Moore v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-4174-MLB |
| Parties | Ellena Moore, Plaintiff, v. Cobb County School District, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Plaintiff Ellena Moore alleges her former employer, Defendant Cobb County School District, interfered with her ability to take medical leave and retaliated against her for doing so in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), discriminated against her based on her disabilities and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and retaliated against her for complaining about the discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. 58.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending Defendant's motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 84.) Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. (Dkt 86.) After conducting a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff specifically objects, the Court sustains in part and overrules in part Plaintiff's objections.
Defendant operates more than 144 schools and employs over 13, 000 people. (Dkt. 84 at 3.) Defendant employed Plaintiff, an African American, as a teacher at East Cobb Middle School (“School”) for the 2015-16, 2016-17 [2] and 2017-18 school years. (Id.) Defendant also employed Leetonia Young, an African American, as the principal of the School. (Id. at 4.)
To ensure consistency and comparability for evaluating teachers across the state, the Georgia Department of Education (“GADOE”) implemented a common evaluation system for all teachers called the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (“TKES”). (Id.) TKES has multiple components that contribute to a teacher's overall evaluation. (Id. at 5.) One is the Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards, which provides evaluators with a qualitative, rubrics-based evaluation method by which they can measure teacher performance related to quality performance standards. (Id.) There are ten performance standards: professional knowledge, instructional planning, instructional strategies, differentiated instruction, assessment strategies, assessment uses, positive learning environment, academically challenging environment, professionalism, and communication. (Id.) Teachers are responsible for submitting documentation, including lesson plans, as requested by the evaluator. (Id. at 5-6.) When conducting an end of the year Summative Assessment on each of the performance standards, the evaluator is directed to determine where “the totality of the evidence and most consistent practice” exists for the entire evaluation period, not just a particular lesson or snapshot in time. (Id. at 6.) The Summative Assessment takes into consideration all previous evaluations. (Id. at 7.) If a teacher earns an overall rating of Level I or II on his or her Summative Assessment, Defendant may not offer that teacher a contract for the following school year.[3] (Id.)
On March 24, 2017, the School's assistant principal, Ms. Mitchell, issued a letter of direction to Plaintiff about excess absenteeism for the 2016-17 school year. (Id.) The letter's introductory paragraph states:
As we discussed during the conference, you had taken a total of 9.25 days of short[-]term leave since July 25, 2016. As of March 21, 2017, you are at or nearing the level of absenteeism that is considered unacceptable, in that it poses an undue hardship on your coworkers and the entire department. The instruction you provide to students is critical to student achievement, and prompt and regular attendance is part of the essential functions of your job duties.
(Id. at 8.) The letter also states that absences in excess of 6.5 days within a fiscal year for 180-89 day employees, 7 for 190-94 day employees, 8 for 210-39 day employees, and 9 for 240-60 day employees “may result in corrective action consistent with progressive discipline.” (Id.) The letter instructs Plaintiff to improve her attendance and warns that failure to do so and/or any other misconduct may lead to further disciplinary action, up to and including termination. (Id.) Plaintiff does not recall receiving this letter, but she did talk to Ms. Mitchell about her absences during the 2016-17 school year. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, when Ms. Mitchell asked about her absences, Plaintiff told her the reasons for most of them, and Ms. Mitchell replied, “That was fine and that was just a formality and that was the end of it.” (Id.)
At the end of the 2016-17 school year, Plaintiff complained to Ms. Young about the treatment of three African American students at the School. (Id. at 9.) Two of the incidents involved three Caucasian teachers surrounding and scolding an African American student in the hallway. (Id.) The third involved a Caucasian teacher telling an African American student something to the effect of: “This is why y'all are getting shot by the police now, because you don't know how to do something the first time you are asked.” (Id.) As part of this conversation, Plaintiff asked Ms. Young if the school staff could participate in ethnicity training for the next school year. (Id.) Plaintiff also asked the School's assistant principal, Ms. Gary-Robinson, for her support in getting ethnicity training. (Id. at 10.) Ms. Gary-Robinson, an African American, said she would talk to Ms. Young about it. (Id.)
In early August of the 2017-18 school year, Plaintiff asked two of her students, who were African American, to return a cup to another teacher. (Id.) The School's assistant principal, April Gwyn, returned the students to Plaintiff and gave her the impression the students had been disruptive. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff and Ms. Gwyn, a Caucasian, emailed each other several times about the incident, and Plaintiff objected to Ms. Gwyn's characterization of the students' behavior. (Id.) Ms. Gwyn took issue with Plaintiff's use of students to perform personal errands, citing multiple incidents of the same during the first week of school. (Id.) Ms. Young was copied during the email exchange. (Id.) Ms. Young later told them the conversation was over, to stop emailing back and forth about the issue, and to speak in person, if necessary. (Id.) The students' race was not mentioned in the emails. (Id.)
At the beginning of the 2017-18 school year, Plaintiff took sick leave on August 3, 24, and 25 and unpaid leave on August 25, 28, and 29.[4] (Id. at 12.) On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Young and Ms. Mitchell, explaining that she missed four days of work the week before because she was “feeling ill” but had visited her doctor and received a diagnosis. (Id.) Plaintiff stated she did not want to reveal her diagnosis at that time but explained “it is of a serious nature” and she “was immediately placed on a medical treatment plan and prescribed medication” that she was “currently taking.” (Id.) Plaintiff again took unpaid leave on September 1, 5, and 15, 2017. (Id.) On September 5, 2017, Ms. Young sent Plaintiff an email about her absences:
(Id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff eventually told Ms. Young that she had been diagnosed with anxiety, panic disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Id. at 13.) She takes three medications for her disorders. (Id.) She also told Ms. Young about her symptoms (i.e., severe chest pains, problems breathing, and blurry vision). (Id.)
On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff requested, and Defendant later approved, FMLA leave from September 18 through October 30. (Id.) On November 16, 2017, Ms. Young sent Plaintiff an email about her absences:
To continue reading
Request your trial