The panel of judges from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that a school district did not retaliate against its former athletic coordinator when it removed him from the position after he filed a lawsuit against the school district.
Specifically, the panel found that the plaintiff’s “evidence, taken together” was not enough to suggest that the district and the individual defendants had retaliated against him.
The plaintiff in the case was Charles Vereecke, a teacher and athletic coordinator at Milford High School. In October 2006, Vereecke filed a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, alleging that a teacher had broken her wrist while engaged in attempted horseplay and that the school had previously failed to investigate harassment complaints against the teacher. Vereecke demanded compensatory damages for Kelly’s broken wrist and exemplary damages for her mental anguish. The suit was eventually settled on August 6, 2007.
As athletic coordinator, Vereecke coordinated and hosted athletic competitions with other schools. The position of athletic coordinator was also considered an extracurricular activity, separate from regular teaching duties, and Vereecke was paid nearly $8,000 per year in addition to his annual salary for serving in the position. His service as the athletic coordinator was an at-will position that did not affect tenure. Terms of the appointment were contained in a contract, renewable annually.
During the pendency of the lawsuit, a series of confrontations between Vereecke and Milford’s administration took place. The facts surrounding these incidents are largely undisputed. Vereecke alleges that he was disciplined after these confrontations because of the suit.
One of the confrontations involved the Milford girls’ basketball team. The plaintiff had two daughters playing on the team and was a lifelong friend of the coach. Many of the parents, however, did not like the coach and eventually hired an attorney and filed grievances with the administration. In a show of support for the coach, Vereecke began wearing a t-shirt with Palmer’s attorney’s name and phone number on it to basketball games. Another involved his role on the districts’ Hall of Fame Committee and a threatening letter he had sent out to some of the parents, unilaterally, without permission from other committee members.
Roughly a month after Vereecke filed a suit on behalf of his daughter, the school’s principal sent a letter chastising Vereecke for having “failed to model, utilize, or demonstrate the appropriate conduct necessary for the Athletic Coordinator position.” It cited the letter to the parents and Vereecke’s overt support for Palmer as indicative of inappropriate conduct. Vereecke was removed from his position as the principal’s designee to the Hall of Fame Committee, and his “position as Athletic Coordinator [was] changed with reduced ‘visibility’ and [his] professional conduct placed under review for the remainder of the school year.”
The plaintiff was ultimately removed from his coordinator position after there was a melee that broke out between students at Milford and a rival school at a basketball game. Vereecke allegedly approached the AD for the other school in a “rude, hostile and unprofessional manner” to complain about his students. He further reported that Vereecke then acted inappropriately for the rest of the game, including yelling profane language at his students.
On March 19, 2007, Vereecke was issued a written reprimand for his conduct at the game.
Sometime after the reprimand, however, it was recommended to the superintendent that he be removed from the athletic coordinator position.
On August 31, 2007, shortly after the lawsuit he filed on behalf of his daughter was settled, Vereecke filed his own lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the actions taken against him discussed above were in retaliation for the underlying lawsuit that he filed on behalf of his daughter. He alleged that because the underlying lawsuit was speech protected under the First Amendment, the adverse employment actions taken by the defendants violated his First Amendment rights. Vereecke claimed compensatory damages for loss of income, loss of reputation, mortification, embarrassment, humiliation, degradation, and anxiety and mental anguish, and he also sought punitive damages. The defendants collectively moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the court granted on July 14, 2008.
The panel found that the plaintiff “was unable to present evidence that the underlying lawsuit was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment actions. Evidence of temporal proximity and other evidence, taken together, did not permit the inference that the adverse employment actions were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to retaliate for the plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. Further, the plaintiff conceded all the critical facts that showed that defendants had valid, non-retaliatory justifications for the discipline that they imposed on plaintiff. Because the individual defendants did not violate constitutional rights, plaintiff could not rely on their conduct to establish municipal liability.”
Charles Vereecke v. Huron Valley School District et al.; 6th Cir.; No. 08-2051; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12492; 2010 FED App. 0177P (6th Cir.); 6/18/10
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Rick J. Patterson, Potter, Deagostino, O’dea & Patterson, Auburn Hills, Michigan. (for appellee) Kevin T. Sutton, Lusk & Albertson, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
