Skaggs v. Van Alstyne Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 08 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-00227-CAN |
| Parties | DEBORRAH SKAGGS, Plaintiff, v. VAN ALSTYNE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Van Alstyne Independent School District's ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion for Summary Judgment") [Dkt. 16]. After reviewing the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 20], Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 21], and all other relevant filings, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 16] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff Deborrah Skaggs ("Plaintiff") began work at Van Alstyne Independent School District in 1998 as a special education teacher for the middle school (teaching sixth, seventh, and eighth grade) [Dkts. 16 at 5; 17-3 at 53]. Plaintiff subsequently moved to an English Language Arts position at Van Alstyne Middle School, which is where she remained until the end of her employment with Defendant [Dkts. 16 at 5; 17-3 at 53]. As an English Language Arts teacher, "one of Plaintiff's duties included preparing her students for the writing portion of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) test[,]" which consists in relevant part of "a 'personal narrative section' and an 'expository section'" [Dkts. 16 at 6; 17-3 at 44]. The State implemented this exam for the first time during the 2011-2012 school year [Dkts. 16 at 6; 17-3 at 44]. The Parties sharply diverge regarding the statistical analysis of Plaintiff's students' performance on the STAAR test (as more fully discussed infra). Prior to implementation of the STAAR test, Plaintiff's annual appraisals were generally positive [Dkt. 20-1 at 206-58; cf. Dkt. 17 at 8-12 ()]. Principal Ryan Coleman ("Coleman"), who began work as the Van Alstyne Middle School principal during the 2008-2009 school year, performed Plaintiff's Observation Summary and Summative Annual Appraisal during the 2008-2009, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 school years [Dkts. 17 at 12, 40, 64-65; 17-1 at 21], as well as Plaintiff's October 2014 Observational Summary [Dkt. 17-1 at 54].
Plaintiff's annual appraisal for the 2011-2012 school year, which was compiled prior to Defendant's receipt of Plaintiff's students' STAAR scores for the year, indicated Plaintiff performed below expectations in the areas of "Professional Communication" and "Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements" but that Plaintiff was proficient at "Active, Successful Student Participating in the Learning Process," "Learner-Centered Instruction," "Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress," and "Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials" and exceeded expectations at "Professional Development" and "Improvement of Academic Performance of All Students on the Campus" [Dkt. 17 at 34-40 (noting specifically that Plaintiff needed to work on "designing engaging lesson plans that require students to get actively involved")].
Subsequent to Plaintiff's annual appraisal, Coleman approached Plaintiff in May 2012 and inquired regarding Plaintiff's plans to retire in the coming year [Dkt. 17-3 at 45]. Plaintiff testified their conversation went as follows:
[H]e approached me in my room. He came back to my desk, and he pulled up a chair, and he sat down and he asked me about retirement. He asked me—he said, "Well, I don't know how much it is, but how much would your pension be if you retired?" He encouraged me to retire and spend more time with my grandkids. And I explained to him at that time that I was my sole supporter since my husband died, and I could not afford to retire.
[Dkt. 20-3 at 260]. Also in May 2012, Defendant received Plaintiff's students' STAAR scores [Dkts. 17 at 13-15, 22-23; 17-3 at 45]. Defendant maintains these scores fell below the state average on both the personal narrative and expository sections of the exam that year [Dkts. 17 at 13-15, 22-23; 17-3 at 45]. Plaintiff argues to the contrary that "Plaintiff's students achieved a mean score of 3.96 compared to the state mean score of 3.94 on the expository composition [and] [o]n the narrative composition, Plaintiff's students' mean of 4.6 is comparable to the state mean of 4.8; and, 85% of Plaintiff's student scored at or better than the mode of 4, equaling the performance of students state-wide" [Dkt. 20 at 4].
