Rogers v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty.

• Decision Date: 09 April 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Nos. PJM 11–1194,PJM 11–1232,PJM 11–1231,PJM 11–1196,PJM 11–1278,PJM 11–1198,PJM 11–1197,PJM 11–1329,PJM 11–1276,PJM 11–1195,PJM 11–1398.
• Citation: 114 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1500,859 F.Supp.2d 742
• Parties: Sally ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant. Ruth Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Jon Everhart, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Vallie Dean, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Josephat Mua, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Sandra Williams, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Venida Marshall, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Loretta Jarmon, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Nicole Turner, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Tracy Allison, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant. Darlene Ball–Rice, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

859 F.Supp.2d 742

114 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1500

Sally ROGERS, Plaintiff,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant.

Ruth Johnson, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Jon Everhart, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Vallie Dean, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Josephat Mua, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Sandra Williams, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Venida Marshall, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Loretta Jarmon, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Nicole Turner, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Tracy Allison, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Darlene Ball–Rice, Plaintiff,

v.Board of Education of Prince George's County, Defendant.

Civil Nos. PJM 11–1194, PJM 11–1195, PJM 11–1196, PJM 11–1197, PJM 11–1198, PJM 11–1231, PJM 11–1232, PJM 11–1276, PJM 11–1278, PJM 11–1329, PJM 11–1398.

United States District Court,

D. Maryland.

April 9, 2012.

Bryan A. Chapman, Washington, DC, Raouf Muhammad Abdullah, Abdullah & Associates, LLC, Robert Elmer Cappell, for Plaintiffs.

Abbey Gail Hairston, Linda Hitt Thatcher, Sarah Martin Burton, Robert Judah Baror, Thatcher Law Firm, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Christopher M. Feldenzer, Jeffrey E. Rockman, Serotte, Rockman & Wescott, PA, Towson, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PETER J. MESSITTE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in these cases are current or former employees of Defendant Board of Education of Prince George's County, Maryland (“the Board”). Plaintiffs have sued the Board alleging discrimination based on violation of various federal statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The Board has filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, motions for summary judgment, some of which have been addressed, others of which will be addressed at a later time. The Court's present concern is solely with the claims tied to Title VI. The Board has argued that Plaintiffs' Title VI claims fail as a matter of law. The Court deferred ruling on whether Plaintiffs could pursue their Title VI claims, and requested additional briefing and argument from the parties, which the Court has now considered. For the reasons that follow, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs' are entitled to assert claims pursuant to Title VI and the Board is not entitled to summary judgment at this juncture.

I.

The critical issue is whether the Board, in some meaningful measure, receives federal funds for the purpose of providing employment. If so, then Title VI authorizes individual actions for employment-related discrimination. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, –3.

In seeking relief under Title VI, Plaintiffs allege in their Complaints that the United States Department of Education (“DOE”) has provided Maryland public schools with more than $1 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), Pub.L. No. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115, and that Prince George's County Public Schools (“PGCPS”) have received such funds “for the express purpose of creating jobs and maintaining existing ones.”

The stated “purposes” of ARRA, which Congress passed in early 2009, are:

(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.

(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.

(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.

(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.

(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

Id. at 116. Congress directed the President and heads of federal departments to expend the funds made available under ARRA “so as to achieve the purposes specified....” Id.

ARRA created the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, administered by the DOE, and directed the Department's Secretary to make grants to each state from the Fund. Id. at 279. Over eighty percent of that money was aimed at restoring state support for primary and secondary education. Id. at 280. In April 2009, the DOE issued a document entitled “Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program,” which addressed the question, “[w]hat overarching principles guide the distribution and use of all ARRA funds that the Department administers?” The first of four principles outlined was: “Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs.” The document went on to state that “[t]he Department is distributing ARRA funds quickly to avert layoffs and create jobs.” “States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and IHEs [institutions of higher education] are urged to move rapidly to develop plans for using the funds, consistent with the ARRA's reporting and accountability requirements, and promptly to begin spending funds to help drive the nation's economic recovery.” Additionally, the DOE issued a press release in which Secretary Arne Duncan declared that billions of dollars in ARRA funding was available to “lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts.” Indeed, under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, states must submit a report to the Secretary each year that describes “the number of jobs that the Governor estimates were saved or created with funds the State received under this title.” Id. at 285.

In August 2010, Congress passed a law creating the Education Jobs Fund. Pub.L. No. 111–226, 124 Stat. 2389. The Education Jobs Fund allocated money to states to be awarded to local educational agencies for the creation and retention of education jobs. Id. at 2390. Specifically, federal monies were to be “used only for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services.” Id.

The Maryland State Board of Education accepts federal funding on behalf of the State. That money is then distributed from the State Treasury to county boards of education, including the Board of Education of Prince George's County. Between the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Education Jobs Fund, Board of Education of Prince George's County received over $100 million from 2009 to 2011.

The Board has filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, motions for summary judgment in every one of the captioned cases, arguing that Plaintiffs cannot state valid claims under Title VI. In support of its position, the Board has submitted the affidavit of Matthew Stanski, who has served as Chief Financial Officer for PGCPS since December 2008. One of Stanski's responsibilities is to track funding provided to the school system and expenditure of that money. Stanski avers that “[a]ll federal grants received by the school system are for the primary purpose of increasing student achievement,” including ARRA funded grants in 2009. With respect to the Education Jobs Fund, Stanski states that PGCPS were initially awarded $31 million, but the Maryland State Department of Education reduced the one-time grant to $6 million. The school system used the money to establish “70 new teaching positions” during the 2010–2011 school year. However, because PGCPS did not receive any additional funding, those 70 positions have been eliminated.

In a spreadsheet attached to his affidavit, Stanski indicates that PGCPS secured State Fiscal Stabilization Fund grants from July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 and from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011, which he describes as supporting “district-wide utility costs, textbooks, and other LEA instructional materials.” The spreadsheet also shows that PGCPS received Education Jobs Fund money from August 10, 2010 to September 30, 2012. That assistance, he submits, supported “additional classroom positions in schools and applicable district-wide fringe benefits for school-based instructional personnel.”

II.

A.

In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the “court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff....” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). The court, however, need not accept as true “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. There must be “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The complaint must contain sufficient well-pled facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The factual allegations must “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

B.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set...