Thompson v. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:12-cv-287
• Parties: WILLIAM THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DAYTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

WILLIAM THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, DAYTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: November 12, 2013

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This civil action is before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10)¹ and the parties' responsive memoranda (Docs. 17, 18).

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants discriminated against him because of his age, when they failed to hire him for a carpenter journeyman position in 2011. Plaintiff claims that he was better qualified than the two individuals who were hired at that time. Defendants argue that they refused to hire Plaintiff for legitimate business reasons having nothing to do with his age.

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS²

1. William Thompson took the City of Dayton Civil Service test on October 26, 2009. (Doc. 16 at 35-38, Ex. V).

2. William Thompson's exam score was enhanced by 20% due to his prior military service. (Doc. 16 at 35-38, Ex. A).

3. William Thompson's exam score placed him fourth on the City of Dayton's November 13, 2009 Open Competitive Eligible List for carpenters. (Doc. 16 at 35-38, Ex. A).

4. On November 30, 2010, the District posted a notice of opening for a first shift carpenter journeyman in its maintenance department. (Doc. 12 at 31-33, Ex. B).

5. The Civil Service Commission determines individuals' rankings on the open competitive list. (Doc. 16 at 39).

6. Joanna Wilson is the District's Executive Director of Facilities and Operations. (Doc. 12 at 19).

7. Rick Rayford is the District's Maintenance Manager and Carpenter Foreman. (Doc. 13 at 4-5).

8. Wilson and Rayford conducted interviews of three individuals on December 15, 2010. (Doc. 12 at 19-20, 28-31, 48-49; Doc. 13 at 4, 18).

9. The successful applicants would be required to perform carpentry duties and preventative maintenance throughout the District's buildings. (Doc. 12, Ex. B; Doc. 16, Ex. V).

10. The successful applicants would also have to "work well on teams and lead others." (Doc. 12, Ex. B; Doc. 16, Ex. V).

11. The District's human resources department scheduled Dwight Taulbee, William Thompson, and Brett Barnes as candidates for carpenter journeymen interviews based upon their placement on the open competitive list. (Doc. 12 at 38, 48, Exs. A and E).

12. Taulbee, Thompson, and Barnes ranked third, fourth, and fifth on the November 13, 2009 Open Competitive Eligible List, respectively. (Doc. 11 at 38, 48, Exs. A and E).

13. The individuals ranked first, second, and third on the November 13, 2009 Open Competitive Eligible List were Michael Keyer, Timothy Buxton, and Dwight Taulbee, respectively. (Doc. 12 at 61-62).

14. Keyer, Buxton, and Taulbee were interviewed for an open carpenter position in early 2010 pursuant to the Civil Service "Rule of Three." (Doc. 12 at 61-62).

15. The second person on the list, Timothy Buxton, was chosen to fill the carpenter position that was open in March of 2010. (Doc. 12 at 25-26).

16. The higher ranked employee on the Open Competitive Eligible List will not necessarily be hired for an open position. (Doc. 16 at 32-33).

17. Wilson and Rayford interviewed Dwight Taulbee, William Thompson, and Brett Barnes on December 15, 2010. (Doc. 12 at 28-31, 39-48, 50-53, 54-59; Doc. 13 at 8-17).

18. Wilson and Rayford took notes during the interviews on sheets prepared by the District's human resources department. (Doc. 12 at 28-31, 39-48, 50-53, 54-59, Exs. D, I, and L; Doc. 13 at 8-17, Exs. M and N).

19. The sheets prepared by the human resources department listed questions for Wilson and Rayford to ask Taulbee, Thompson, and Barnes. (Doc. 12 at 28-31, 39-48, 50-53, 54-59, Exs. D, I, and L; Doc. 13 at 8-17, Exs. M and N).

20. Wilson and Rayford recommended that Dwight Taulbee and Brett Barnes be hired for the two open carpenter positions. (Doc. 13 at 18; Doc. 16 at 40-42).

21. Ed Sweetnich, then Executive Director of Human Resources for the District, accepted their recommendation. (Doc. 12 at 63).

