Simmons v. Camden County Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-8309,84-8309 |
| Citation | 757 F.2d 1187 |
| Parties | 37 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 795, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,214, 23 Ed. Law Rep. 1266 Gertie SIMMONS and Thomas Baker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Kathleen M. Allen, Belmont, Mass., Michael Sussman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John J. Ossick, Jr., Kingsland, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs are former teachers at Camden County High School who were suspended from their positions on February 11, 1977, and subsequently discharged for cause. In the summer of 1976, both had filed charges of racial discrimination against the school district with the Office of Civil Rights of the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW"). Following a timely complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that they were discharged in retaliation for the filing of the discrimination complaints with HEW, in violation of Sec. 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3(a).
Following a bench trial, the district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court concluded that although the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of retaliation, they did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' articulated reasons for discharging them were merely a pretext for discrimination.
The plaintiffs contend that the district court's findings of fact concerning disparate treatment and motive were inadequate and clearly erroneous. They also contend that the district court erred in allocating to them the burden of disproving the defendants' articulated reasons for terminating the plaintiffs, in light of what the plaintiffs insist was direct evidence of discriminatory animus. We do not agree, and we therefore affirm.
The plaintiffs did introduce considerable documentary evidence of instances of poor performance and misconduct in varying degrees of severity among other faculty members, which did not result in termination or suspension. This fact was specifically noted by the district court in its findings of fact. The plaintiffs believe that this evidence merited more detailed findings. In our opinion, the district court adequately noted the significance of the plaintiffs' evidence.
The plaintiffs missed the point of the district court's findings and conclusions. The court did find that the plaintiffs' infractions were in fact dealt with more severely than were comparable infractions by other faculty members. This is precisely the fact which the plaintiffs were seeking to prove. However, the court found that the disparate treatment was not in response to the filing of the complaints with the HEW. Rather, it accepted the defendants' testimony that the plaintiffs were suspended and discharged because their infractions were perceived to be part of an ongoing pattern of conduct manifesting disrespect and open defiance toward the supervisory authority of the school principal, Peter Baker, wholly apart from the filing of the complaints. Peter Baker is plaintiff Thomas Baker's brother. In 1976, he, too, had filed discrimination charges against the school system, which he later withdrew. After examining the record, we conclude that these findings were not clearly erroneous. See Pullman Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289-90, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790-91, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
The plaintiffs also contend that the burden should have been on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holston v. Sports Authority, Inc.
...at 600-601; see also Weaver v. Casa Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.2d 1515, 1524 (11th Cir.1991) (footnote omitted); Simmons v. Camden County Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.1985). Once a prima facie case has been established, the employer must come forward with a legitimate non-discrimi......
-
Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Authority
...that the plaintiff establish that the protected activity and the adverse action are not wholly unrelated." Simmons v. Camden County Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 385, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985); see also Weaver v. Casa Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.......
-
Beaumont v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-141.
...the employment decision and his protected activity `were not wholly unrelated.'" 238 F.3d at 684 (quoting Simmons v. Camden County Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 385, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985)). The consideration of three factors may be help......
-
Gogel v. KIA Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., No. 16-16850
...not wholly unrelated."13 Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co. , 513 F.3d 1261, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Simmons v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985) ). The burden of production then shifted to Kia to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for firin......