A federal judge from the Eastern District of Michigan has granted a school district’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which it was sued by a basketball coach for harassment and retaliation, stemming from a legal victory she had secured years earlier against the district.
The court found specifically that plaintiff Geraldine Fuhr “failed to state a prima facie case of either gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII, ELCRA or Title IX” against the defendant, Hazel Park School District.
The genesis of Fuhr’s litigation was a suit in October 1999 when she alleged that she suffered discrimination because of her gender, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, when the school district failed to hire her as the head coach of the high school boys’ varsity basketball team. In August 2001, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and in October 2001 the court ordered that she be instated into this position. For the next five years, Fuhr worked as the coach for both the boys’ and the girls’ varsity basketball teams.
That harmonious period ended abruptly on June 1, 2006 when the school district removed the plaintiff as the coach of the girls’ varsity basketball team. Fuhr filed a lawsuit and various amended lawsuits over the next few years, discrimination, harassment, retaliation and a hostile work environment, among other things. The defendant moved for summary judgment.
“The essence of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims, under Title VII, ELCRA and Title IX, is that the defendant treated her differently because of her sex,” wrote the court. “The essence of the plaintiff’s retaliation claims, under the same three statutes, is that the defendant’s mistreatment of her is in retaliation for her current and prior lawsuits, her EEOC complaints and her ‘internal complaint against discrimination.’”
“Turning first to the plaintiff’s gender discrimination and ‘hostile environment’ claims (Counts I, III and VI), the court finds that defendant is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff has produced no evidence — either direct or circumstantial — suggesting that her gender had anything whatsoever to do with the defendant’s decision to remove her as the girls’ varsity basketball coach or with any of the harassment she allegedly suffered,” wrote the court.
“The plaintiff has not stated a prima facie case of gender discrimination, as the only ‘adverse employment action’ she has alleged is her removal as the girls’ basketball coach, and the claim fails because plaintiff’s replacement in that position, Jennifer Berrios, is not ‘outside the protected class,. While plaintiff asserts in her response brief that she ‘did lose the girl’s [sic] team because of her gender,’ she offers no evidence to support the assertion. She also tacitly acknowledges that the claim is doomed by characterizing it as one ‘of first impression’ and yet offering no authority countering the long line of cases requiring that she show she was replaced by a man.”
The court also sided with the defendants on the plaintiff’s retaliation claims.
“The plaintiff’s primary theory behind these claims appears to be that defendant removed her as the girls’ varsity basketball coach, and subjected her to various forms of harassment, in retaliation for plaintiff having prevailed in her 1999 lawsuit,” wrote the court. “Insofar as they are based on this theory, the retaliation claims fail due to the long passage of time between (a) winning that lawsuit and (b) her removal as the girls’ coach and the other alleged harassment.”
The claim was flawed, according to the judge, because the allegations made by the plaintiff did not meet the necessary threshold.
“The court has read all of the briefs and exhibits in this matter and has paid particularly close attention to the plaintiff’s deposition testimony,” the court wrote. “While the plaintiff has described many examples of what she perceives as unfair treatment from school officials, teachers, coaches, and parents, none of it rises to the level of ‘severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment’ and none of it has been linked to the plaintiff’s protected activity.”
Geraldine A. Fuhr v. School District Of The City Of Hazel Park; E.D. Mich.; Civil Action No. 08-CV-11652, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105820; 9/19/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Marla A. Linderman, Linderman Law P.C., Brighton, MI.. (for defendant) John L. Miller, Giarmarco, Mullins, Troy, MI; Kenneth B. Chapie, Timothy J. Mullins, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., Troy, MI.