22. The District hired Dwight Taulbee as a carpenter journeyman effective January 21, 2011. (Doc. 14 at 6-7, Ex. Q).

23. Taulbee, born in 1961, was 49 years old when the District hired him. (Doc. 10, Ex. 1 at 6).

24. The District also hired Brett Barnes as a carpenter journeyman that same day. (Doc. 15 at 6, Ex. O).

25. Barnes, born in 1969, was 41 years old on his hire date. (Doc. 10, Ex. 1 at 6).

26. William Thompson was not hired. (Doc. 16 at 40-41).

27. The interview questions were all specifically job-related and none of them were related to age. (Doc. 16 at 9-11, 29, 30, 32).

28. Rayford noted that Taulbee "tries to get along with everybody." (Doc. 13 at 16-17, 19, Ex. N).

29. During the interview with Brett Barnes, Wilson noted that Barnes was outgoing and laid back. (Doc. 12 at 43-44, Ex. D).

30. During the interview with Brett Barnes, Wilson noted that Barnes gets along well with others and was friendly. (Doc. 12 at 43-44, Ex. D).

31. Wilson summarized Thompson's interview answers as follows: "He would have - he knew everything. He had no weaknesses. He was an expert in everything. He would go out to buildings and if a staff member, principal, teacher disagreed with the work he was doing, he would tell them they were wrong." (Doc. 12 at 30, Ex. L).³

32. Wilson's interview notes reflect that Thompson's answer to how he would deal with "a difficult customer" was: "Know you're right. Be professional. Keep a poker face. Be nice telling people they're wrong." (Doc. 12 at 58-59, Ex. L).

33. Rayford's interview notes from Thompson's interview about the "difficult customer" question state: "no that your in the right even if they are." (Doc. 13, Ex. M).

34. Rayford noted in the same area as his notes for Thompson's "difficult customer" response: "Can't work that way!" (Doc. 13, Ex. M).

35. Ed Sweetnich, then Executive Director of Human Resources for the District, told Thompson that he was not hired due to his interview answers. (Doc. 16 at 40-41).

36. Sweetnich called Thompson again later and stated that he had not been hired due to the interviewers' perception that Thompson lacked the ability to "communicate, network and be a team player." (Doc. 16 at 42-44, 46, Ex. T).

37. On June 14, 2011, William Thompson filed a Charge of Discrimination against Dayton Public Schools, alleging that he was not hired because of his age. (Doc. 16 at 9, Ex. S).

38. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC") determined that no probable cause of discrimination existed in the matter. (Doc. 16 at 11-12).

39. Thompson appealed the Regional Office's determination to the State Commission, which also determined there was no probable cause of discrimination. (Doc. 16 at 11-12).

40. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted the OCRC's findings and dismissed Thompson's dual-filed Charge on June 24, 2012. (Doc. 1, Ex. B).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of genuine disputes over facts which, under the substantive law governing the issue, might affect the outcome of the action. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. All facts and inferences must be construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (1986).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Sui Juris

Plaintiff filed suit against two defendants: the Board of Education of the Dayton City School District and the Dayton City School District Dayton Public Schools. Only the Board of Education is a properly-named party to this litigation, since the Board of Education is the body corporate capable of suing and being sued. Y.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of Matthews Local Sch. Dist, 766 F. Supp. 2d 839, 841-42 (N.D. Ohio 2011). "The board of education of each school district shall be a body politic and corporate, and, as such, capable of suing and being sued[.]" Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.17. A school district is not sui juris, rather it is the board of education which must be sued. Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist, No. CT 2007-0022, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 27, at *20 (Ohio App. Jan. 3, 2008), rev'd on other grounds, 908 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2009). Since the Dayton City Public School District is not sui juris or an entity capable of being sued, it is entitled to summary judgment.

B. Age Discrimination

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prohibits an employer from failing to hire, discharging or discriminating against an individual with respect to her or his compensation or terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of hisage. Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614, 620 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)). A plaintiff may establish a violation of the ADEA by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, would require the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor. If a plaintiff does not have direct evidence of age discrimination, the age discrimination claim is analyzed using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Id.

The first step of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is that the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show the following elements: "(1) membership in a protected group; (2) qualification for the job in...