A federal judge from the Eastern District of Michigan granted a school district’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which it was sued by an athletic director, who claimed the school district and individual defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race.
In October 2016, the Bridgeport Spaulding School District’s Board of Education (Board) voted unanimously to hire plaintiff Eugene Seals to a one-year Contracted Services Personnel Agreement (Agreement) as Athletic Director (AD) for the school district (District). Seals, who is an African American, was previously the high school boys’ basketball coach in the District, a position he continued to maintain while he was AD. The Agreement, which provided the term of service as October 11, 2016 to June 30, 2017, was signed by acting Board President Patrick Nelson, acting Secretary Theodora Morris, and Superintendent Carol Selby.
The Agreement did not contain any language regarding renewal or extension. When Seals started as the AD, Al Feldman, the former AD, overlapped with him for approximately three weeks. According to Feldman, he offered to help Seals learn the job, even setting up three appointments at the middle school. But Seals did not show up for the appointments and never followed up on his offer for training.
When Feldman was AD, the district had a procedure in place for handling ticket and concession sales during the basketball season. Linda Rodrigues, secretary to the AD, described that she would prepare the bank deposit slip prior to each basketball game and give Feldman the deposit slip and a sealable deposit bag provided by First Merit Bank. Feldman gave the deposit slip and bag to the ticket salespeople. Game Manager Andrew Betka stated there were two adults assigned the task of selling tickets. At the end of each game, Betka would observe one of the individuals count the proceeds from ticket sales. The second individual also observed the count, and the two individuals had to agree with the count and compete the deposit slip which would be placed into the sealable deposit bag. The cash amount was then written on the bag.
When Seals became AD, Rodrigues continued to prepare the ticket summary sheet and dated deposit slip, but she did not receive the completed summary sheet at the end of each game. Betka explained that at the direction of Seals, the bag was not sealed because Seals said he would take care of sealing the bag. The bank deposit bags remained in Seals’s office and in March 2017, Seals approached Rodrigues with a plastic grocery bag which contained seven or eight unsealed First Merit bank deposit bags.
Near the end of the basketball season, board members became concerned with “the mishandling of proceeds and the missing summary sheets,” and an investigation followed. The committee was made up of the Board President, Robert Lange; Personnel Committee, Dempsey Allen; and Treasurer, John Rhines. On the request of the District’s legal counsel, Rehmann Group was hired on April 21, 2017 to investigate the situation.
Rehmann conducted interviews of seven individuals: Rodrigues, Betka, Feldman, Selby, Gabriel Rodriguez (Dean of Students), Kevin Marshall (Coach), John Lagalo (Principal), and Pete Basile (CFO). Seals was invited to participate in the investigation on several occasions, but declined to participate.
The investigation revealed that all proceeds appeared to be accounted for, according to the court. However, the summary sheets for five basketball games were not identified. No cash deposits could be directly tied to two of those games and there was no way to confirm the accuracy of the recorded deposits made for the other three games.
Even after the Rehmann investigation concluded, the board emailed Seals requesting that he meet with investigators. On May 18, Seal’s attorney responded by letter to the District’s legal counsel, informing him that Seals would not participate in the investigation. Seal’s attorney compared the investigation to a witch hunt and stated that certain Board Members appeared to have a racist agenda. The attorney cited to Mr. Rhines’ statement regarding the colors of the basketball warm ups and the Board’s undertaking of the Rehmann investigation to support his accusations of a racist agenda: “Furthermore, it would appear that the board is treating Mr. Seals differently than other persons within the Bridgeport Spaulding School Community,” he wrote. “As such, I believe that there are racist overtones and a racist agenda at work.” Rehmann issued its final report on June 2, 2018, which found there was no “direct evidence that AD Seals misappropriated any gate or concession receipts.” However, the report concluded that “[w]ithout any supporting documentation identifying concession receipts for each game, there is no way to confirm what was actually collected for each game.”
Seals’ Agreement expired on June 30, 2017. The Board voted four to two against issuing a new contract to Seals. The four Board members voting against a new contract were Caucasian, while the two Board members voting for a new contract were African American. The Board members who voted against offering Seals a new contract explained that they did so on the advice of the District’s counsel, as well as on the findings of the Rehmann investigation. Nelson testified that he voted for non-renewal because he was unsatisfied with Seals’ lack of cooperation with the investigation into his handling of money. Rhines testified he relied on the Board’s attorney. Lange stated that he relied on the Rehmann investigation and the Board’s attorney.
