PEOPLES v. Muscogee County School District

Filing 40

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 06/10/2013.(aaf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JEFFREY W. PEOPLES,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-190 (CDL)

MUSCOGEE
DISTRICT,

COUNTY

SCHOOL *
*

Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Defendant refused to renew Plaintiff’s employment contract
because

it

permitted

concluded

inappropriate

that

he

falsified

conversations

in

student

his

classroom,

engaged in improper physical discipline of students.
claims

that

Americans

the

with

non-renewal

Disabilities

of

Act

his
of

contract

1990

testing,

(“ADA”)

Plaintiff

violates
and

and

the

the

ADA

Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

He

also asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under Georgia law.

Because Plaintiff has presented no

evidence that Defendant’s legitimate stated reasons for refusing
to renew his contract were pretext for unlawful discrimination,
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is granted
as

to

that

federal

claim.

The

Court

declines

to

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law
claim which is dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant discriminated against him
because of his anxiety and depression in violation of the ADA.
Under

the

ADA,

an

employer

cannot

discriminate

“against

a

qualified individual with a disability based on that disability
when

the

discrimination

involves

conditions

hiring,

employment

of

advancement,

termination,

or

individual.”

Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318,

1327 (11th Cir. 1998).

of

the

that

qualified

Additionally, “an employer must make

reasonable accommodations that allow a disabled individual to
perform

[his]

job,

undue hardship.”

unless

that

accommodation

would

cause

an

Id.

The courts apply the McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze
ADA claims.

E.g., Durley v. APAC, Inc., 236 F.3d 651, 657 (11th

Cir. 2000).

To avoid summary judgment, Plaintiff must first

point to sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of
employment discrimination.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Wascura v. City of S. Miami, 257 F.3d
1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2001).
facie

case,

Defendant

a

has

presumption
the

burden

of
of

If Plaintiff establishes a prima
discrimination
articulating

a

is

created,

legitimate,

discriminatory reason for Plaintiff's termination.
Home

Shopping

2004).

Network,

Inc.,

369

F.3d

1189,

1193

and
non-

Cleveland v.
(11th

Cir.

Plaintiff can then avoid summary judgment if he produces

sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury can conclude

2

that

Defendant's

articulated

pretext for discrimination.

non-discriminatory

reason

is

Id.

Even if Plaintiff has established a prima facie case here,
which is doubtful, it is clear that Defendant has articulated
legitimate

non-discriminatory

reasons

for

its

action,

and

Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that those reasons are
pretext

for

unlawful

discrimination.

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

federal ADA claim fails as a matter of law. 1
To

establish

pretext,

Plaintiff

must

point

to

“such

weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or
contradictions in [Defendant’s] proffered legitimate reasons for
its

actions

that

a

unworthy of credence.”
Grp.

Inc.,

509

F.3d

reasonable

factfinder

could

find

them

Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt.
1344,

1348

(11th

quotation marks omitted) (per curiam).

Cir.

2007)

(internal

“If the proffered reason

is one that might motivate a reasonable employer,” Plaintiff
“must meet [that reason] head on and rebut it,” rather than
simply quarreling with the wisdom of [the employer's] reason.
Id. at 1350 (internal quotation marks omitted).

1

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts an accommodation claim, that
claim is frivolous. Plaintiff sought an extended leave of absence due
to his anxiety and Defendant granted him all the leave that he
requested.
Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that any
other reasonable accommodation was sought, available, and denied.
“[T]he ADA provides no cause of action for failure to investigate
possible accommodations.” Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 285
(11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

It

is

renewing

hard

a

to

imagine

teacher’s

more

contract

Defendant in this case.

compelling
than

reasons

those

for

not

articulated

by

Moreover, ample evidence exists in the

record supporting Defendant’s conclusion that Plaintiff did in
fact engage in the conduct that resulted in his termination.
Although Plaintiff quibbles with the process used by Defendant
to investigate the serious allegations against him, he makes no
due process claim.

And more significantly, he fails to point to

evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that
Defendant’s stated reasons for firing him were a pretext for
unlawful

disability

discrimination.

Plaintiff

seeks

to

have

this Court act as a personnel review board and second-guess the
wisdom

of

Defendant’s

authorized to do.

decision,

which

this

Court

is

not

See Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012,

1030 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[F]ederal courts do not sit as a superpersonnel

department

that

reexamines

an

entity's

business

decisions. . . . Rather our inquiry is limited to whether the
employer gave an honest explanation of its behavior.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Having produced insufficient evidence

of pretext to create a genuine factual dispute, Plaintiff cannot
prevail

on

his

federal

disability

discrimination

claim

as

a

matter of law.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is
granted as to Plaintiff’s ADA claim.

4

The Court declines to

exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim
for

intentional

infliction

dismissed without prejudice.

of

emotional

distress,

which

is

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5