]" her and she had gone to the teacher's lounge to ice her injured foot. D. 44-7 at 17. Hines subsequently also corresponded several times with Niles-Randolph about her perceived need for more personnel to supervise the students with disabilities. D. 44-7 at 18. In response, Niles-Randolph convened an "Investigatory Meeting" with Hines on April 30, 2010. D. 44-7 at 13. In directing Hines to attend the meeting, Niles-Randolph advised Hines that her "allegations and concerns if substantiated [would] constitute a sincere need to reevaluate [Hines'] classroom placement." D. 44-7 at 13.
On May 3, 2010, Niles-Randolph wrote to Hines in response to her correspondence "requesting needed support in the workplace." D. 44-7 at 22. Niles-Randolph wrote that "[i]n pursuant [sic] of the earnest concern for your safety and wellbeing within the classroom environment and to minimize the need for you to...
To continue reading
Request your trial