Whitaker v. Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting Defendant's 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/12/2013. Copy mailed to the plaintiff via first class mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No.: 5:11-CV-246-BO
WALTER LEE WHITAKER,
Plaintiff,
V.
NASH-ROCKY MOUNT BOARD OF
EDUCATION, RICHARD A.
MCMAHON and CARINA BRYANT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
[DE 43]. For the reasons discussed below, the defendant's motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiff, Mr. Whitaker, was hired by Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools at the
beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. At the time, Richard A. McMahon was the
Superintendent of the Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools and Carina Bryan was the
principal at Southern Nash Middle School. The school system hired Mr. Whitaker despite
that fact that he not yet obtained his teaching certificate. Mr. Whitaker was hired as a
"lateral entry," meaning that he would be allowed to teach on a probationary arrangement
and would be expected to obtain his teaching certificate within a specified time period.
Mr. Whitaker did obtain his teaching certificate in March, 2009.
1
Mr. Whitaker was hired to teach language arts at Southern Nash Middle School
and, as a probationary teacher, Mr. Whitaker was subject to periodic observation and
written evaluations and received mentoring from other teachers. For example, On
October 22, 2007, an evaluator noted that Mr. Whitaker needed to improve his time
management and organizational skills as well as his instructional presentation. [Ex. A,
Affidavit of Carina Bryant]. Again on May 5, 2008, the same evaluator stated, "Mr.
Whitaker has improved in his instructional presentation, however he still needs to focus
on classroom management and organizational skills." /d. On March 25, 2008, Carina
Bryant noted that Mr. Whitaker needed to improve his management of student behavior.
/d. Another evaluator had made the same comment on March 21, 2008. /d. At the end of
his first year, Mr. Whitaker received a rating of "at standard" and it was noted, as it had
been throughout the year, that he needed to improve his classroom management and
organizational skills. /d.
In May, 2008, Mr. Whitaker alleged that he was asked to tender a letter of
resignation. Mr. Whitaker declined to do so and, suspecting that racial animus had been
the motivation for the request, Mr. Whitaker filed a complaint with the school's central
office.
Nevertheless, Mr. Whitaker returned for the 2008-2009 school year. During his
second year, Mr. Whitaker was again subject to periodic evaluations. Throughout the
year it was noted that Mr. Whitaker had ongoing problems with lesson presentation,
classroom management, and management of student behavior. On March 11,2009,
Carina Bryant noted again that Mr. Whitaker needed to improve his classroom
management skills and noted on her evaluation sheet that she had referred him to a class
2
to help him develop that ability. [Ex. A, Affidavit of Carina Bryant]. Mr. Whitaker
completed this course satisfactorily. During an April, 2009 evaluation, Mrs. Bryant noted
that one student had a hood pulled over her head and had her eyes closed during Mr.
Whitaker's class. Id Other student misbehavior was also observed. Id Upon completing
her final evaluation form for 2009, Mrs. Bryant apparently informed Mr. Whitaker that
because he had received a poor score in his ability to maintain classroom management his
other scores would also be affected. On this end of year evaluation, Mr. Whitaker
received a rating of "at standard" in all areas, except for management of student behavior
in which he received a rating of "below standard" by his supervisor, Mrs. Bryant.
At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, principal Carina Bryant recommended
that Mr. Whitaker's contract not be renewed. On June 11, 2009, Mr. Whitaker was
notified by written letter that his contract would not be renewed due to the inadequacy of
his teaching performance.
Although he did not elaborate with any detail, Mr. Whitaker alleged that he was
"forced to endure racially bias[sic] treatment". [DE 47-1]. Further, Mr. Whitaker has
concluded that "it is my belief that Nash-Rocky Mount School staff did harass me
because of my race, and allowed me to work under hostile conditions for racially
bias[sic] reasons." [DE 47-1].
After his dismissal, Mr. Whitaker filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. On February 16, 2011, the EEOC issued Mr. Whitaker a right
to sue letter. Mr. Whitaker filed the instant suit, alleging violations of Title VII ofthe
Civil Rights Act of 1964, on May 17, 2011. The defendants have moved for summary
judgment.
3
DISCUSSION
I.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment shall not be granted unless there are no genuine
issues of material fact for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party must demonstrate the lack of material factual
dispute, and if that burden is met, the party opposing the motion must "go beyond the
pleadings" and come forward with evidence of a genuine factual dispute. Celotex, 4 77
U.S. at 324. The Court must view the facts and the inferences drawn from the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient to defeat a
motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986). The plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter and, as such, the Court must
consider the claims presented to it in a different light than it might consider the filings of
professional attorneys. Although the Court must liberally construe pleadings submitted
by a pro se claimant, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(per curiam), "a district
court is not required to recognize obscure or extravagant claims defying the most
concerted efforts to umavel them." Weller v. Dep 't ofSoc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th
Cir. 1990).
II.
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALLY NAMED
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Supervisors are not liable in their individual capacities for violations of Title VII.
Further, where a plaintiff has named his supervisor's employer as a defendant in a Title
VII action, claims against the supervisors in their individual capacities would be
redundant. Lissau v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159 F. 3d 177, 180-81 (4th Cir. 1998).
4
There is no factual dispute as to the employment of Richard A. McMahon and
Carina Bryant. Both were Mr. Whitaker's superiors and both were employed by the
Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education. As such, they are not liable in their individual
capacities under Title VII. Because there is no factual dispute on this issue and because
they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Mr. McMahon and Ms. Bryant are
entitled to summary judgment in their favor.
III.
PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE
OF DISCRIMINATION.
Mr. Whitaker's Title VII discrimination claim is evaluated under the framework
established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973). A
plaintiff must prove (I) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was
performing his job satisfactorily; (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and
(4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an
inference of discrimination. !d. In an employment discrimination case, when the plaintiff
fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by satisfying the four prongs of the
McDonnell-Douglas test the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Here, the
defendants conceded that the plaintiff is a member of a protected class and that he
suffered an adverse employment action. It is only the other two factors that are
considered by the Court.
Under North Carolina law, a lateral entry teacher may be hired on probationary
period. See N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 115C-325(m). That teacher will be designated as a lateral
entry teacher until they have earned a full teaching certificate. A probationary teacher's
performance is frequently evaluated and at the end of the school year a decision is made
regarding whether to renew the teacher's contract for the upcoming school year. A school
5
board may refuse to renew a probationary teacher's contract for any reason except one
that is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, personal, or politically motivated. N.C. Gen
Stat. § 115C-325(m).
Here, Mr. Whitaker was periodically evaluated. Some of these evaluations
reflected positive observations of Mr. Whitaker's work in the classroom. However, each
evaluation contained some criticism of Mr. Whitaker's ability to teach effectively.
Although Mr. Whitaker has offered evidence of his strengths in the classroom, he failed
to state a prima facie case for discrimination because it is clear that his principal and
other evaluators felt that he was a less than satisfactory teacher. As such, Mr. Whitaker
has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because it is clear that he was
not performing his job to the satisfaction of his supervisors. Further, Mr. Whitaker has
not set forth any evidence, beyond his conclusory statements, that the decision to not
renew his contract was racially motivated.
Finally, to the extent plaintiff has stated a claim under Title VII for discrimination
based on his status as a disabled veteran this claim is improper. Title VII does not protect
against discrimination based on an individual's disabilities or physical limitations.
For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of
employment discrimination and, therefore, defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED,
this~ day of June, 2013.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?