Robinson v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist. 6
| Decision Date | 10 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11-cv-03119-CL |
| Parties | VICKI L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
This matter comes before the court on defendants' motion (#35) for summary judgment. Plaintiff Vicki Robinson ("Robinson") filed this action on September 29, 2011, against defendants Central Point School District 6 ("the District"), Bret Moore ("Moore"), Kerry Bradshaw ("Bradshaw"), June Brock ("Brock"), Jolee Wallace ("Wallace"), and Cindy Tilley-Case ("Tilley-Case"), as members of the Central Point School District 6 Board of Directors (collectively, "the Board"), and Superintendent Randal Gravon ("Gravon"). Plaintiff alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based upon denial of substantive and procedural due process against all defendants. Against the District, plaintiff alleges breach of contract, unpaid wages, and wage claim retaliation. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
Summary judgment shall be granted when the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The court cannot weigh the evidence or determine the truth but may only determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002). An issue of fact is genuine '"if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air. Inc., 281 F.3d 1054,1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson 477 U.S. at 250. Conclusory allegations, unsupported by factual material, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposing party must, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Rule 56, designate specific facts which show there is a genuine issue for trial. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. Put another way, summary judgment should be granted when the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor. Anderson 477 U.S. at 252. In assessing whether a party has met its burden, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
This case is before the court on a motion for summary judgment by the defendants; therefore the facts will be construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Plaintiff has worked for the District since 1987, serving the last few years as the Director of Business Services/Deputy Clerk. She was, essentially, the chief financial officer of the district, managing the business office, the budget, the payroll department, and the accounts payable department.
Plaintiff was employed pursuant to a rolling three year contract, extended most recently in March, 2011, and she received good reviews during the majority of her time with the District. For example, in 2007 Superintendent Gravon commended her success in improving the operations of the business office, calling her a "significant asset" in the District's restructuring process.
In 2006, Gravon reviewed district administrator contracts and noted that some employees, including the plaintiff, had been allowed to accumulate unused vacation days without limitation. Thereafter, an addendum dated October 14, 2003 was found purporting to limit vacation accrual to 35 days, though neither plaintiff nor Defendant Gravon had been aware of the addendum. This addendum was not in plaintiff's contracts up to that time. The matter was taken to the Board, and contracts starting in 2006-07, including the plaintiff's, were changed to limit vacation accrual to no more than 35 days. Nevertheless, the plaintiff believed that she was entitled to preserve the days she had already accrued. The Board disagreed. In 2008, the District's legal counsel Timothy Gerking reviewed the matter and presented a legal opinion agreeing that "the District would not have the legal right to retroactively take away Ms. Robinson's vacation days in excess of 35 that she had a contractual right to accumulate prior to August 2006" when the contracts were changed.
Then, in 2009, the District's bookkeeper Sandy Blackman committed suicide after the plaintiff and the District's accountant discovered a discrepancy in student body funds at the high school. It was determined that Blackman had embezzled over $100,000 over a period of several years. At the time, members of the Board questioned why the plaintiff did not discover the discrepancy sooner.
However, on March 8, 2011, the plaintiff's contract was renewed for another three years. Superintendent Gravon recommended this decision to the Board, without any qualms concerning whether the plaintiff was implementing the efficient business strategies recommended to the business office back in 2005 and 2006 when the District began its restructuring process.
Finally, the incident for which the plaintiff was placed on administrative leave occurred in the spring of 2011. The District was preparing to face a shortfall of $4.3 million in the 2011-12 budget, and the Board was exploring a number of budget cuts, layoffs, and other options to solve the crisis when the plaintiff and the District's accountant discovered an error had been made. In developing the budget, the business office mistakenly included 15 unfilled teaching positions, which had been budgeted for but never filled in the previous year's budget. As a result, the shortfall for the 2011-12 budget would be closer to $2.8 million, meaning the deficit had been overstated by about $1.5 million.
Plaintiff informed Superintendent Gravon of the error on April 4, 2011, and she offered to cancel the vacation she planned to take two days later to Hawaii to celebrate her twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. Gravon told her this would not be necessary, so she did not cancel her trip. On April 12 Gravon informed the Board of the error, and a special board meeting was called to discuss the matter two days later. After the special meeting on April 14, Gravon called the plaintiff in Hawaii to tell her that she was being placed on administrative leave. On April 18,2011, Gravon sent plaintiff a letter confirming that decision. At the same time, he hired Mike Schofield, CPA, and William Dierdorff, Ed.D., to conduct an overall review of the business office; they issued a report on May 2, 2011. It was around this time that Holly Haviland, the District's accountant, heard Gravon state, with respect to the Board's intentions to terminate someone, "it's either Vicki or me, and it's not going to be me."
On May 23, 2011, Gravon directed Dennis Flenner, the District's insurance agent through Proctors Insurance in Medford, to cancel the plaintiff's surety bond through Old Republic Surety Company.1 The next day, May 24, Gravon met with Dierdorff and Schofield about their report; they developed a number of questions to ask the plaintiff about her management of the business office. Gravon did not meet with the plaintiff, or ask her the questions they had developed, but instead met that same day with the Board about the investigation and his recommendation for the plaintiff's dismissal. On May 26, Gravon informed the plaintiff in a letter that he planned to recommend to the Board that she be terminated. The letter mentioned inefficiencies in the business office, underuse of technology in budget development, and concerns about how student body funds were handled. Plaintiff's attorney wrote a letter in response to the District's counsel, objecting and claiming that Gravon had prejudged matters without giving the plaintiff any opportunity to respond.
In early June, the plaintiff ran into Defendant Bradshaw at the local grocery store. Bradshaw told the plaintiff that he was sorry for the situation she was in, and she told him that as the Board Chair, he could make the difference at her upcoming hearing. Bradshaw told her that "the decision was already made and that it was above him."
On June 15, 2011, Superintendent Gravon sent an e-mail to the Board, expressing his appreciation for the Board having made "tough decisions" and for the Board's thoughtfulness while facing such issues as "the loss of our business manager." Gravon said that the Board's "most pressing need is to replace Vicki." He then took steps to interview and hire Spencer Davenport, the Eagle Point controller at the time. Instead of being hired as a "director," which was the plaintiff's position, Davenport was hired as a "finance manager," and told he was replacing Holly Haviland, the District's former accountant. He recognized, however, that the job description required more than what Ms. Haviland had been doing, and that there was a good chance that he would end up in charge of the business office. The official offer to Davenport took place at the end of July.
On July 14, 2011, plaintiff sent a letter to the District responding to the points raised by Gravon in his May 26 letter. On July 20, Gravon responded by letter again, sending a copy to the Board. Plaintiff and her attorney addressed the Board on August 11, 2011. The Board then deliberated and voted to accept Gravon's recommendation to terminate the plaintiff's employment with the District.
Defendant Tilley Case, a member of the Board, stated that her main reason for...
To continue reading
Request your trial