By Michael A. Ross, MS
In September 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division granted summary judgement on behalf of the defendant, the Birmingham Board of Education, while dismissing with prejudice all claims brought forth by Mr. Alfonso Johnson, the plaintiff. The plaintiff would bring forth two claims in which the District Court would consider and analyze. The first claim would be a race discrimination claim, and the second being recognized as a retaliation claim against the said defendant after the plaintiff’s job had been terminated. Both claims by the plaintiff would be analyzed by the court utilizing a three-part framework to establish if summary judgement, proposed by the defendant, could be overturned. The eventual verdict, after considering all evidence and testimony as it was provided to the court, would result in the court granting summary judgement as proposed by the board.
Factual Background
Johnson began his athletic advisory duties in a volunteer capacity and was paid by the Birmingham Athletic Partnership, a local nonprofit, to fill the vacant position resulting from a prior State Board mandated staff restructuring and reduction initiative. While serving in this capacity, Johnson was not employed or provided direction or supervision by the Board. At a later date, 2014, the Board hired Johnson as the official Athletic Director. Johnson would be directly supervised by the Board’s Chief Operations Officer (COO). The initial COO was Colonel Ronnie Leonard and would later be replaced by Dr. Matthew Alexander, both of which are listed as African American. Johnson would also work under Board Superintendent Dr. Kelley Castlin-Gacutan, who is listed as an African American, and Chief of Staff Steve Zimmerman, who is listed as white.
In 2016, Dr. Alexander would propose to the superintendent that Johnson’s employment be terminated because in the following year he would meet the minimum requirements to be considered a tenured faculty member for those who were listed as non-teaching employees. Dr. Gacutan, in agreeance with the proposal by Dr. Alexander, provided reasoning and rationale to justify this motion set forth against the employment of Mr. Johnson in which the Board would consider when voting on the verdict. Dr. Gacutan would provide reasoning depicting Mr. Johnson’s ineffective communication skills as deemed necessary to retain employment, the upcoming achievement of non-probationary status deeming him a tenured non-teaching staff member and provided examples of Mr. Johnson’s inability to meet various established deadlines. It is noted that the Board who voted to terminate Mr. Johnson’s employment consisted of eight black members and one white member.
Shown on record, Mr. Johnson received a reprimand via Colonel Leonard in 2015 after an incident between Johnson and Steve Savarese, the executive director of the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSSA). Johnson would later address this incident as overblown and ensure through testimony that there were no hard feelings between he and Mr. Savarese. Mr. Johnson would also suggest that he was assured by Colonel Leonard that there would be no reprimand based on this interaction and that the only reason the actual reprimand did occur was a direct result from Mr. Zimmerman pressuring Colonel Leonard to act in such a manner.
In 2016, Dr Alexander would issue Mr. Johnson another reprimand for sending an email to himself, additional senior staff members and a Board-hired contractor. The issue addressed in the email was directed at the attached Board-hired contractor questioning the contractor’s quality of work on the Board’s athletic fields while also accusing him of trying to fight a Board employee. When addressed about this incident, Mr. Johnson stated he did not mean to attach the contractor to the email. This occurred because he did not understand the difference between the Reply and Reply All function available within the email platform.
Johnson was also documented on multiple occasions to have received reprimands for failing to meet deadlines established and requested by his direct and indirect supervisors that were found within the duties of his position. Johnson would respond to these claims by saying the established timeframe to accomplish the tasks that had been issued to him were unrealistic and unachievable.
The last area warranting additional consideration can be identified through the multiple and public claims that Mr. Johnson states he made it known that the Board-hired contractors performed lower quality work at schools that were known to be predominantly black. It is noted that both aforementioned COOs were in charge and present during these meeting in which these claims were made on multiple occasions. It is also of record through Mr. Johnson’s testimony that multiple school principals and Mr. Zimmerman were present at least once when these claims were made public. Mr. Johnson stated that making these public claims addressing the racial inequality that was occurring was what ultimately led to the termination of his employment.
