Thrill v. McNairy Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-1260,12-1260 |
| Parties | CORNEAL THRILL, JR., Plaintiff, v. McNAIRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In his amended complaint filed on November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff, Corneal Thrill, Jr., alleged violations by the Defendant, the McNairy County, Tennessee Board of Education (the "Board"), of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-21-101, et seq. Before the Court is the Board's motion for summary judgment as to all claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 56 provides in pertinent part that "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Ct., 628 F.3d 752, 759-60 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Matsushita Elec.Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 759 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). "A fact is 'material' if its proof or disproof might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law." Reeves. v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 446 F.3d 637, 640 (6th Cir. 2006). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 748 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505). "Entry of summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." In re Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thrill, who is black, was employed by the Defendant as a custodian for McNairy County High School (MCHS) from the summer of 2010 until his termination on October 25, 2011. At the time of his employment, there were six custodians at MCHS, including the Plaintiff. Of those, four were black. It is undisputed that Thrill is the only custodian to have been terminated in the last five years.
MCHS teacher Molly Stanfield recalled in her deposition that, prior to fall break in 2011, she procured drinks and snacks for a committee meeting scheduled for after teachers returned from the break. She stored several cases of soda and water in three refrigerators in her home economicsclassroom. Upon her return from break, she discovered that the sodas had been removed. She went to the office of the principal, Cecil Stroup, to inform him that the drinks were missing. Assistant Principal Scott Powers offered to look at the surveillance cameras in the vicinity of her classroom in hopes of finding out how the drinks were taken and by whom.
In a videotape provided to the Court, Thrill can be seen at 4:08 a.m. on October 17, 2011 coming into view from around a corner, unlocking a classroom door and entering. Two minutes later, he emerges with two cases of sodas, places them on the floor and closes and locks the classroom door. He leaves the drinks and walks down the hallway out of view. At 4:13 a.m., he comes back down the hall with a large case of soft drinks in one hand and what appears to be a large bag of chips in the other. He stops to pick up the two cases of sodas he had previously left in the hallway and proceeds around the corner. According to the Plaintiff, he removed from Stanfield's locked classroom two cases of Sprite, two cases of Coke and a half case of Mountain Dew.
Stanfield testified that, at some point either before or after she viewed the surveillance video in Stroup's office, Thrill confronted her in the hallway and told he had been "protecting" her Cokes for her. She asked him to return them and he said he would. When he failed to do so, she sent the shop teacher to the store to purchase more. Later either that day or the next day, another custodian, Willie Robinson, who is black, appeared at her door and told her he knew where the drinks were. He took Stanfield to the door of the school's boiler room and pointed to some Cokes on the floor, but she was uncertain as to whether they were the same sodas that had been stored in her classroom.
She subsequently spoke to Stroup and advised him she might know where the drinks were. They returned to the boiler room together and discovered various drinks; chip bags, at least some of which were empty; and a mini refrigerator containing a large number of various drinks.Custodian Ronnie Roden, who is white, testified that he heard teachers and other custodians talking about drinks missing after returning from the fall break. He told Thrill the -- two were friends -- that he (Thrill) was being accused of stealing drinks. Plaintiff denied it, and advised they were in the boiler room and showed them to his friend. Roden reported to Stroup that he had seen drinks in the boiler room.1 Although some sodas were returned to her, it is undisputed Stanfield did not recover all the drinks taken from her classroom. She recalled in her deposition that there was gossip around school that other petty thefts had occurred and that Thrill might have been responsible.
In his deposition, Stroup described Thrill as his friend. Nonetheless, he stated, he had to protect MCHS and "[i]f somebody is taking things and stealing things and being involved in situations like that, they can't stay." (D.E. 31-10 at 88.) According to Stroup, it was he who made the initial decision to terminate the Plaintiff. He showed Director of Schools Charlie Miskelly, who was his direct supervisor, the videotape and recommended discharge, with which Miskelly agreed. Stroup described the so-called "Coke incident" as the "straw that broke the camel's back." (Id. at 33-34.) When asked in his deposition what he meant by this statement, Stroup testified that there had been previous incidents involving suspicious behavior by Thrill. As to the first, he stated as follows:
Well, I was up here at the courthouse one day and went back to school. I could see my bookkeeper was rather upset. They came and told me that she had -- she had went to the copier room to drop some things off, and Coach Day came to her and needed something out of her office. He had brought her the money from the concessions, which we have a break at a quarter to 10:00. They clean it out, bringit in there, and she reconciles it. At that particular time she did not have a lock on her door. I think she was a new employee at the time. But she had slid the box in under her desk. Coach Day went to her and needed something out of the secretary's -- I mean out of the bookkeeper's office. When he opened the door, Mr. Thrill was under the desk with -- and went to his pocket. Of course, he couldn't prove anything. He said he had a work order to fix a computer. Nothing was wrong with the computers. If it had been, the computer wire came through the ceiling and not from under the desk. And he came back later pushing around on some wires in there, but he didn't have the expertise to fix a computer. He didn't have a work order to fix a computer. And I talked to him and told him not to do -- I think I may have had him sign a deal here, a letter saying that he had been in there, and he refused to sign it. And Mr. Powers witnessed it. But that was one.
(Id. at 34-35.) This incident occurred on approximately October 27, 2010.
The bookkeeper, Regina Smith, had placed the concession money in a honey bun box she hid under her desk until she had time to count it. She testified in her deposition that she and Coach Day initially decided not to tell anyone about what they thought they might have seen because they did not want to get Thrill into trouble. A few days later, however, she went to Stroup's office to ask for a lock for her desk drawer. The story came out during their conversation. Afterward, she heard nothing else about it and never spoke to Plaintiff again.
(Id. at 42.) Roden acknowledged seeing a video of the incident and that Plaintiff's hand was near where the money in the machine was stored. Thrill was not written up for either of these occurrences.
To continue reading
Request your trial