Winkle v. EdisonLearning, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:19-cv-242 |
| Parties | Mark Winkle, Plaintiff, v. EdisonLearning, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT EDISONLEARNING'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT, ECF 8. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS OF RETALIATION AND VIOLATION OF OHIO PUBLIC POLICY ARE DISMISSED. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE MOTION IS DENIED.
Pending before the Court is Motion of Defendant EdisonLearning, Inc.'s Motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mark Winkle's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 8. Defendant asserts Plaintiff fails to draw any causal connection between his race, age, retaliation or policy-related actions and his termination. Defendant also claims Plaintiff does not allege an at-will employment relationship, as required to sustain a violation of public policy claim.
Plaintiff alleges he is a fifty-nine-year-old Caucasian who began employment as an English teacher with Defendant EdisonLearning, Inc., at a charter school operated by Defendant, Bridgeport Academy on July 23, 2016. ECF 7, Am. Compl. at ¶ 7. On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that during his normal work hours he was threatened with a physical assault by an African-American student at his work location. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff proceeded to "complain[] and report[] this matter to Defendant's Program Manager and Administrative Staff[,]" but allegedly did not receive any support or assistance. Id.
Plaintiff then reported the incident to the Dayton Police Department. Id. According to Plaintiff, the student involved in the incident is the nephew of Defendant'sBridgeport Secretary, Theresa Turner, "an African American [who] is the best friend of Bridgeport's then Program Manager, D'Juana McAtee, an African American." Id. Plaintiff alleges that subsequently, "McAtee retaliated against [him] by falsely accusing him of violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and [seeking] to impose discipline on him in respect to same." Id.
Following the October 13, 2016 incident, Plaintiff alleges that he was placed on administrative leave as a result of "McAtee's false allegations about [Plaintiff's actions] and also because [he] refused to provide inaccurate attendance information to the State of Ohio Department of Education which would have resulted in Defendant receiving additional state funding that it was not entitled to." Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that his "placement on administrative leave was in retaliation for exercising his lawful right to file criminal charges against an African-American student and to intimidate him with respect to pursuing the criminal charges, and for his refusal to falsify education records as requested by Defendant, so that Defendant could receive additional funding from the state of Ohio." Id.
After Defendant reinstated Plaintiff to active employment on October 25, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that "McAtee continued to harass/retaliate against Plaintiff, by locking him out of Defendant's computer system and the email system as well as denying him access to studentrecords, assigning him tasks not required of other teachers, and public[ly] humiliating him in front of other teachers, officials and students." Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant also requested that Gamal Brown, who is also an African American, and its EdisonLearning's State Superintendent, come down from Cleveland, Ohio to deal with Plaintiff's "problem." Id.
In December 2016, "Plaintiff filed charges of racial, sex, religious, and retaliation discrimination against Defendant with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission." Id. at ¶ 11. On February 22, 2017, "one of Defendant's students, an African American, allegedly advised Defendant's management team that Plaintiff was sitting at his desk with his eyes closed, and allegedly recorded same on his phone, without Plaintiff's permission, and later provided the recording to Defendant's management team." Id. at ¶ 12. When Defendant approached Plaintiff about the incident, "Plaintiff advised Defendant[ EdisonLearning's] New Jersey Personnel Director that he was not sleeping, but rather resting his eyes after looking at his computer screen for numerous and extended hours that day." Id. at ¶ 13.
After hearing Plaintiff's take on the incident, and "without further investigating Plaintiff's assertions, Defendant elected to terminate Plaintiff on February 23, 2017 for allegedly 'sleeping on the job.'" Id. According to Plaintiff, "this termination and the alleged reason for same was a subterfuge for Defendant's aforesaid discrimination and its public policy violations." Id. That same day, "Plaintiff filed an additional charge with the [OCRC] based on his termination and predicated on race, sex and retaliation discrimination." Id. at ¶ 14.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant requested that he "make false reports about student's attendance because it would financially benefit Defendant who received state and federal funding assistance through the State Board of Education" and "indicate to the state of Ohio that students had reported to Defendant's facility...when they had not." Id. at ¶ 15. "When Plaintiff refusedand objected to [Defendant's] requests, because they violated state education law, Defendant [allegedly] retaliated against Plaintiff by treating him differently than other teachers, who complied with Defendant's unlawful requests and escalated its already existing harassment towards him." Id. This series of events "ultimately result[ed] in [Plaintiff's] termination on February 23, 2017." Id.
Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against EdisonLearning: (1) racial discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99 (¶¶ 16-20); (2) age discrimination in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.14 (¶¶ 21-24); (3) retaliation in violation of Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99 (¶¶ 25-28); (4) Ohio public policy in pursuit of criminal charges (¶¶ 29-35); and (5) Ohio public policy in violation of Ohio education law (¶¶ 36-44). Plaintiff's racial discrimination claim is premised upon the allegation that "Plaintiff was treated differently [than] Defendant's African-American employees, in respect to the terms and conditions of his employment including being retaliated against for reporting the African-American student who threatened him to the Dayton Police Department." ECF 7, Am. Compl. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff further alleges that he "was also subjected to harassment and retaliation and a racially hostile work environment due to the fact that Defendant's management team was comprised of African-American employees who became upset when Plaintiff elected to file criminal charges against the African-American student who had threatened to assault [him]..." Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's "decision to terminate [him] was necessarily predicated on his race, Caucasian, as Plaintiff was one of the few Caucasian employees at the Bridgeport Academy." Id. at ¶ 19.
Plaintiff's age discrimination claim is premised upon the allegation that "Plaintiff was treated differently than Defendant's employees under the age of 40 and/or substantially youngerthan him." Id. at ¶ 23. In relation to both of these claims, Plaintiff asserts that on "[o]ne occasion, at a company-wide meeting[,] Defendant's agents and representatives referred to Plaintiff as 'an old white guy that teaches English Language Arts.'" Id. Plaintiff further alleges that "[a]fter that meeting, Defendant's Program Manager said several times 'that old man's got to go.'" Id. According to Plaintiff, "these adverse age-related statements were an indication of Defendant's bias against him due to his age and was a motivating factor in the decision to later terminate him." Id. In addition, "Plaintiff also believes that Defendant when being informed by a young student that Plaintiff was allegedly sleeping on the job, perceived that the statement may have been accurate due to Plaintiff's age." Id.
Under his retaliation claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him after he "filed charges of employment discrimination against Defendant with the [OCRC]." Id. at ¶¶ 26-27. According to Plaintiff, "[t]he decision to terminate Plaintiff was motivated in part by the filing of [his] civil rights charges, and not because he ha[d] allegedly drifted off to sleep shortly before his termination." Id. at ¶ 27. And lastly, in his two claims for violation of public policy, Plaintiff alleges that his employment was terminated because he exercised his legal right to file a charge of criminal conduct with the police and because he "objected to Defendant's unlawful actions and refused to falsely report student information when demanded by Defendant." Id. at ¶¶ 31, 38.
"The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to allow a defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true." Bihn v. Fifth Third Mortg. Co., 980 F. Supp. 2d 892, 897 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (citing Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F. 2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993)). Moreover, the purpose of themotion is to test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief. Id. "[F]or the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and its allegations taken as true." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)).
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must provide more than labels and conclusions; a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is not enough. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Further, the factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and must also do something more than merely create a suspicion of a legally cognizable right. Id. However, the Court is not bound to accept as...
To continue reading
Request your trial