Kincaid v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

• Citation: 572 F.Supp.3d 1081
• Decision Date: 10 November 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 21-2059-DDC-TJJ
• Parties: Cassandra KINCAID, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

572 F.Supp.3d 1081

Cassandra KINCAID, Plaintiff,

v.UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Defendant.

Case No. 21-2059-DDC-TJJ

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed November 10, 2021

Sarah A. Brown, Daniel G. Curry, Brown & Curry, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Gregory P. Goheen, McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, PA, Kansas City, KS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Cassandra Kincaid is an assistant principal at one of the schools within defendant Unified School District No. 500 in Wyandotte County, Kansas. In 2019, she reported an alleged sexual assault and harassment of a female student at a school. Plaintiff alleges that her school's principal, following her report, began a campaign of harassment extending more than 18 months. The alleged harassment included reprimands, exclusion from meetings and communications, and, eventually, a failure to promote her to principal. In this action, she asserts claims for retaliation, retaliatory harassment, and sexual harassment, violating both Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before the court is defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 6) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. 10). And defendant has replied (Doc. 11). This Order decides this motion. It grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion, for reasons explained below.

I. Background

The following facts come from plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1). The court accepts plaintiff's "well-pleaded facts as true, view[s] them in the light most favorable to [her], and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the facts" in her favor. Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC , 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).¹

Plaintiff has worked for defendant Unified School District No. 500 ("USD 500")² in Kansas City, Kansas for 20 years. Doc. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶¶ 11–12). She is currently an Assistant Principal at Central Middle School, where the events leading to this lawsuit took place. Id. (Compl. ¶ 12).

Spring 2019—Plaintiff Reports Alleged Sexual Assault

On March 21, 2019, a female student reported to plaintiff that a fellow student—a young man—had sexually assaulted her in a stairwell at the school. Id. (Compl. ¶ 14). Because the male student was in a special education program, plaintiff contacted defendant's Director of Student Services to determine how to proceed with the report. Id. (Compl. ¶ 15). The Director of Student Services recommended that plaintiff proceed with a "B-level hearing"³ in response to the female student's report. Id. (Compl. ¶ 16). Plaintiff then told her supervisor, Principal Fred Skretta, about the report and the Director's recommendation. Id. (Compl. ¶ 17).

The next day, Principal Skretta met with plaintiff and "appeared angry, questioning why she would have reported the alleged sexual assault to the Director of Student Services." Id. (Compl. ¶ 18). A few days later, Principal Skretta emailed plaintiff and another administrator. Id. (Compl. ¶ 19). This message directed them that they should inform him "prior to [imposing] any discipline of any special education student." Id. And the day after that, Principal Skretta emailed plaintiff and other administrators to tell them that he "was reducing the male student's suspension and that a ‘manifestation’ was not necessary."⁴ Id. (Compl. ¶ 20). But that same day, after "correction from the [d]efendant's Director of Student Services ... Principal Skretta reinstituted the 10-day suspension, ‘manifestation,’ and hearing [p]laintiff had originally recommended." Id. Principal Skretta also told plaintiff she shouldn't attend the hearing. Id. at 4 (Compl. ¶ 21).

A few days later, on March 29, 2019—about a week after plaintiff had reported the alleged sexual assault—Principal Skretta sent plaintiff a formal reprimand for her handling of the female student's report of sexual assault. Id. (Compl. ¶ 22). Plaintiff asked Principal Skretta what policy or procedure she had violated but he "admitted none." Id. Plaintiff then met with Principal Skretta and another administrator, where plaintiff alleges Principal Skretta "raised his voice" after plaintiff "again asked him what policy she had violated." Id. (Compl. ¶ 25). Principal Skretta told plaintiff the "formal written reprimand ... would go in [her] HR file." Id.

Later, in April 2019, plaintiff "reported Principal Skretta's conduct to [d]efendant's administrators, who told her they needed to investigate her report." Id. (Compl. ¶ 26). Throughout spring 2019, Principal Skretta then began "to exclude [p]laintiff from meetings and communications," leaving her "to find out about meetings from her subordinates and colleagues." Id. (Compl. ¶ 27). Plaintiff reported Principal Skretta's conduct multiple times to defendant and asked several administrators to intervene. Id. (Compl. ¶ 28). But, plaintiff alleges, Principal Skretta's "conduct continued[.]" Id.

