Murphy v. Middletown Enlarged City Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79 Civ. 3627 (IBC).,79 Civ. 3627 (IBC). |
| Citation | 525 F. Supp. 678 |
| Parties | Eva MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. MIDDLETOWN ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Louise Ellison, President of the Board of Education of the Middletown Enlarged City School District, Oscar Sotsky, Edith Weiss, Ruth Kassel, Raymond Wood, George Bagge III, George Sands, Joseph Moran, John Masi, Members of the Board of Education of the Middletown Enlarged City School District, and John Krause, Superintendent of the Middletown Enlarged City School District, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles E. Carter, N.A.A.C.P., New York City, for plaintiff; James I. Meyerson, New York City, of counsel.
Rains & Pogrebin, Mineola, N. Y., for defendants; Joel H. Golovensky, Bruce R. Millman, Mineola, of counsel.
Plaintiff, Eva Murphy (Murphy), a black female high school teacher in the Middletown Enlarged School District ("district"), brings this action pursuant to the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000d et seq. and 2000e et seq. against the nine members of the board of education of the district, the president of the board of education, the superintendent of the district and the district itself. The gravamen of the complaint is that on three separate occasions the district failed to promote Murphy to administrative positions within the district; once to the position of personnel director and twice to the position of assistant principal.1 For its part, the district maintains that it only hired the best qualified individual for each position available and that in no wise did race and/or sex become a basis for its failure to select Murphy for any of the positions.
Murphy completed her secondary education in 1954 and matriculated in the same year at Allen University located in Columbia, South Carolina.2 She attended there until 1956 when she interrupted her studies to go to work. Murphy was first employed as a secretary by American Machine & Foundry, a company located in Connecticut. After approximately a year and a half she left the firm to work for the New York Department of Social Services as a junior caseworker in New Rochelle, New York.3 Murphy remained in that post for approximately a year and a half until she was hired by International Business Machines in Kingston, New York. Her initial position at I.B.M. secured in June, 1959, was that of stenographer.4 She was promoted to secretary in 1961, and in 1962 she received the last increase in compensation although she remained there until August, 1966.5 The highest level attained by Murphy was a "level 14" secretary at a pay rate of $5,200 a year. Her responsibilities there included making appointments, answering telephones, taking dictation, and training secretarial pool employees in typing, shorthand and other business skills.6 Her duties did not include the hiring and firing of employees.7
Murphy testified that her duties at I.B.M. were within the sphere of an administrative assistant and her exact title was "executive secretary." Notwithstanding the fact that I.B.M.'s records revealed that Murphy made at most $5,200 a year, she asserted that her final and highest rate of annual compensation was approximately $10,000.8
Donald Moyer, a witness called by the defendants and an employee with I.B.M. was familiar with the personnel records and practices of the corporation, admitted that he had no specific information regarding the work that managers may have assigned Murphy,9 but did testify that a person in Murphy's position, a level 14 secretary, would have no responsibility for disciplining others and usually would not have the responsibility of assigning work to other employees.10 He also stated that in 1966 the position of executive secretary, which Murphy claimed she occupied, carried a level 21 classification. The I.B.M. personnel records revealed that Murphy carried only a level 14 classification.11
Upon her resignation from I.B.M. in 1966, Murphy secured employment with the Orange County Board of Cooperative Educational Services as a secretary to the director and then as instructor in data processing and in the use of "business machines."12
She testified that during this period of absence from Allen University she took courses at Orange County Community College, Middletown, New York, and Mount St. Mary's, Newburgh, New York, and in 1969 she returned to Allen.13 Murphy stated that she then spent a year and one summer at Allen, ultimately receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in August, 1971 with a major in business education and a minor in English.14
Murphy was first employed by the district in the 1970-71 school year as a regular substitute. She taught non-Regents English and typing at Middletown High School despite her failure at that time to have a bachelors degree.15 Bernard Courtney (Courtney), principal of the high school, recommended Murphy for a staff appointment and wrote "... Murphy has displayed unusual capability and concern in her work with many students of limited social motivation."16 She was retained for the 1971-72 academic year as a full-time teacher. Even though Murphy had fulfilled her degree requirements, she did not have certification as a teacher from the New York State Education Department.17 The Education Department would not accept her degree from Allen because it had lost accreditation.18 Representatives of the district wrote to Allen University, the New York State Department of Education and the local supervisory district on behalf of Murphy in an effort to have her degree recognized. Ultimately, Murphy received permanent certification as a teacher in September, 1973 in the areas of English and commerce.19
Beginning in the 1971-72 school year, once employed on a full-time basis, Murphy was assigned by the principal, Courtney, to handle disciplinary related problems of female students — problems such as non-attendance, class cutting, and, at times, personal problems. Murphy performed these duties for four of the six assignable class periods each day, teaching English the remaining two periods.20
Courtney, at his deposition, testified that there was always a need for increasing personnel to assist with attendance follow-up, but that it would have been an unavailing request to ask the school board for additional personnel because of financial constraints. Therefore, Courtney assigned Murphy to this disciplinary related function; an appointment Courtney characterized as being similar to those of other teachers to the student yearbook organization or as senior class advisor; that such an appointment necessarily reduced the appointee's other teaching obligations.21
Murphy testified that her duties relating to discipline involved handling referrals of students from teachers for such problems as class cutting and non-attendance. According to Murphy, subsequent to her initial meetings with these students, she often became involved in counseling them since their manifest problems were at times caused by deeper seated psychological and social traumas. She further testified that in the area of discipline she performed the same functions as the then "assistant to the principal" of the high school.22
While Murphy was fulfilling her teaching and disciplinary duties at the high school, she embarked upon post-graduate studies. She earned sixty-six (66) credits at the State University of New York at New Paltz, receiving in May, 1977 a Master of Science Degree in Education and a Certificate of Advanced Study in Educational Administration and Supervision.23
In 1974 the high school itself underwent change. Courtney, returning from a sabbatical, resigned as principal to become supervisor of secondary education for the Middletown schools. At this juncture Robert Palgutta (Palgutta), the vice-principal and acting principal during Courtney's absence, was promoted to principal.24
Palgutta testified that during his tenure as acting principal and principal, he instituted several changes at the high school. First, he eliminated the "open campus" policy at the school. This was a policy pursuant to which students were left free to do as they wished when they had no scheduled classes. As the school day became more structured under Palgutta, a new discipline system was instituted to reduce the frequency of non-attendance and class cutting incidents. Palgutta described this new discipline system as one in which the student would be on more precise notice of the consequences following any infraction.25
Second, Palgutta changed the administrative structure of the high school. He abolished the position of "assistant to the principal" and in its stead created two assistant principal positions. Palgutta testified that these new positions remained predominantly disciplinary related; the functions of the new positions were expanded into non-disciplinary areas.26
Third, and among other changes, Palgutta instituted a morning sign-in procedure for teachers. Palgutta testified that this was done in an effort to better account for teachers who were required to be in their homerooms; if a teacher did not "sign-in" on time, the school administrators could readily recognize the problem and assign a teacher to temporary supervisory duty.27
Murphy almost immediately ran afoul with Palgutta's signing-in directive. Murphy was reprimanded for lateness, at a minimum ten times in two years.28 Approximately two and a half months after this new procedure was established, Palgutta reprimanded her in writing and characterized her as the "champ" and stated that she had signed-in less than any of the other teachers.29 Murphy admitted at trial that on an infrequent basis she did not sign-in on time but stressed that she was never late for school; that many times she would be delayed in the mornings with students or parents who wished to discuss the disciplinary problems...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shanafelt v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs
... ... 2778 ; see also Doe v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dist. , 832 F.3d 69, 78 (1st Cir. 2016) ... the federal government, and must not be enlarged beyond such boundaries as its language plainly ... ...
-
Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc.
...violating the equal employment laws. See Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. at 259 101 S.Ct. at 1096, Murphy v. Middletown Enlarged City School District, 525 F.Supp. 678, 693, 707 (S.D.N.Y.1981). Another example of pretext would be if the employer claimed it did not select an employee for a particula......
-
Doe on Behalf of Doe v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Fort Wayne
...590 F.2d at 89 (footnote omitted); see Simpson, 629 F.2d at 1235 n. 16; Mosley, 574 F.Supp. at 236; Murphy v. Middletown Enlarged City School District, 525 F.Supp. 678, 708 (S.D.N.Y.1981); see also Caulfield v. Board of Education, 583 F.2d 605, 610-11 (2d Cir.1978) (court approved governmen......
-
Scelsa v. City University of New York
...intent is required, in some cases it can be inferred from the "mere fact of difference in treatment." Murphy v. Middletown Enlarged City School Dist., 525 F.Supp. 678, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1981). While mere statistics alone will not suffice to make plaintiff's prima facie case, "gross statistical d......