Pettigrew v. Cherry County School District No. 16-0006

Filing 143

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - With respect to Case No. 4:11CV3166, that: Filing 46 , Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is denied; Filings 65 and 66 , Defendants motion for summary judgment, are denied; Filing 104 , Plaintiffs motion to strike De fendants motion for summary judgment, is denied; and Filing 107 , Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants evidence, is denied. With respect to Case No. 4:12CV3159, that: Filing 47 , Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is denied; Filing 75 , Plaintiffs motion for leave to file restricted access documents, is granted;. Filing 78 , Defendants motion for summary judgment, is denied; and Filing 84 , Defendants motion for leave to file restricted access documents, is granted. Member Cases: 4:11-cv-03166-RGK-CRZ, 4:12-cv-03159-RGK-CRZ Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BUD PETTIGREW,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHERRY COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 16-0006,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3166
4:12CV3159
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

These consolidated cases are before the court on cross-motions for summary
judgment (Case No. 4:11CV3166, filings 46, 65, 66; Case No. 4:12CV3159, filings
47, 78).1 Related motions include: (1) the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment in Case No. 4:11CV3166 (filing 104), which motion
will be denied; (2) the plaintiff’s motion to strike evidence in Case No. 4:11CV3166
(filing 107), which motion will also be denied; and (3) motions by both parties for
leave to file restricted access documents in Case No. 4:12CV3159 (filings 75, 84),2
which motions will be granted.
The cross-motions for summary judgment in Case No. 4:11CV3166 are limited
to the issue of the defendant school district’s liability for failing to hire the plaintiff
as a substitute teacher during the 2009-2010 school year. The plaintiff claims he was
not hired in retaliation for filing an age discrimination lawsuit against the district in
this court in 2008 (Case No. 4:08CV3084) and complaining to the Nebraska Equal
Opportunity Commission and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Similarly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in Case No.
4:12CV3159 is limited to the issue of the defendant’s liability for failing to hire the
1

2

Filings 65 and 66 in Case No. 4:11CV3166 are duplicate filings.

The restricted access documents are filed pursuant to protection orders that
were entered by the court in Case No. 4:12CV3159 (filings 33, 55).

plaintiff as a substitute teacher during the 2010-2011 school year. It is again alleged
that the failure to hire was retaliatory. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment
in Case No. 4:12CV3159 likewise concerns its alleged liability for failing to hire the
plaintiff as a substitute teacher during the 2010-2011 school year, but additionally
addresses the plaintiff’s claims that the district retaliated against him by not allowing
the plaintiff to serve as a volunteer assistant football coach in 2010, and by not hiring
the plaintiff as a full-time social sciences teacher and coach in 2011.3 The defendant
asserts that all of its decisions were supported by legitimate business reasons.
After carefully reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, I find there are
genuine issues of material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment for either
party.4 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

With respect to Case No. 4:11CV3166, that:
a.

Filing 46, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is denied;

3

The defendant’s motion also addresses a stray allegation in the plaintiff’s
amended complaint about his house being vandalized in 2011.
4

In an effort to resolve this matter expeditiously, I have elected not to discuss
my findings in detail. While there is no separate summary judgment standard for
employment discrimination cases, see Fercello v. County of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069,
1077 (8th Cir. 2010), these cases are particularly fact intensive, as demonstrated by
the hundreds of pages of briefs and thousands of pages of evidentiary materials that
have submitted by the parties. It is not the court’s role on summary judgment to
resolve triable questions of material fact. See Montin v. Estate of Johnson, 636 F.3d
409, 414 (8th Cir. 2011).
2

b.

Filings 65 and 66, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, are
denied;

c.

Filing 104, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, is denied; and

d.

Filing 107, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s evidence, is
denied.

2.

With respect to Case No. 4:12CV3159, that:
a.

Filing 47, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is denied;

b.

Filing 75, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file restricted access
documents, is granted;

c.

Filing 78, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is denied;
and

d.

Filing 84, Defendant’s motion for leave to file restricted access
documents, is granted.

February 12, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third
parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.

3