Hiser v. Grand Ledge Pub. Sch.

• Decision Date: 12 September 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:09–CV–780.
• Citation: 816 F.Supp.2d 496,277 Ed. Law Rep. 722
• Parties: Janice HISER, Plaintiff, v. GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

277 Ed. Law Rep. 722

816 F.Supp.2d 496

Janice HISER, Plaintiff,

v.GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant.

Case No. 1:09–CV–780.

United States District Court,W.D. Michigan,Southern Division.

Sept. 12, 2011.

Brian Edward Koncius, Kathleen L. Bogas, Bogas Koncius & Croson PC, Bingham Farms, MI, for Plaintiff.

Roy H. Henley, Thrun Law Firm PC, East Lansing, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION

GORDON J. QUIST, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Janice Hiser (“Hiser”), has sued her employer, Grand Ledge Public Schools (“GLPS”), alleging claims of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Michigan Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act (“Elliott–Larsen Act”), M.C.L. § 37.2101, et seq. , and age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and the Elliott–Larsen Act. GLPS has moved for summary judgment. Having reviewed the parties' motions, briefs, and supporting exhibits, and having heard oral argument, the Court finds that the matter is now ready for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion on all of Hiser's claims.

I. Facts

Hiser is employed by GLPS as an elementary teacher. Since joining GLPS in 1986, Hiser has taught solely at Wacousta Elementary School and has spent most of that time working as a reading specialist. (Hiser Dep. at 39.) Over time, Hiser expressed her ambition to become a principal at one of the GLPS elementary schools. GLPS administrators, including Dr. Kathleen Peasley (“Peasley”), GLPS's Assistant Superintendent for Academic Services, and Dan Davis (“Davis”), GLPS's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, encouraged Hiser and expressed their hope that she would eventually obtain a principalship within the district. For example, at the end of the 2005–2006 school year, Peasley told Hiser she was disappointed that a particular situation did not work out: “I am sorry we ended up moving Ed Armstrong to Neff and reducing a principal. I would really like to have seen you as the principal of Neff. It would have been an excellent fit.” (E-mail from Peasley to Hiser of 6/8/06, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 1.) Peasley further said, “I believe there will be an opportunity for you in the next 2 years or so.” ( Id.) The following year, Peasley told Hiser, “I had hoped there might be an elementary position open here for you this year, but it appears it will be one more year. I hope we don't lose you to another district before that happens!!!” (E-mail from Peasley to Hiser of 3/14/07, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 1.) Davis similarly encouraged Hiser, noting, “I am very interested in your candidacy and think you would do a great job as a principal.” (E-mail from Davis to Hiser of 3/22/07, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 1.)

GLPS supported Hiser's ambition by providing her opportunities for training and experience in serving as a principal. In 2007, Davis arranged for Hiser to attend the Emerging Leaders Program at Michigan State University, a three-day conference designed to assist aspiring principals. Davis sent Hiser to the conference to obtain training and insight toward her goal because she had not performed well in a previous interview during the 2003–2004 school year for the Delta Center Elementary principal position. (Davis Dep. at 145–148.) Hiser had opportunities to obtain practical experience as well, including serving as a “principal designee”—the person designated to address day-to-day issues and perform administrative duties in the principal's absence—and serving as the acting principal of Wacousta Elementary School for one month during 2007. ¹ (Hiser Resume, Pl.'s Resp. Br. Ex. 2.)

In May 2008, the Wacousta Elementary School Principal, Bill Thorson, informed Davis that he planned to retire in January 2009. Shortly thereafter, Thorson recommended to Davis that Hiser be appointed his successor. (Davis Aff. ¶ 6, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 5.) Although he had no say in the matter, Thorson also lead Hiser to believe that she would be appointed to his position. (Hiser Dep. at 94–95.) Around the same time, Hiser met with Peasley, who was then serving as the Acting Superintendent, and Davis to discuss Hiser's future with the district and her interest in the Wacousta Elementary principalship. During the meeting, Davis and/or Peasley told Hiser that the position would be posted and invited Hiser to apply. (Peasley Dep. at 50–51; Hiser Dep. at 91–92.) Surprised by this news, Hiser disclosed that she expected to be appointed principal based on Peasley's supportive e-mails and similar e-mails from Marsha Wells, the district's former Superintendent, as well as prior conversations with Wells and Thorson. (Peasley Dep. at 51–52; Hiser Dep. at 92–93.) However, Davis and Dr. Peasley confirmed that the position would be posted.

