Zachery v. Coosa Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case. No: 2:18-cv-982-RAH-JTA (WO) |
| Parties | WANDA J. ZACHERY, Plaintiff, v. COOSA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This is an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Wanda J. Zachery ("Zachery"), a third-grade teacher at Central Elementary School ("CES"), a school under the jurisdiction of the Coosa County Board of Education ("the Board"). Zachery claims that she was passed over for a separate teaching position based on her race and religion in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Board and Board Superintendent Andi Wilson ("Wilson") (collectively, "Defendants") have moved for summary judgment as to Zachery's claims. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the Defendants' summary judgment motion, (Doc. 32), is due to be GRANTED.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper "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). "Rule 56 [ ] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 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." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (alteration in original). The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. If the movant meets this threshold, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" to establish that there is a "genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
On summary judgment, a court must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Turnes v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 36 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 1994). Any factual disputes will thus be resolved in the non-movant's favor, but only when sufficient competent evidence supports the non-moving party's version of the disputed facts. Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2002). However, "mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Bald Mountain Park, Ltd. v. Oliver, 863 F.2d 1560, 1563 (11th Cir. 1989)).
A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The non-movant "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to thematerial facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, that party must present "affirmative evidence" of material factual conflicts to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. If the non-movant's response relies on nothing more than conclusory allegations, the court must enter summary judgment for the movant. See, e.g., Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1565 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997); Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 1995).
Zachery has been employed as a third-grade teacher in the Coosa County education system since August 2005. (Doc. 33-1, pp. 11, 23.) She holds a bachelor's degree, two master's degrees (one in reading specialization and one in elementary education), and an educational specialist ("EdS") degree as well. (Id., p. 22.) At one point, Zachery pursued a doctorate in reading but is not currently enrolled in a doctoral program. (Id., pp. 22-23.)
In her position as a third-grade teacher at CES, Zachery teaches all subjects and performs any extracurricular duties that are assigned. (Id., p. 24.)
On July 27, 2017, the Board promoted Brandi Lee to the assistant principal position at Central High School, another Coosa County school. (Doc. 33-2, p. 38; Doc. 33-6, p. 5.) This promotion left the reading coach position1 at CES vacant, and when the Board postednotice of the open position on August 1, 2017, Zachery applied. (Doc. 33-2, p. 61; Doc. 33-3, p. 16.) Zachery was one of fifteen applicants for the position. (Doc. 33-3, p. 72.)
CES Principal Kara Forbus (a white female) interviewed three of the fifteen applicants, all of whom already were employed by the Board, for the position. (Doc. 33-1, p. 48; Doc. 33-3, pp. 13, 17, 72.) In addition to Zachery (an African American female), she interviewed Callie Knight, a second- grade teacher at CES, and Bethany Forbus (both white females). (Doc. 33-1, pp. 47-50, 58-64; Doc. 33-3, pp. 14, 17; Doc. 33-5, p. 18.) Principal Forbus interviewed Bethany Forbus (unrelated) merely as a professional courtesy, as Bethany did not meet the state qualifications for the position. (Doc. 33-3, pp. 26-27, 72-73.)
As to Callie Knight (now Callie Causey after a remarriage, see Doc. 33-6, p. 5), and Zachery, Principal Forbus had worked with both of them as fellow classroom teachers at CES for ten years and had acted as their supervisor for two years prior to the interviews. (Doc. 33-3, pp. 12, 18-19, 48.) Principal Forbus interviewed Knight and Zachery on different days using the same list of typed questions. (Doc. 33-1, p. 76; Doc. 33-3, pp. 36-37, 67.)
For her part, Zachery believes that her interview with Principal Forbus did not go well because, according to Zachery, Forbus went off-topic, interrupted her, and told her she could wear jeans to the interview. (Doc. 33-1, pp. 74-75, 100-101.)
Principal Forbus had a different opinion, believing both interviews went well. (Doc. 33-2, p. 40; Doc. 33-3 p. 72.) In the end, however, Forbus recommended Knight for the position. (Doc. 33-3, pp. 17, 28, 34.) According to Forbus, she believed Knight had betterinterpersonal skills and showed a commitment to continued professional growth, both necessary attributes to fill the reading coach position, as it required regular collaboration with teachers and students from different classrooms and grade levels.2 (Doc. 33-2, pp. 14-15, 88; see also Doc. 33-5, p. 9.) Also, according to Forbus, Knight was considered a leader among teachers on her grade level and had assisted other faculty with technology issues, as Knight held a master's degree in technology as well as master's degrees in elementary education and educational leadership. (Doc. 33-2, p. 88; Doc. 33-3, pp. 18-19, 26; Doc. 33-5, pp. 26-27; Doc. 33-7, p. 4.) Further, Zachery had not led many professional development trainings (with the exception of one writing workshop), whereas Knight had led many of them. (Doc. 33-1, pp. 25, 89-90; Doc. 33-2, p. 88; Doc. 33-3, p. 26; Doc. 33-5, pp. 23-24.) Forbus also factored in Knight's work ethic, as Knight had worked long hours after school and during the summer preparing for her classes. (Doc. 33-2, p. 88.) In sum, Forbus did not consider Zachery to exhibit the same qualities as Knight. (Doc. 33-2, p. 88; Doc. 33-3, pp. 19-21.)
Andi Wilson, the superintendent of the school system, approved Principal Forbus' recommendation that the Board transfer Knight to the reading coach position. (Doc. 33-6.) According to Wilson, she relied on her independent judgment, informed by her training asa reading coach and years of experience working with both Knight and Zachery, in approving Knight's transfer. (Id., pp. 3-4.) The Board subsequently approved Knight's transfer at its August 24, 2017, meeting. (Id., p. 4.)
Zachery filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on October 4, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) She received her notice of right to sue letter on August 24, 2018, and filed the instant action on November 21, 2018. (Doc. 1.) After the dismissal3 of several of her claims, (see Doc. 38, p. 20), Zachery's remaining claims are as follows:
To begin, several aspects of the pending summary judgment motion have been conceded by Zachery. She admits that through discovery, "it became apparent that [her] religion was likely not a factor in her being denied the reading coach position," and thus she "voluntarily concedes that her Title VII and § 1981 religion claims," as well as her Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, "should be dismissed." (Doc. 38, pp. 15,20.) The Defendants' summary judgment motion on Zachery's religious discrimination claims (Counts Two and Seven) is therefore due to be granted.
In Counts One and Three, Zachery claims that she was passed over for the reading coach position due to race discrimination because she was more qualified for the job than the person who was awarded the position, Callie Knight. In their summary judgment motion, the Defendants primarily argue that Zachery's claims fail because she cannot show an adverse employment action or pretext. (Doc. 33, pp. 15, 22.) Zachery disputes both assertions.
Title VII provides that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer...to discriminate against any individual with respect to...terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial