Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-2661-JWL |
| Citation | 469 F.Supp.3d 1121 |
| Parties | Camille STURDIVANT, Plaintiff, v. BLUE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, USD 229; Amy Pressly; and Carley Fine, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Erin N. Vernon, Lynne J. Bratcher, Marie L. Gockel, Bratcher Gockel Law, LC, Independence, MO, Antonette M. DuPree, Spark Legal Solutions, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Gregory P. Goheen, McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, PA, Kansas City, KS, for Defendants.
John W. Lungstrum, United States District Judge Plaintiff, a former student at a public high school in Overland Park, Kansas, filed this lawsuit asserting claims of race discrimination and retaliation by the school district in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and claims of race discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is presently before the court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all claims. As will be explained, the School District's and Amy Pressly's motion for summary judgment (doc. 133) is granted and defendant Carley Fine's motion for summary judgment (doc. 141) is denied.1
The following facts are stipulated in the pretrial order, uncontroverted, or related in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party.2 Defendant Blue Valley School District, USD 229 is a Kansas public school district. The District employs Dr. Amy Pressly as a building principal assigned to Blue Valley Northwest High School in Overland Park, Kansas. Plaintiff, Camille Sturdivant is an African-American female who was a student at Blue Valley Northwest High School from August 2014 through May 2018, when she graduated. During her sophomore, junior and senior years of high school, plaintiff was a member of the school's "Dazzlers" dance team. Defendant Carley Fine, who is Caucasian, was employed by the District as an assistant coach of the Dazzlers beginning in the summer of 2016, or just before plaintiff's junior year. She was promoted to head coach of the Dazzlers in early 2017. Kevin Murakami provided choreography services for the Dazzlers from the fall of 2015 until May 2, 2018. Mr. Murakami was not employed by the District; he was an independent contractor.
In the summer of 2016, the members of the Dazzlers auditioned for a contemporary dance routine that the Dazzlers would perform during the upcoming school year and at a national dance competition in Orlando, Florida in March 2017. At that time, Jenni Waters was the head coach of the Dazzlers. After the auditions, Coach Waters, defendant Fine and Mr. Murakami met plaintiff in the hallway outside the room where auditions had taken place. Coach Waters told plaintiff that she had not been selected for the dance. According to plaintiff, she was told that she needed to work on her technique but that she had been named first alternate for the dance in the event of a subsequent opening for the dance. Plaintiff avers that, after the discussion about her technique, Mr. Murakami added that her "skin color would clash with the costume and that [she] would draw attention from the other dancers because of [her] skin color." She further testified that this remark was Mr. Murakami's "only contribution" to the conversation.3 Mr. Murakami vigorously denies making this statement. According to plaintiff, defendant Fine remained silent after Mr. Murakami's alleged statement. Plaintiff's deposition testimony is inconsistent about whether Coach Waters knew about this purported remark. At one point, plaintiff testified that she did not report the remark to Coach Waters because she did not want to "bring that onto Jenni that that was something that had happened." But she also testified that Coach Waters was "standing to the side" in the hallway when Mr. Murakami made the alleged comment and that she was certain Coach Waters could hear the remark. When an open spot in the routine became available after another member moved out of the District, all Dazzlers who had not been selected for the routine during the initial tryout were invited to audition for the open spot despite the fact that plaintiff had been named first alternate. Nonetheless, plaintiff auditioned for and earned the spot in the contemporary dance and performed in that dance during the school year. Coach Waters made the decision regarding plaintiff's spot in the contemporary dance.
Plaintiff did not report Mr. Murakami's comment to anyone in the District but she did tell her parents about it. Plaintiff's parents made no immediate effort to contact anyone at the District about the comment, but plaintiff's mother, Melodie Sturdivant, attempted to schedule a meeting with Coach Waters and Ms. Pressly about Mr. Murakami's comment and other issues related to the Dazzlers that were troubling to Mrs. Sturdivant, including financial management issues and the fact that plaintiff had to re-audition for a spot in the contemporary dance. That meeting never occurred based on, according to plaintiff, Coach Waters’ refusal to make herself available. In September 2016, plaintiff's parents met with Ms. Pressly and Dr. Tyler Alexander, an Associate Principal at the high school, to discuss the Dazzlers program. Melodie Sturdivant testified that she reported Mr. Murakami's comment during that meeting. Everyone else who was present at the meeting, including plaintiff's father, Michael Sturdivant, testified that Mr. Murakami's name was never raised at the meeting and that his alleged comment was not mentioned in any respect at the meeting. Regardless, there is no evidence that Melodie Sturdivant reported anything about Ms. Fine as it related to Mr. Murakami's comment (i.e. , that Ms. Fine heard the comment and remained silent in the face of it).