GLPS posted the position in September 2008, anticipating that interviews would held in October and November 2008 and a candidate hired by December 8, 2008. Hiser and approximately twenty other applicants applied for the position. After reviewing the resumes and obtaining input from Dr. Steven Matthews (“Matthews”), the district's recently-hired Superintendent, regarding the attributes he desired in his first administrative hire, Davis and Peasley identified approximately 10 applicants, including Hiser, as potential candidates. (E-mail from Davis to Administrative Screening Group (undated), Pl.'s Resp. Br. Ex. 13; Davis Dep. at 51–53.) On October 24, Davis and Peasley presented the applicants' materials to an administrative screening committee for review.² After discussing the applicants, the committee determined that the applicant group did not include enough strong candidates to proceed with interviews. (Davis Dep. at 58–59.) Specifically, the group lacked “[a] large number of sitting successful elementary principals wishing to go on to another district that may be a little bigger or they see as an improvement in where they are at as principal.” ( Id. at 61.) The committee therefore recommended that the position be reposted to obtain a broader and deeper pool of candidates and that the position be filled on an interim basis with an outside hire. ( Id. at 58–59.) Davis and Peasley thereafter presented the recommendation to Matthews, and after additional consideration, they decided to repost the position, with the successful candidate to start at the beginning of the next school year, and to proceed to look for an interim principal. ( Id. at 61–63.)

After the decision was made, Davis met with Hiser to explain the reasons for reposting the position. (Hiser Dep. at 116–117.) Davis informed Hiser that she was among eight candidates of interest in the applicant pool and told her “we want you to be part of that process” when the position was reposted. ( Id. at 118.) Matthews also met with Hiser to address the decision and her concerns. He explained “that those eight candidates were qualified and that ... the process was very important and that he liked to interview ten candidates.” ( Id. at 132–33.) Matthews also encouraged Hiser to reapply when the position was reposted. (Matthews Dep. at 94.)

GLPS administrators moved forward with the plan and sought an interim principal. Initially, Davis and Peasley identified four female candidates, two of whom were either unavailable or not interested. (Davis Dep. at 94.) One of the remaining two was a retired GLPS elementary principal and the other was an elementary principal in another district. ( Id. at 94–95.) An interim was never hired, however, and the position was never reposted because by late 2008, GLPS was in a severe budget crisis, prompting the district's chief financial officer, J. Thomas Goodwin, to prepare a list of 21 cost-saving recommendations. (Goodwin Aff. ¶ 3 & Attach. 2, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 14.)

One recommendation called for eliminating the assistant principal position at Beagle Middle School and filling the Wacousta Elementary principal position with an existing administrator, which would ensure that “[n]o current building administrators will lose their position.” ( Id. Attach. 2 at 3.) GLPS administrators adopted this recommendation in late November or early December 2008. (Davis Dep. at 96–97.) The measure was implemented by “shuffling” administrators. The Beagle Assistant Principal was moved to Assistant Principal of Hayes Middle School and the Assistant Principal of Hayes Middle School became the Principal of that school. Then, due to performance issues, the current Principal of Hayes Middle School was transferred to the High School as Assistant Principal. Finally, Scott Eckhart (“Eckhart”), the Assistant Principal at the High School, became the Wacousta Elementary Principal. (Matthews Dep. at 47–48, 162.) Eckhart, who had been hired at the beginning of the year as Interim High School Assistant Principal, was the least senior member of the administrative staff and would have been laid off pursuant to the administrators' collective bargaining agreement had he not been transferred to Wacousta Elementary. ( Id. at 39.) Although Eckhart did not have previous experience as an elementary school principal, he had a master's degree in general educational administration and several years experience as a principal and assistant principal at the middle and high school levels. (Eckhart Resume, Def.'s Br. Supp. Ex. 15.) The decision to eliminate an administrative position and fill the Wacousta Elementary position with an existing administrator was one of many cost-saving measures that GLPS adopted, resulting in a $4 million reduction in the GLPS budget.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Material facts are facts which are defined by substantive law and are necessary to apply the law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,...