Gielda v. Bangor Twp. Sch.

ANDREW G. GIELDA, Plaintiff,

v.BANGOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS, Defendant.

Case Number 10-12534-BC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Dated: August 12, 2011

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff Andrew G. Gielda filed a three-count complaint against Defendant Bangor Township Schools, alleging that his employment as a school principal was ended because of his gender in violation of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 37.2101-.2804, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. He further contends that the decision was based, in part, on his participation in labor union activities in violation of the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act ("PERA"), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 423.201-.287, and the Taft-Hartley Act or the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531. Plaintiff also contends that the decisions violated the Michigan "Administrator's Due Process Act," Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1229.

On April 22, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment contending that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed. Defendant contends the Title VII and ELCRA claims should be dismissed because there is no causal connection between Plaintiff's gender and the decision to not renew his contract. Defendant further contends that there were many legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the decision. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff's claims basedon PERA and the Taft-Hartley Act should be dismissed because the decision to not renew the contract was independent of Plaintiff's union activities, and that the school district complied with Michigan laws governing school administrators' contracts.

On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a response raising what he contends are numerous issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment. Indeed, the parties versions of the events leading up to the challenged decision are often starkly different. Nevertheless, when focused on the key issue, causation, Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to suggest that his gender or his participation in union activities caused or even contributed to the school board's decision not to renew his contract. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The hearing scheduled for July 11, 2011 was canceled based on the Court's determination that the parties papers provide the necessary information to resolve the motion. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2).

I.

Plaintiff worked for the Standish Sterling Community Schools from 1997 through 2007. He was hired by Defendant to fill an open principal position at the Christa McAuliffe Middle School for the 2007 through 2008 school year. The hiring decision was made by the school board, upon the recommendation of a hiring committee, which was composed of Tina Kerr, the superintendent, Richard Heinrich, the assistant superintendent, Shawn Bishop, the curriculum director, and unidentified teachers.

Beth Robb was hired at the same time as Plaintiff to serve as principal of the high school. Because Robb was hired as the high school principal and Plaintiff as the middle school principal,Robb received a higher salary than Plaintiff even though she had less experience than Plaintiff. Pl.'s Dep. at 37.

Kerr was actively engaged with the teachers at Christa McAuliffe Middle School after Plaintiff was hired as the principal. Kerr met with teachers individually, and also held regular "snack and chat" meetings with groups of teachers. Id. at 74. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that the middle school was the only school in the district where Kerr held "individual snack and chats" and used them as "an evaluation tool." Id. at 75. Kerr would meet with staff, sometimes individually, and then report back to Plaintiff concerning the staff members' complaints. Id. at 75-76. No other principal, according to Plaintiff, received such scrutiny. Kerr, however, disagreed. Kerr testified that she had "far more" meetings with Robb's staff than with Plaintiff's staff. Kerr. Dep. at 57-58.

Plaintiff also contends that an unknown woman on the staff at the middle school circulated a survey concerning Plaintiff's performance to the other women on the staff. Pl.'s Dep. at 86. He contends that the survey results were shared with Kerr, and that Kerr met with a group of women on the staff at the end of the school year to discuss Plaintiff's performance. Id. According to Plaintiff, Kerr referred to the group of women she met with at the end of the year as her "gang." Id. A secretary in the central administrative office, Cara Lee Barcia, testified that there was "gossip" in the district about the survey and that it did not reach all the staff members at the school. Barcia Dep. at 36-37. Kerr knew that an "informal survey" was being distributed, but she did not have anything to do with it. Kerr Dep. at 57-58. She testified that "[i]t was none of my business." Id. at 58.

Kerr frequently received calls from teachers complaining about Plaintiff's performance as a principal. Pl.'s Resp. at 3; Barcia Dep. at 67-69; Pl.'s Dep. at 86. Such calls from teachers to the superintendent were unusual. Barcia Dep. at 67. Kerr kept a "notebook" where she recorded her communications with staff about Plaintiff. Id. at 51. Kerr testified concerning the nature of the staff's complaints, indicating that Plaintiff was reluctant to become involved in disciplining students and frequently resorted to suspensions. Kerr. Dep. at 20-21. She further explained the teachers' concerns:

I had numerous complaints from staff that when they would come to his office to try and communicate with him he would physically turn his back to them, wouldn't look up from his computer. He did not do a staff letter to introduce himself to the staff. The person that we interviewed and the person that showed up the first day were two totally different people.

We interviewed somebody who was very energetic, very excited, wanted to be there. The person that showed up appeared to be very much on a power trip, this is how it's going to be, this is my way or no way, and immediately within the first two weeks of school, I began receiving staff complaints about [Plaintiff] and his treatment.

Id. at 21. Kerr also testified that she was concerned about Plaintiff's visibility at the school during the day, and at middle school athletic events after school hours. Id. at 16. Kerr testified that board members approached her, concerned that the principal's office at the middle school was always dark even though students and other staff members remained in the building. Id. Plaintiff also did not attend events at the middle school, such as athletic competitions. Id.

Richard Heinrich, then-assistant superintendent in the district, also testified that he was aware of complaints by staff about Plaintiff's performance. Heinrich Dep. at 10-12. Heinrich testified that there were complaints about Plaintiff's leadership, his interest in the staff, and his communication with the staff. Id. Heinrich testified that while an isolated comment aboutPlaintiff's leadership skills would not be a substantial concern, because of the trend of similar comments he was concerned about the situation at the middle school. Id.

On October 10 and 12, 2007, Plaintiff participated in union negotiations with the district at the request of other administrators. Pl.'s Dep. at 270. The administrators negotiated an annuity as part of their compensation package, Kerr presented the package to the board, and it was approved. Id. Plaintiff, however, was not entitled to receive the annuity because he had only worked for the district for two months. Id.; [Dkt. # 17-4]. During her presentation to the board two years later, recommending that Plaintiff's contract not be renewed, Kerr indicated that Plaintiff was hostile during the negotiations when he learned he would not receive the annuity. [Dkt. # 17-4]. Kerr told the board:

On October 10th and 12th, I met with the USW (Admin) team to discuss negotiations. Mr. Gielda volunteered to be a representative for the administrative team. These negotiations were tenuous due to Mr. Gielda's own agenda. He insisted that he should be eligible for the 2007-08 increase and annuity payment. This created some hostility between the team, as well as they felt Mr. Gielda as well as I did that Mr. Gielda should not [be] eligible for a pay raise after only being on the job for two months. His salary and contract w[ere] adjusted in July when he began his employment with the district. He still held firm that he thought he should have had the raise, but the administrative team ignored his own agenda and voted to approve the new contract.

[Dkt. # 17-4 at 9].

On March 25, 2008, Kerr completed a STAGES evaluation of Plaintiff's performance up to that time, and concluded that he was performing below expectations. [Dkt. # 17-9]. Kerr concluded Plaintiff was performing at a "proficient level," the level expected, in only forty-four percent of the evaluation categories. She concluded he was performing at an "introductory level," below the expected level, in fifty-six percent of the categories. The STAGES evaluation included a three-page "individual development plan," providing detailed suggestions from Kerr on how Plaintiff couldimprove his performance to reach the proficient level. Plaintiff does not recall receiving the individual development plan. Pl.'s Dep. at 25-26. He testified that "I did ask for an improvement plan from Dr. Kerr and she said I did not need one at the time." Id. Kerr, on the other hand, testified that the individual development plan was automatically generated by the STAGES software anytime an employee was rated below the expected level in any category and that...