Case Analysis and Key Factors
The court addresses two claims made by Mr. Johnson; (1) the Board’s termination of his employment was an act of unlawful retaliation (“retaliation claim”) and (2) the board discriminated against him and terminated his employment because of his race (“race discrimination claim”). The court would utilize a three-pronged framework approach when evaluating these claims.
Regarding the retaliation claim set forth by Mr. Johnson, he would need to accomplish the following to justify his claim; (1) prove a prima facie case, (2) the Board offers a nondiscriminatory reason and (3) prove pretext. Thus, Mr. Johnson must prove that the Board fired him based on statutorily protected expression or that his position was terminated as a result of him expressing this protected right. By nature of Mr. Johnson’s claim, the quality of the work being conducted by the contactors and not the hiring practices of the board are under question. Based on the verbiage of Title VII and the evaluation components utilized by the court to address Mr. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the quality of work conducted by the contractors is outside the scope of the court and does not question or provide reasoning to question the racial hiring practices of the board itself. Regarding prima fasci and the occurrence of pretext, Mr. Johnson could not provide evidence to support either of these issues because the Board provided documentation of their reasoning for firing Johnson that was not race related and displayed a more operations and financial reasoning in nature. These facts, of course, referring to Mr. Johnson getting closer to being awarded non-probationary status and the aforementioned reprimands he had acquired over the years. Because of these findings, Mr. Johnson’s claim is found to be not actionable and fails as a matter of law while also failing to provide or achieve substantial evidence to meet the required burden of proof bestowed upon him.
Regarding the racial discrimination claim, Mr. Johnson was granted the burden of proving that racial factors existed as the core reason his employment was terminated. To avoid summary judgement granted by the court, Johnson would need to provide enough evidence supporting his claim. Similar to the three-part framework used to evaluate the retaliation claim, Johnson could utilize the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnel Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Here Mr. Johnson has the burden to prove a prima fascia based on discrimination is present through the following: (1) that he belongs to a protected class, (2) that he faced an adverse employment action, (3) that he was qualified to perform the job and (4) that his employer treated “similarly situated” employees outside of his class more favorably. This framework also allows Mr. Johnson the opportunity to provide any circumstantial evidence that demonstrates a “convincing mosaic” warranting additional consideration towards intentional or targeted discrimination.
The evidence and claims provided by Mr. Johnson remain circumstantial, can be described as biased and somewhat questionable when evaluating their validity and accuracy as well. The court finds that the evidence brought forth and provided by Mr. Johnson does not meet the burden of proof warranted to justify an inference of discrimination. With a lack of pertinent evidence, Mr. Johnson was not able to establish prima facie case of racial discrimination. Furthermore, many of those who ultimately decided to terminate Mr. Johnson’s position were identified as being within the same class as himself. None of the evidence provided by Mr. Johnson was sound enough to refute the aforementioned reasons the board listed and documented to justify terminating Mr. Johnson’s position which were established by the court as legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Based on these findings and a lack of evidence to oppose the motion set forth by the board against Mr. Johnson’s claims, the court granted summary judgement.
Application
Stemming from the occurrences and justifications of this case, the need to provide claims based on sound and clear issues is relevant and documented. Differences of opinion and limited testimony do not provide enough concrete evidence to avoid a potential motion of summary judgement or offer justifiable claims warranting further investigation and consideration by the court. It is possible to see future cases of this nature as the influence of Covid-19 has played a drastic impact on the financial wellbeing of many institutions and the potential for employment termination is higher than in less recent times. Documentation of any issues found within one’s employment responsibilities and justification towards hiring and firing practices are also highly suggested to avoid claims made against those charged with governing over a given group or institution.
References
Johnson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., No. 2:18-CV-1262-CLM, 2020 WL 5203979, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 1, 2020)
Michael A. Ross is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Shorter University and a PhD student at Troy University specializing in research related to youth sport studies, leadership, social media policies and procedures within athletics and participation motivations in sport and recreation.
