Yeboah-Kankam v. Prince William County School Board

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 12/29/2017. (rban, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria
KWAME YEBOAH-KANKAM

Plaintiff,

l:17-cv-549 (LMB/JFA)

V.

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPESIION

Before the Court is defendant Prince William County School Board's ("defendant" or
"PWCPS") Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 31] to which plaintiff Kwame Yeboah-

Kankam ("plaintiff or "Yeboah-Kankam"), proceeding pro se, has filed a response. Based on
the written materials, the Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. For
the reasons stated below, defendant's motion will be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND

The uncontested facts establish that plaintiff, who is an African-American male originally
from Ghana, West Africa, was hired as a counselor at Freedom High School ("Freedom") in

August 2013. Joint Stipulated Uncontested Facts ("Stip. Facts") ^ 2 [Dkt. No. 26]. He was hired
by Inez Bryant("Bryant"), Freedom's principal, and Dave Anderson ("Anderson"), Freedom's
Director of Counselling. Id.

3, 5. Plaintiffreported directly to Anderson for two years, until

Anderson was replaced by Brianna Moore ("Moore") during the 2015-2016 school year. Id. H7.

Plaintiff also reported to Bryant, in her capacity as Freedom's principal, and to Mickey Mulgrew

("Mulgrew"), PWCPS' Associate Superintendent for High Schools. Id. H8. Bryant and Moore

Q

iii.

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a Title VII claim of a hostile work environment, plaintiff must show that (1)
he was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the unwelcome conduct was based on one or more

protected classifications; (3) the conduct was sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter the

conditions of employment; and (4) a basis for imputing liability to the employer. Smith v. First

Union NatU Bank. 202 F.3d 234, 241-42 (4th Cir. 2000); Bover-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp..
786 F. 3d 264, 277 (4th Cir. 2015). The "unwelcome conducf must be based on plaintiffs
membership in a protected class. Monk v. Potter. 723 F. Supp. 2d 860, 880 (E.D. Va. 2010).
Title VII does not protect employees from hostility or abuse unless the objectionable conditions
occur because of a protected characteristic. Graham v. Prince George's County. 191 F. App'x
202, 204 (4th Cir. 2006). This is essentially a "but for" test.

Causey v. Balog. 162 F.3d 795,

801 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff cannot establish either the first or third element.

The majority of plaintiffs allegations centers on the complaints against him and the way
PWCPS handled investigations into his own complaints against other staff members.

PL's

0pp. at 3-8. He does not produce any evidence that there were overt remarks referencing his
race, gender, or national origin directed at him. Moreover, he fully admits that the few comments

he has identified occurred years before the discipline he faced. See, e.g.. PL's 0pp. at 14 (Nicolai
stated that plaintiff does not work well with women in September 2013).
Q

Count II alleges that defendant created a hostile work environment because of sexual
harassment, ^ Compl. H59; however, he fails to establish even the most basic element of a

sexual harassment claim. He has produced no evidence that anyone, supervisor or colleague,
made any unwelcome sexual advance or comment to him, nor does his complaint make any
factual allegation of unwelcome sexual conduct. Indeed, at his deposition, he conceded that no
one had ever made a sexual comment to him and explained that this claim was because Moore

"on at least two occasions" insisted that "because he was a man, he lacked the ability to show
compassion toward students." PL's Dep. 103:2-104:21. This type of comment does not
constitute the type of "unwelcome sexual advance[s]" that would give rise to a claim of sexual
harassment. S^ Hovle v. Freightliner. LLC. 650 F.3d 321, 331 (4th Cir. 2011).

21