Coleman met with Plaintiff in September 2012 to discuss her students' scores from the prior school year. Defendant asserts that Coleman "believed the results warranted a Growth Plan," but that he attempted to avoid placing Plaintiff on such Plan by informally providing her other opportunities to develop her teaching methods [Dkt. 17-3 at 45]. When Plaintiff failed to comply with Coleman's informal directives, Coleman placed Plaintiff on a Growth Plan (beginning October 22, 2012, and to be completed March 1, 2013) after seeking Plaintiff's input regarding the plans goals and tools [Dkt. 17 at 40-46]. Plaintiff received her annual appraisal for the 2012-2013 school year on April 28, 2013 [Dkt 17 at 56-65]. While generally positive, theappraisal indicated Plaintiff had "a long way to go to get to where [the school] need[ed] [her] to be" and that Plaintiff and her students "ha[d] a lot of ground to make up before" STAAR testing [Dkt. 17 at 56-65]. According to Defendant, Plaintiff's students scored better on the 2013 STAAR test, exceeding the state average on the personal narrative section, but were below average on the expository section [Dkt. 17 at 16-17, 22-23; 17-3 at 46]. Plaintiff asserts her "students achieved a mean score of 5.27 compared to the state mean of 4.84 on the personal narrative composition . . . [and that while her] students averaged a 3.94 compared to the state average of 4.35 on the expository composition, a higher percentage of [her] students (80%) scored at or above the mode of 4 than was achieved statewide (76%)" [Dkt. 20 at 5].
In February 2014, Coleman decided to place Plaintiff on a second Growth Plan [Dkt. 17 at 68-69], which focused largely on improving the perceived "lack of student progress as writers and lack of student engagement" as well as the perceived "insufficient daily use of learner-centered strategies and critical thinking opportunities" in Plaintiff's classroom [Dkt. 17-1 at 5-7]. This Growth Plan was to run from April 28, 2014, to May 30, 2014, though Plaintiff and Coleman did not sign it until May 2, 2014. See id. Coleman met with Plaintiff in May 2014 to discuss this second Growth Plan [Dkt. 17-3 at 46]. Plaintiff testified the meeting went as follows:
He just sat back in his chair, and he said, "I have an idea for you—that I have two positions open for next year, and I want you to think about or consider taking one of the positions, and I have an aide position I'd like for you to fill." Would I consider that, and I said no. And then at—towards the end of the meeting, he asked me if I had reconsidered taking the aide's position. And I said "No, I can't afford it." And then he made the statement sometime during that meeting that it would be a less stressful job and it would give me more time at home to spend with my family.
Id. at 63. Later that month, Defendant received Plaintiff's students' STAAR scores for the 2013-2014 school year, which Defendant indicates were below-average on both the personal narrative and expository sections [Dkt. 17-1 at 24-25]. Plaintiff claims this interpretation "manipulate[es] the data" and asserts her "students['] mean score of 4.55 on the personal narrative composition is comparable to the state mean of 4.82 [and that] . . . a higher percentage of [her] students scored at or above the mode of 4 on the personal narrative composition, than did students state-wide [Dkt. 20 at 6]. Regarding the expository section, Plaintiff does not contest her students' scores fell below the statewide average.
Plaintiff failed to meet many of the requirements of her second Growth Plan and throughout the 2014-2015 school year met frequently with Coleman regarding her perceived deficiencies in the classroom and also about her failure to comply with the Growth Plan [see Dkt. 16 at 13-15]. Plaintiff testified that, throughout her tenure and at such meetings, Coleman would repeatedly refer to her teaching methods as "outdated" or "old," which Plaintiff understood as discriminatory remarks directed at her because of her age [e.g., Dkt. 17-3 at 63]. Since as early as the 2011-2012 School Year, Plaintiff complained to Michelle Wichers ("Wichers"), another teacher at Van Alstyne Middle School, about these comments and Plaintiff's placement on growth plans, which Plaintiff perceived to be a result of her age [Dkt. 17-3 at 56, 63, 68].
In February 2015, Coleman told Plaintiff he intended to recommend to Superintendent John Spies ("Spies"), who began working as the Van Alstyne Independent School District's superintendent in 2011, that Plaintiff's teaching contract be non-renewed for the 2015-2016school year in light of her perceived deficiencies [Dkt. 17-3 at 47, 75]. Plaintiff testified that, at that time, Coleman suggested she could retire or resign in lieu of facing termination. Id. at 75.
Relying on Coleman's recommendation, Spies recommended non-renewal of Plaintiff's teaching contract to the Board of Trustees ("Board"); on March 20, 2015, Spies provided Plaintiff notice of his recommendation [Dkt. 17 at 5].1 The Board held a non-renewal hearing on April 27, 2015 [Dkts. 17-2 at 38-71; 17-3 at 1-40]. At hearing, Plaintiff's counsel cross-examined Defendant's witnesses, Coleman and Spies, but did not present...
To continue reading
Request your trial