The remainder of plaintiff's junior year and most of plaintiff's senior year passed without incident. During plaintiff's senior year, there were fourteen members of the Dazzlers team. One other member, a freshman, was African-American. In addition, defendant Fine's younger sister was a member of the team. In April 2018, plaintiff learned that she had been accepted as a member of the "Golden Girls" dance team at the University of Missouri, where she intended to enroll for college for the next academic year. Specifically, plaintiff earned a spot on the Golden Girls "men's squad"—the squad that performed at men's athletic events. On May 1, 2018, plaintiff and the other members of the Dazzlers were practicing for their annual Spring Show, scheduled for May 3 and May 4, 2018. During practice, two other team members were attempting to find the requisite music on defendant Fine's cell phone. The record reflects that it was not uncommon for members of the Dazzlers to use defendant Fine's phone to find and play music for various routines and, in fact, defendant Fine shared her phone password with the Dazzlers for this purpose. The two members who were searching for music on defendant Fine's phone handed the phone to plaintiff for assistance in locating the music. According to plaintiff, the other members told her that they thought the music was in a text exchange between defendant Fine and Mr. Murakami. When the phone was handed to plaintiff, the phone was unlocked and opened to a text exchange between defendant Fine and Mr. Murakami. Plaintiff then saw the following text exchange between defendant Fine and Mr. Murakami:
With her own phone, plaintiff took photos of the text exchange and shared that exchange with her parents. That evening, Melodie Sturdivant sent the picture of the text exchange to Ms. Pressly. Ms. Pressly telephoned Melodie Sturdivant that evening and then called her immediate supervisor, Dr. Tonya Merrigan, and Dr. Amy Dillon, the Director of Human Resources for classified personnel for the District.
The next morning, on May 2, 2018, Ms. Pressly held a meeting with defendant Fine, Nacole Boan (the high school's assistant principal), and Dr. Dillon. Dr. Dillon notified defendant Fine during that meeting that she was no longer the coach of the Dazzlers and that she was not permitted to attend or participate in any Dazzlers events at school, including the upcoming Spring Show. The District, however, did not terminate defendant Fine's employment because, according to the District, Dr. Dillon believed that she was "walking a fine line with a free speech issue because Fine's text messages were private communications with Murakami." Although Dr. Dillon advised defendant Fine that she had "fulfilled her contract" with the District, defendant Fine's contract did not end until May 12, 2018 and she was paid under the contract until that time.
Immediately after the May 2, 2018 meeting with defendant Fine, Ms. Pressly informed the members of the Dazzlers team that defendant Fine would no longer be coaching the team but that the Dazzlers would continue with the Spring Show.4 She delivered this message during the Dazzlers’ first-hour practice. The record reflects that Dazzlers were required to take this first-hour class as part of their regular schedule during the school day. Dazzlers received letter grades in the fall semester for the class and a pass/fail designation in the spring semester. Ms. Pressly did not explain to the team why defendant Fine had been relieved of her coaching duties. The record reflects that plaintiff and her parents initially did not want Ms. Pressly to disclose to the team why defendant Fine would not be coaching the Spring Show and Ms. Pressly testified that she tried to honor their request to keep the matter quiet. Later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Herman, Case No. 3:20-cv-00947
...obviously wrong, additional training was neither warranted nor likely to be effective. See, e.g., Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 469 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1134 (D. Kan. 2020) (noting that courts have regularly "rejected failure-to-train claims based on a municipality's failure to......
-
Calvo-Pino v. Weidl
...know how to handle the situation correctly." (quoting Connick , 563 U.S. at 71, 131 S.Ct. 1350 )); Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Dist. , 469 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1134 (D. Kan. 2020) ("courts have recognized that the illegality of race discrimination and retaliation is patently obvious......