Tedrow v. Franklin Twp. Cmty. Sch. Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-CV-453 RLM-MG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
| Parties | WESLEY A. TEDROW, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants |
Wesley Tedrow has sued the Franklin Township Community School Corporation, Jill Britt, and Melissa Morris, alleging violations of various federal employment and nondiscrimination laws, the U.S. Constitution, state tort law, and contract law. The defendants move to dismiss sixteen of eighteen counts in Mr. Tedrow's first amended complaint. For reasons explained in this opinion, the court grants the motion as to Counts 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 17, and 18, and denies the motion as to Counts 1, 3, 4, 6 10, and 15 [Doc. No. 46].[1] I Background
The court presents the facts based on Mr. Tedrow's allegations, which must be accepted as true on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
It is the summer of 2015. Wesley Tedrow starts teaching third grade at Arlington Elementary School of the Franklin Township School Corporation. His school has about four male teachers and twenty-five female teachers. Around October or November 2017, Mr. Tedrow requests and is granted six weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act for a mental disability.
Mr. Tedrow receives the first negative review of his career soon after returning from leave. Arlington Elementary principal Melissa Morris tells Mr. Tedrow he has performance issues and that he seems “not right in the head.” Principal Morris marks him as “ineffective” in a performance evaluation two months later. Principal Morris amends the evaluation to “effective” after Mr. Tedrow disputes some of her statements with the help of the Franklin Township Education Association.
Throughout the year, Principal Morris and other administrators call Mr. Tedrow aggressive and intimidating and engage in stereotyping because of his masculine physique and voice. The School Corporation informs Mr. Tedrow that an instructional assistant felt uncomfortable around him because of his physique, deep voice, and masculine aggression. Despite the instructional assistant's supposed complaints, Mr. Tedrow and the assistant continue to have a good working relationship in the classroom.
A couple weeks later, Principal Morris orders Mr. Tedrow to leave his classroom and attend a surprise meeting with Jill Britt, the School Corporation's human resources director. Ms. Britt delivers a letter to Mr. Tedrow placing him on administrative leave pending a fitness-for-duty exam. Ms. Britt refuses to tell Mr. Tedrow why he must go on leave and undergo the exam. None of the teachers who are women or who aren't disabled are placed on leave or undergo a fitness-for-duty exam in that same academic year.
After the School Corporation hires an examiner for Mr. Tedrow's fitness-for-duty exam, Ms. Britt sends some of Mr. Tedrow's health records, such as psychotherapy and treatment notes from his earlier FMLA request, to the examiner. She shares exaggerated allegations made against Mr. Tedrow and tells the examiner she thinks Mr. Tedrow illegally uses drugs for weightlifting.
Meanwhile, Mr. Tedrow completes his part of the fitness-for-duty exam. He sees that he's required to sign a blanket release for all medical records. Mr. Tedrow tells the School Corporation that he thinks the release is overly broad, invades his privacy, and would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act since both limit what disability-related or genetic information an employer can ask about. The School Corporation replies that unless he agrees to the release, he'll be “deemed resigned from employment.” When an Indiana State Teachers Association representative intervenes, the School Corporation backs down from firing Mr. Tedrow. Mr. Tedrow provides a narrower release, and the School Corporation rejects it.
Mr. Tedrow files a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Indiana Civil Rights Commission in November 2019. He claims the School Corporation discriminated and retaliated against him when it placed him on leave, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A short while later, the School Corporation notifies Mr. Tedrow that it's made the preliminary decision to terminate his employment because he was insubordinate when he refused the medical release. The School Corporation adds that Mr. Tedrow isn't fit for duty, even though the exam was inconclusive because the examiner didn't have all of Mr. Tedrow's medical records.
In response, Mr. Tedrow submits fitness-for-duty recommendations from his primary care physician and psychiatrist. The School Corporation accepts the recommendations in December 2019 and offers to reinstate Mr. Tedrow as a teacher, but tells him he'd be involuntary transferred to teach a different grade in a different school. The School Corporation also tells him he'd need to sign a “Last Chance Agreement, ” which would dismiss pending EEOC charges and relinquish future claims. Mr. Tedrow declines the agreement because he thinks it is retaliatory and would violate Title VII. The School Corporation resumes the process of terminating Mr. Tedrow.
Mr. Tedrow looks for new teaching positions during the administrative leave. He gets two job offers with better pay. Before he can accept, the schools ask the School Corporation about Mr. Tedrow. The School Corporation shares false and misleading information, casting Mr. Tedrow in a bad light. As a result, the schools rescind their offers.
Finally in January 2020, the School Corporation holds a hearing to decide whether to cancel Mr. Tedrow's teaching contract. Mr. Tedrow and his attorney attend the hearing. The School Corporation claims that Mr. Tedrow's attorney had attended a pre-hearing conference call where the School Corporation explained that Mr. Tedrow would be able to call and examine witnesses and cross-examine the School Corporation's witnesses at the January hearing. Mr. Tedrow's attorney attended no such meeting and wasn't told in advance that they'd be able to call and examine witnesses. Nevertheless, colleagues, parents, and students show up and testify on Mr. Tedrow's behalf. Others send written testimony in support of Mr. Tedrow.
Ten days later the School Corporation votes five to zero to reverse course and reinstate Mr. Tedrow instead of firing him. It's not until February 5 that Mr. Tedrow receives more information. An armed officer arrives at Mr. Tedrow's home unannounced and delivers a letter: Mr. Tedrow is to report to school on February 10 to begin as an “E-Learning Facilitator.”
When Mr. Tedrow shows up on February 10, his new principal is confused-he doesn't know of an E-Learning Facilitator position. The principal has Mr. Tedrow sub in for a seventh-grade language arts teacher who's out on FMLA leave. For the rest of the year, Mr. Tedrow doesn't have a class of his own in a grade he's used to but is rotated around to substitute for others as needed. Mr. Tedrow worries that he's effectively been demoted and he's becoming less marketable since he can't fully develop his teaching skills and reputation.
Upset with this new arrangement, Mr. Tedrow files a grievance on February 11, 2020. The School Corporation never responds to Mr. Tedrow or meets with him to discuss the de facto demotion. About a month later, Mr. Tedrow asks Ms. Britt for a list of his protected health information that was disclosed for the fitness-for-duty exam and for information about the E-Learning Facilitator role. He learns that some protected health information was released because he declined the waiver. He also finds metadata in the job description showing the document was made on February 11, right after he filed a grievance. He suspects the job description was created as a pretext for what the School Corporation otherwise intended as punishment.
Since he was first place on administrative leave, Mr. Tedrow hasn't been able to retrieve personal possessions he left at Arlington Elementary. The School Corporation closes its schools in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and Mr. Tedrow is finally allowed to get his belongings from Arlington Elementary in May 2020. Some of his belongings are missing and never reappear.
Mr. Tedrow files a lengthier charge with the EEOC and Indiana Civil Rights Commission later that year. This time he claims the School Corporation discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Tedrow is reassigned to teach virtual fourth-grade math at Kitley Intermediate School. His principal evaluates him as “effective” in January 2021. The EEOC issues two right to sue letters in February and about two weeks later, Mr. Tedrow's principal rescinds his “effective” evaluation. The principal places Mr. Tedrow on a Teacher Improvement Plan. Mr. Tedrow suspects this is just an excuse to restart the termination process, yet again discriminating and retaliating against Mr. Tedrow. Mr. Tedrow files this lawsuit at the end of February.
II. Standard of Review
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, and draws all inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1146 (7th Cir. 2010). But Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 678 (2009) (citin...
To continue reading
Request your trial