At the end of April 2019, plaintiff reported to Principal Skretta a concern she had about the male student involved in the earlier sexual assault allegation. Id. at 5 (Compl. ¶ 29). She told Principal Skretta that she had seen the male student on school video cameras "leaving a classroom several times during class without an escort or teacher checking on him." Id. But Principal Skretta didn't allow plaintiff to take any action. Id.

A little more than a week later, plaintiff told Principal Skretta and other administrators about another incident involving the same male student and same female student. Id. (Compl. ¶ 30). According to plaintiff's Complaint, the female student told plaintiff and a school counselor that "the male student had approached her twice during the day, without an escort, and told her that she should kill herself." Id. Plaintiff also learned that another student "overheard the male student threatening to kill the female student." Id. Also, plaintiff learned that the female student's parents took her to a crisis center after she made suicidal comments. Id. Plaintiff gave all this information to Principal Skretta and other administrators via email. Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 30–31). She also noted in an email that "the male student had not had a Functional Behavioral Hearing and a Behavioral Improvement Plan was not in place." Id. (Compl. ¶ 31). But the next day, Principal Skretta told plaintiff to "leave it alone." Id. (Compl. ¶ 32).

Later in the spring of 2019, plaintiff applied for one of five open principal positions in the school district. Id. (Compl. ¶ 33). She didn't get the job. Id. And in the months afterwards, plaintiff alleges, Principal Skretta continued to exclude plaintiff from meetings at Central Middle School. Id. (Compl. ¶ 34). In response, plaintiff again reported Principal Skretta's conduct to defendant's administrators in August 2019. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that the "other female principal working beneath Principal Skretta at [Central Middle School] also experienced harassing behaviors from him." Id. (Compl. ¶ 35).

Spring and Summer 2020—Principal Skretta's Alleged Ongoing Harassment

During the next calendar year, plaintiff continued serving as an Assistant Principal at Central Middle School. Principal Skretta continued in his role too. And according to plaintiff, Principal Skretta's alleged harassment continued.

In early February, the school was evacuated after a fire alarm sounded. Id. (Compl. ¶ 36). Principal Skretta wasn't in the building at the time, but plaintiff was. Id. So, he reprimanded plaintiff for not telling him about the building evacuation, even though plaintiff was not "in charge of the building at the time, ... [not] in charge of crisis drills, [nor was she] the only assistant principal present" at the time. Id.

In late February, plaintiff called 911 in response to a student who was "at the time, aggressive and out of control[.]" Id. at 6 (Compl. ¶ 37). Principal Skretta reprimanded plaintiff for not telling him about the situation before calling 911. Id.

In April, Principal Skretta gave plaintiff a poor performance evaluation. Id. (Compl. ¶ 39). He placed the evaluation in plaintiff's personnel file. Id. Plaintiff alleges Principal Skretta didn't observe her work before the evaluation, and he didn't confer with her afterwards. Id. Plaintiff alleges a conference was required. Id.

In July, "Principal Skretta began to single out [p]laintiff for time-reporting requirements." Id. (Compl. ¶ 40). And throughout the summer and fall of 2020, "Principal Skretta continued to not invite [p]laintiff to meetings" or tell her about schedule changes. Id. (Compl. ¶ 41).

Plaintiff again reported Principal Skretta's conduct to defendant's administrators in March 2020. Id. (Compl. ¶ 38). Specifically, she told them about Principal Skretta's alleged "ongoing harassment, singling [plaintiff] out for public criticism and unfounded reprimands." Id. After interviewing Principal Skretta, defendant later admitted that Principal Skretta's "reprimand and the negative evaluation ... were unfounded." Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43). But, defendant concluded that Principal Skretta "had not retaliated against [p]laintiff." Id. (Compl. ¶ 42).

On November 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a Charge with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC). Id. at 2 (Compl. ¶ 8). It alleged gender discrimination and retaliation. Id. On January 26, 2021, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue to plaintiff. Id. (Compl. ¶ 9). Plaintiff timely filed her Complaint in this court.

II. Legal Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) allows a party to move the court to dismiss an action for failing "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the pleading "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft...