Jo Ann Jones v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, et al
Filing
79
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Objections of the Plaintiff are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 58 ) is GRANTED, and this ac tion is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. The jury trial set for January 27, 2015, and the pretrial conference set for January 16, 2015, are canceled. This Order shall constitute t he final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 6/12/2014. (xc: mailed to atty Joe Johnston)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JO ANN JONES
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
OF NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON
COUNTY
)
)
) NO. 3-12-0860
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)
)
ORDER
Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 75), Plaintiff’s Objections thereto (Docket No. 76), and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Objections (Docket No. 78). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local
Rule 72.03(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation and the file.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge’s standard of finding that a
reasonable jury would conclude that Plaintiff’s conduct was more serious than the four comparators’
conduct is stated incorrectly1 and that expert testimony is not required to prove that comparators are
“similarly-situated.”2 Nonetheless, the Court finds that, even so, the four comparators were not
“similarly-situated” because, among other things, Plaintiff was a probationary employee and at
least three of the four others were not.3 See, e.g., Docket No. 58-4, ¶ 4 and Docket No. 69, ¶¶ 15-16.
1
In determining whether there is a genuine issue of fact for trial, the Court must
decide whether a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, not whether a
reasonable jury would find for the moving party on a particular issue. Rodgers v. Banks, 344
F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003).
2
The Court can find nothing in the Report and Recommendation that holds that
such expert testimony is required.
3
Plaintiff disagrees with Ms. Braden’s testimony that all four comparators were
tenured and asserts that Ms. Heidel was a third-year probationary teacher. Even if Ms. Heidel
was not tenured, however, Plaintiff has not shown that Ms. Heidel’s one alleged infraction was
Although the parties and the Magistrate Judge refer to the adverse employment action at
issue as the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the employment action at issue was actually the
failure to renew Plaintiff’s contract, which is a different (but nonetheless still adverse) employment
action.
The Objections of the Plaintiff are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is
adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 58)
is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot, and
the Clerk is directed to close the file.
The jury trial set for January 27, 2015, and the pretrial conference set for January 16, 2015,
are canceled. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
substantially similar to Plaintiff’s six to eight (Plaintiff denies some in part) infractions and
misconduct over the course of a school year.
2
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?