Spanel v. Cent. Cmty. Coll.

• Decision Date: 02 February 2022
• Docket Number: 8:18-CV-380
• Parties: LACRITIA SPANEL, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CHRIS WADDLE, in his individual capacity; GREG SMITH, in his individual capacity; and MATT GOTSCHALL, in his individual capacity; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

LACRITIA SPANEL, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CHRIS WADDLE, in his individual capacity; GREG SMITH, in his individual capacity; and MATT GOTSCHALL, in his individual capacity; Defendants.

No. 8:18-CV-380

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN C. BUESCHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Lacritia Spanel has sued Central Community College (“CCC”), Chris Waddle, Greg Smith, and Matt Gotschall. In her suit, Spanel brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (“NFEPA”) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Spanel, an English instructor at CCC, generally alleges that Defendants have discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and disability in violation of the ADA, Title VII, the NFEPA and the Fourteenth Amendment and retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment, Title VII, and the NFEPA. According to Spanel, Defendants have been on a four-year crusade to oust her from her job after she helped fellow faculty members make complaints of misconduct against some members of CCC's administration.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Spanel's claims. In their motion, Defendants argue that Spanel cannot prove that she suffered an adverse employment action or that any of the explanations Defendants give for their actions are a pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation. They further contend that Spanel has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for some of her claims. Also before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Strike an exhibit Spanel filed with her Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing 146; Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiff's Expert, Filing 152; and Spanel's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing 149. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also denies as moot Defendants' Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiff's Expert, and Spanel's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.

II. BACKGROUND

Since 2014, Spanel has worked at CCC as an English instructor. Filing 118 at 11-12. The individual defendants are members of CCC's administration. Waddle is the Vice President of Human Resources, Filing 118 at 200; Smith, who retired in January 2018, is the former President of CCC, Filing 118 at 220; and Gotschall has been the President of CCC since Smith's retirement, Filing 118 at 192. Along with her teaching duties, Spanel has also served as a representative of CCC's faculty union since 2015. Filing 144-1 at 1. As a union representative, Spanel attended negotiations between the union and CCC's administration. Filing 144-1 at 1-2, 6, 8.

Sometime in early 2016, Spanel became the President of the All College Faculty Senate (“Faculty Senate”). Filing 143-1 at 7-8. In March of 2016, Spanel and other members of the Faculty Senate decided to conduct an anonymous survey to document complaints the faculty had against individuals in CCC's administration. Filing 56 at 4; Filing 118 at 90-92; Filing 143-38 at 2-4. The responses to these surveys generally reported rude treatment of faculty members by one of CCC's deans.^[1] Filing 140-36 at 1-33. After receiving the survey responses, Spanel turned them over to Maureen Nickels, the state union representative of CCC's faculty. Filing 143-1 at 14. Nickels then met with Deb Brennan, the Vice Present of CCC, on May 3, 2016, to discuss concerns that the faculty had with CCC's administration.^[2] Filing 118 at 224; Filing 140-6 at 1. At the meeting with Brennan, Nickels mentioned that Spanel was the Faculty Senate President, but did not tell Brennan which members of the faculty had complaints about CCC's administration. Filing 140-8 at 1; Filing 140-10 at 1. Brennan claims that Nickels never told her about the anonymous faculty survey and who organized it. Filing 118 at 225.

The next day, Brennan met with defendant Smith, who at the time served as the President of CCC, about her meeting with Nickels. Filing 143-31 at 16. Brennan informed Smith that the faculty had concerns with CCC's administration but did not mention any faculty names. Filing 143-31 at 16-17. Defendants deny ever learning of the anonymous survey or Spanel's involvement with surveying the faculty until Spanel filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) discrimination charge against CCC in 2017. Filing 118 at 192-93, 200-01, 221-22, 224- 25, 230. Spanel claims that since her involvement with the anonymous faculty survey she has been the subject of several retaliatory and discriminatory actions by Defendants from 2016 through 2020. These actions include two allegedly negative evaluations from Spanel's supervisors, Spanel's discipline after she failed to submit her schedule, CCC not promoting Spanel to Interim Associate Dean of Academic Education, responses to Spanel's requests to accommodate her disability, and several other minor instances of alleged misconduct. Spanel also contends that the retaliation and discrimination continued in response to her filing two EEOC charges and this suit. However, Defendants are quick to point out that, since the anonymous faculty survey, Spanel has had her employment contract renewed several times, received raises, and eventually obtained tenured status. Filing 118 at 25, 41-42. The Court outlines the relevant episodes below.