There is some discrepancy regarding who became the AD after Seals’ contract ended. According to Superintendent Selby, Gabe Rodriguez became the new AD. The individual defendant Board members testified that some of the AD duties were shared by others already employed by the District. Gabe Rodriguez is not African American. Only one of the several individuals identified as possibly helping Rodriguez perform AD duties is African American.
Seals filed this race discrimination action against the defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Count I), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count II), and the Michigan Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) (Count III). His complaint also asserts that the Board’s vote not to extend a new contract was retaliation for his engagement in protected activity under ELCRA (Count IV).
The defendants moved for summary judgment leading to the instant opinion.
Examining the discrimination claims brought under Section 1983 and ELCRA, together, the court noted that the claim is based on circumstantial evidence, thus it employed the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) to determine its merits.
The parties agreed that the plaintiff satisfied the first two elements under McDonnell Douglas that he was a member of a protected class and was qualified for the job and performed it satisfactorily.
What was in dispute is whether the plaintiff has met the third and fourth elements — he suffered an adverse employment action; and he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated individual outside of his protected class.
On the third element, the court found that the plaintiff “was subjected to a significant change in his employment status as a result of the Board’s vote,” thus he “suffered an adverse employment action for purposes of his prima facie case.”
Turning to the fourth element, the court noted that the plaintiff “must put forth some evidence that he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated individual outside of his protected class. The evidence supports that Gabe Rodriguez was plaintiff’s primary replacement, supporting plaintiff’s burden of showing he was replaced by someone outside his protected class.
“The legitimate non-discriminatory reasons relied upon by defendants for their decision not to renew plaintiff as AD are: (1) plaintiff took it upon himself to change the procedure in which ticket and concession proceeds were counted and deposited; (2) summary sheets were missing; (3) reports were not submitted in an accurate, timely fashion resulting in added expense and effort for the District; (4) plaintiff failed to follow the facility rental policy; and (5) plaintiff refused to cooperate with Rehmann’s investigation.
“Plaintiff contends that none of the above-listed reasons were given as reasons for voting to not renew his contract when the individual Board members were deposed.” While the plaintiff “is correct that the defendants … did not articulate the specific reasons they voted not to renew plaintiff’s contract, they did point generally to the conclusion of the investigation into the matter of plaintiff’s role in the athletic department’s handling of cash receipts. The investigation ultimately determined that plaintiff changed the procedure in which ticket and concession proceeds were counted and deposited; several summary sheets were missing; reports were not submitted in an accurate, timely fashion; plaintiff failed to follow the facility rental policy; and plaintiff refused to cooperate with the investigation. The court finds that defendants have articulated several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for voting not to renew plaintiff’s contract.
“Once a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for non-renewal has been shown by the employer, the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate that the reason was pretextual.”
The plaintiff “attempts to establish pretext by pointing to his testimony that he was discriminated based on his race. However, plaintiff has provided no evidenced to contradict the conclusions of the Rehmann investigation, to explain his own failure to participate in the investigation or to directly address the investigator’s findings regarding his handling of cash receipts and deposits. A school district’s interest in safeguarding its financial resources is certainly sufficient to support the Board’s decision not to renew plaintiff’s contract. The court finds that defendants’ legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for voting against renewal of plaintiff’s contract are not pretext for discrimination.” Thus, it granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts I, II and III.
It also granted the defendants’ motion on the retaliation claim after finding the plaintiff “fails to support a finding that he engaged in protected activity under ELCRA.”
Eugene Seals v. Hon. George Caram Steeh, Bridgeport Spaulding School District, John Rhines, Pat Nelson, and Robert Lange; E.D. Mich.; Case No. 17-CV-13514, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171659; 10/4/18
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Kevin L. Kula, Russell C. Babcock, Victor J. Mastromarco , Jr., The Mastromarco Firm, Saginaw, MI. (for defendant) Christopher James Marker, O’Neill Wallace & Doyle, Saginaw, MI; Daniel J. LoBello, Robert A. Jordan, O’Neill, Wallace and Doyle, P.C., Saginaw, MI; David A. Wallace, O’Neill, Wallace, Saginaw, MI.
