Parks v. Bd. of Trs. of the California State Univ.

Decision Date25 April 2011
Docket NumberNo. 1:09–CV–1314 AWI GSA.,1:09–CV–1314 AWI GSA.
Citation276 Ed. Law Rep. 737,813 F.Supp.2d 1182
PartiesJoe PARKS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Paul Beare, John Welty, Janette Redd–Williams, Janice Parten, Jeri Echeverria, and Does 1–50, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Joe Parks, Clovis, CA, pro se.

Bart Ellis Hightower, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief Judge.

This is a civil rights case brought by pro se Plaintiff Dr. Joseph Parks (Parks) against his employer Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University (Trustees) and various administrative personnel of the TrusteesPaul Beare (Beare), John Welty (Welty), Janette Redd–Williams (Redd–Williams), and Janice Parten (Parten).1 Parks is a professor of education at California State University–Fresno (“CSUF”). The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Parks alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 (Title VII) and California Government Code § 12900 et seq. (the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)). All Defendants now move for summary judgment on all claims alleged against them. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2

Parks is a 67 year old African–American professor of education at CSUF. See DUMF 1; PRDUMF 1. Parks was hired in 1998, and teaches at the Kremen School of Education at CSUF, where his duties include teaching courses, supervising masters level students in completing their final projects, and supervising student teachers who work in local schools. See Parks Depo. 9:24–11:8.

During the Fall 2007 Semester, students in Parks's CI 159 course lodged written and oral complaints with CSUF against Parks. DUMF 3. The students alleged that Parks had subjected them to harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, and religion/marital status. See id. Initially, students Chitwood and Cabrera complained to Associate Dean Torgerson and Dr. Marshall (who is the Chair of the Department of Education and Curriculum). See id. Although the initial oral complaints were received in September 2007, CSUF did not immediately commence its investigation. See DUMF 4. Chitwood was transferred after her oral complaints, but made a formal written complaint on January 2, 2008. See Defendants' Ex. B. Chitwood's formal complaint explained that, although she had transferred classes, she learned that Parks had read to his class a complaining e-mail that Chitwood's husband had sent to Dean Torgerson, and that Parks had left identifying information in the e-mail. See id. Cabrera made her formal written complaint in November 2007, but expressed fear that Parks would retaliate against her, including through grades in the class. See id. Because of the fear expressed, CSUF did not begin investigation of Parks immediately. See DUMF 4. When the January 2008 formal complaint was received, CSUF commenced its investigation. See id.3 Meanwhile, numerous other complaints from students in Parks's CI 159, CI 250 (Fall 2007), and CI 159 (Spring 2008) courses were filed with CSUF officials, which broadened and extended the necessary scope of the investigation as well as the time required to conduct the investigation. See id.

When CSUF learned in the Fall 2008 semester that Parks had retaliated against some student complainants in his classroom, CSUF President Welty decided to place Parks on administrative suspension with full pay pending the outcome of the investigation. See DUMF 5. Parks was suspended in order to prevent further retaliation. See id. Pursuant to Article 17 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between CSUF and its faculty, Parks was placed on a 30–day administrative suspension with full pay so that the investigation could be conducted without fear that Parks would further retaliate against students. See DUMF 6. On February 22, 2008, Parks was served with notice of the suspension and of the reasons for the suspension, including the allegation of retaliation against students. See id.

Because of the number of complaints and the scope of the investigation, the investigation could not be completed in 30 days. DUMF 7.4 Consequently, Parks's suspension with pay was extended to April 21, 2008, by agreement between Parks and CSUF. See id. The agreement to extend the suspension was negotiated between March 27 and April 1, 2008, and was negotiated by Redd–Williams and Parks's union representative Brian McNally. See id. On April 3, 2008, Parks was notified that his suspension was extended to April 21, 2008. See id. However, once the investigation was completed and the report issued, CSUF decided to extend Parks' absence with pay through the end of the semester to prevent unnecessary disruption of the students' academic process that would have resulted from another change of instructor so late in the semester. See id. The suspension with pay is not discipline under CSUF's progressive discipline policy or State Personnel Board rules. Id.

