A federal judge from the Western District of Louisiana has granted a school district’s motion for summary judgement in a case in which a plaintiff sued for discrimination after the school district failed to consider her for a head football coaching job at one of the high schools in the district.
In so ruling, the court found that the Tensas Parish School Board articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for that decision and other decisions identified by the plaintiff, Sue Ann Easterling.
By way of background, the court noted that Easterling received a Bachelor of Science in Health and Physical Education from the University of Southern Mississippi, graduating with highest honors. In 2013, she received an M.S. in Secondary Education with a concentration in Athletic Administration and Coaching. She has completed 150 training courses on matters ranging from sports injury to motivation tactics. She is also state-certified to teach physical education. Despite these credentials, Easterling has unsuccessfully sought teaching and coaching positions with Tensas since 2006.
Over the last decade, Easterling has coached high-school-aged children in gymnastics, softball, basketball, volleyball, and track and field, according to the court. However, she has no experience coaching school-sponsored athletic teams and no experience coaching football at any level.
In 2010, shortly before the football season began, Tensas High School’s head football coach resigned with little or no notice. The principal recommended that Rex McCarthy, an existing employee in the district, be appointed interim head football coach. After the season, Superintendent Carol Johnson opened up the position to other candidates.
Easterling applied, but was not interviewed. Johnson sought Brad Bradshaw, a successful football coach in a neighboring parish, as the permanent coach. But after applying, he withdrew his application. “Tensas hired McCarthy in an effort to promote continuity and save money,” Johnson said in a deposition. McCarthy was hired even though he was not a certified teacher. He ultimately resigned during the 2012-13 school year. Easterling did not reapply for the position, but she asked that her application remain active. However, at the time of the 2012-13 vacancy, Tensas sought an applicant who could serve as a head coach, athletic director, and math teacher. Tensas hired Noah Johnson, a certified math teacher who had previously coached football within Tensas Parish, thereby meeting the requirements of the position.
Tensas also had a vacancy for an “adapted physical education” instructor for the 2012-13 school year. Again, however, Tensas did not interview Easterling despite a previous assurance from Johnson that she would be interviewed for the next available certified teacher position.
This led to Easterling filing a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC based on alleged violations of Title VII. Tensas told the EEOC that it did not hire Easterling for the open positions because it would cost more to bring her on as a new employee than to promote from within. The EEOC found no evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
On February 28, 2014, Easterling filed a lawsuit, claiming that Tensas discriminated against her because of her gender and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. Specifically, she claimed the district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and Louisiana state law. On May 11, 2015, Tensas moved for summary judgment.
In considering the arguments, the court considered the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under that framework, the plaintiff must first create a presumption of discrimination by making out a prima facie case. The burden then shifts to the defendant to produce evidence that the decision was made for “a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105.
“Generally, a plaintiff may establish pretext either through evidence of disparate treatment or by a showing, coupled with a satisfactory prima facie case, that the employer’s proffered reason is false or unworthy of credence.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148.
Easterling’s legal strategy centered on getting the court “to undertake a mixed-motive analysis of her claims. Under the mixed-motive theory, once a plaintiff satisfies her prima facie case, and the defendant offers nondiscriminatory reasons for the decision, the plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by showing either ‘(1) that the defendant’s reason is not true, but is instead a pretext for discrimination; or (2) that the defendant’s reason, while true, is only one of the reasons for its conduct, and another ‘motivating factor’ is the plaintiff’s protected characteristic.’ Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rishel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 854, 865 (M.D.N.C. 2003)).”
Easterling challenged Tensas’ refusal to consider her for: (1) the 2011-12 head football coach/athletic director position; (2) the 2012-13 head football coach/athletic director/math teacher position; and (3) the 2012-13 adapted physical education teacher position.
Regarding the first example, the court found that Easterling has established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the 2011-12 head football coach/athletic director position, shifting the burden to Tensas to produce a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
“Tensas offers multiple reasons for the decision,” wrote the court. “First, in a letter to the EEOC in 2014, and in its motion for summary judgment, Tensas claims that it did not hire Easterling in order to save money. Second, in her deposition, Johnson stated that Easterling was not hired initially, because Johnson ‘had someone else in mind.’ Third, Johnson also noted that McCarthy was hired to promote continuity within the program because he already knew the players and had their respect.”
The court noted that “under either the traditional McDonnell-Douglas analysis or the mixed-motive analysis,” Easterling had failed to successfully challenge the legitimacy of these reasons.
Interestingly, the court also noted that “the decision maker (Johnson) and Easterling are both members of the same protected class, which further supports the conclusion that discriminatory animus did not taint Tensas’ hiring decisions.” See, e.g., Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F.3d 989, 1002 (5th Cir. 1996).
Turning to the second instance, the court found that Easterling “cannot establish a prima facie case on this claim because the position called for a certified math teacher.” Easterling was not certified. Similarly, Easterling was unable to establish a prima facie case on the last claim.
Sue Ann Easterling v. Tensas Parish School Board; W. D. La.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0473, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49862; 4/13/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se, Vidalia, LA. (for defendant) Jon Keith Guice, Linda K Ewbank, Hammonds Sills et al (MON), Monroe, LA.