A. Associate Dean Kemp's 2016 Performance Evaluation and Cubicle-Moving Decision

On May 5, 2016, Spanel received an annual performance evaluation from her supervisor, Associate Dean of Academic Education Caroline Kemp. Filing 56 at 7, Filing 118 at 228. Although the evaluation contained several positive statements of Spanel's teaching ability, Kemp also wrote that she feared Spanel may be overextending herself and that Spanel failed to inform Kemp when another instructor covered her class. Filing 118 at 100-01. Spanel believes that this evaluation constituted the first negative review she has ever received in her professional career. Filing 118 at 101-02; Filing 143-1 at 22. Spanel attached a response to this evaluation in which she claimed that she felt that she was experiencing retaliatory behavior for her work with the Faculty Senate. Filing 118 at 102. Although an employee of CCC spoke to Spanel about these allegations of retaliatory behavior, Spanel declined to make a formal complaint or provide further details. Filing 118 at 32, 103.

A few days later, Spanel asked Kemp if she could move to a different cubicle. Filing 141-15 at 4-5. Spanel wanted to change from her smaller cubicle to a larger one. Filing 141-15 at 4-5. Kemp denied Spanel's request because CCC grouped faculty together based on their discipline and there were no open cubicles within Spanel's discipline area. Filing 141-15 at 4; Filing 143-2 at 10.

B. Bradley Keasling Becomes the Interim Associate Dean

In August of 2016, Associate Dean Kemp notified CCC that she was taking a leave of absence. Filing 143-28 at 16. The Dean of Academic Education and Kemp's supervisor, Kathy Fuchser, recommended Bradley Keasling to assume the role of Interim Associate Dean because Keasling had completed a return to industry the previous summer, had taught academic education courses in economics, and had expressed an interest in taking an administrative position. Filing 118 at 201; Filing 143-32 at 8-9. CCC did not post, advertise, or formally open the Interim Dean position for applications. Filing 118 at 201. Defendants claim that they did not consider Spanel for the position because she had never expressed interest in an administrative job and lacked administrative experience. Filing 118 at 201-02, 231; Filing 143-1 at 38 (Spanel stating that she never expressed interest in becoming an associate dean prior to August of 2016). CCC offered Keasling the position, and Keasling accepted.^[3]

C. August 2016 Scheduling Issue and Discipline

On August 17, 2016, Spanel and the rest of the faculty in the Academic Education department received an email requesting that they turn in their weekly schedules. Filing 118 at 106. Spanel submitted her schedule, which included a fifteen-minute period between 7:45 AM and 8:00 AM for professional development. Filing 118 at 107. Dean Fuchser reviewed Spanel's schedule and requested that she adjust her fifteen-minute professional development period to a thirty-minute period because Fuchser wanted all schedules to have periods of at least thirty minutes for consistency purposes. Filing 118 at 109. Spanel emailed Fuchser explaining why she wanted a fifteen-minute rather than a thirty-minute period in the morning. Filing 118 at 112-13. Fuchser responded by thanking Spanel for her explanation and again asked Spanel to submit a schedule with at least thirty-minute periods. Filing 118 at 111. Spanel refused to do so and told Fuchser that she was “continuing up the chain of command regarding [Fuchser's] request.” Filing 118 at 116.

Spanel then sent an email about the scheduling issue to defendant Gotschall, who at the time was serving as CCC's Columbus Campus President and Vice President of Academic Education. Filing 118 at 122-23, 193. Gotschall agreed to meet with Spanel to address her concerns and told her to submit her schedule in the format required by Fuchser prior to the meeting. Filing 118 at 122. When Spanel again did not submit a revised schedule, defendant Smith, who was the President of CCC, emailed her and directed her to submit a revised schedule. Filing 118 at 128. After receiving Smith's email, Spanel submitted a revised...