In Fall 2007/Spring 2008, Parten was Director of Human Resources as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity designee at CSUF. DUMF 8. As the EEO designee, Parten initiated the investigation review, which included herself, Associate Dean Dr. Jose Diaz, and Assistant Vice President Dr. Carolyn Coon. See id. This group conducted an investigation into the allegations noted in the numerous student complaints that had been forwarded to other CSUF officials. See id.5

In June 2008, Parten's group completed the investigation, and issued a confidential report to Welty, Redd–Williams, and Provost Echeverria. See DUMF 9. Appendix A of the report is a chart that identifies the various student complainants as well as some students who supported Parks. See id. The report indicates that 28 students were either interviewed and/or provided statements. See PRDUMF 11; Plaintiff's Ex. 2. Of those 28 students, 12 were supportive of Parks. See id. The chart also lists information regarding the timing of the complaints, which CSUF officials received the complaints, the form of the complaint (written or oral), whether a student was interviewed, the identity of the interviewers, and the time and date of each interview. See id. The report also contains findings that Parks made offensive comments and statements in class related to race, gender, national origin, ancestry, and religion including: (1) repeatedly referring to white students as “white boy” or “white girl” or “whitey” rather than using actual names; (2) stating that “all white students look alike;” (3) stating that “black people don't swim or play white sports;” (4) that “whites are right-wing fanatics;” (5) referring to white students as “squirrels” and stating that he did not like white men but did like “pretty white girls;” (6) making repeated references to “you Mexicans” and stating that all Mexicans look alike; (7) stating that California education has changed because “Mexicans learned how to swim;” and (8) reporting to the class that “three Mexicans reported him to the dean.” DUMF 10. 6 The report also found that Parks directed all married students to stand at the front of the class and said that he hoped all the remaining students who were seated were virgins, because otherwise they were immoral. See Defendants' Ex. D at p. 17. As to retaliation against students, the report contains findings that Parks told students: (1) there was no point in complaining about him to the dean because he was tenured; (2) three Mexicans complained about him to an administrator and that he would resign because of the Mexicans; (3) that other students had complained to the Department Chair about him and were “crying” and that he would “figure out which student complained once he saw the roster.” DUMF 10. The report also contains a finding that Parks ridiculed a complaint filed by the husband of a student who had withdrawn from Parks' course due to his behavior. Id. Parks displayed the e-mail to the class, including information that identified the student. Id. At least three students were able to identify the student complainant from the e-mail. Id. Parks indicated to the class that he would figure out who the complainant was. Id. These and other factual findings are stated in the Confidential Report in the Key Factual Findings section. Id. The report's findings sustain, in substantial part, the allegations of harassment and discrimination lodged by students against Parks. Id.

On July 18, 2008, CSUF notified Parks regarding the findings and conclusions of the investigation. DUMF 11.7

On July 30, 2008, CSUF issued Parks a letter of reprimand pursuant to Article 18 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the faculty and CSUF. See id. The letter of reprimand contains findings of fact, and recommendations to Parks. Id. The letter is based solely upon the findings in the report and the evidence substantiating those findings. Id. The letter of reprimand is not discipline under CSUF's progressive discipline policy nor under State Personnel Board rules. Id.

During the Fall 2008 semester, two female teacher candidates whom Parks supervised lodged complaints against Parks with CSUF. DUMF 12. The two women met with Parks on November 5, 2008, and alleged that Parks made race based comments in a conversation about newly elected Barack Obama. DUMF 12. Specifically, the women alleged that Parks commented on President Obama being the “black man in the office,” and that they were going to “make us whities work in the cotton fields,” and that one of the women would be “an upstairs chambermaid” while the other would be “the cook.” See id. Because of her position as the Associate Vice President of Academic Personnel, Redd–Williams investigated the allegations by the two women. See DUMF 13. Redd–Williams eventually determined that Parks had not violated any laws or CSUF policies in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 25, 2011
    ... ... United States District Court, E.D. California. April 25, 2011 ... [813 F.Supp.2d 1171] John A ... Plaintiff originally filed this case in state court on March 20, 2008; at that time, Cox and Ruth Hardin ... , Plaintiff alleges Alvarado tells Zane that if he parks in the disabled parking in the TLE area, that he will be ... ...
  • Stovall v. Align Tech.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 28, 2022
    ...v. Galderma, Inc., No. 19-5678 TSH, 2021 WL 1721069, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2021) (citing Parks v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 813 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1194-95 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (granting defendant's summary judgment motion on plaintiff professor's claims for, inter alia, age discriminat......
  • Doyle v. Galderma, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 30, 2021
    ...complaints is in itself a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating employment. See, e.g., Parks v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1194-95 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (granting defendant's summary judgment motion for plaintiff professor's claims for, inter alia, age d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT