Hashem v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Educ.

SIREEN SAWALHA HASHEM, Plaintiff, v. HUNTERDON CENTRAL REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION, et. al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 15-8585 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

April 30, 2019

OPINION

WOLFSON, United States District Judge:

In this employment discrimination suit, Plaintiff Sireen Sawalha Hashem ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Hashem"), an Arab Muslim woman of Palestinian descent, alleges that her former employers, Hunterdon Central Regional High School ("Hunterdon Central") and Hunterdon Central Regional High School Board of Education (the "Board"), as well as her former supervisors, Christina Steffner, Suzanne Cooley, and Rebecca Lucas (the Board, Steffner, Cooley, and Lucas, cumulatively referred to as "Defendants"), discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VI") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-3, et seq. ("NJLAD"). Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff was born in Kafir Rai, and she identifies as an Arab Muslim woman. Defendants' Statement of Material Facts ("Defs.' Facts"), ¶¶ 1, 2. Plaintiff was initially employed as a Student Teacher at Hunterdon Central from January 2013 through May 2013, until she was offered and accepted a full-time position as a U.S. History teacher in the Social Studies Department, which position commenced in September 2013. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. Robert Zywicki ("Mr. Zywicki"), who was the supervisor of social studies, originally served as Plaintiff's immediate supervisor for a period of approximately three months, until he left Hunterdon Central in November 2013. Id. at ¶ 5.

On October 13, 2013, Plaintiff incorporated a video into her U.S. History lesson plan pertaining to Malala Yousafzai (the "Malala Video"),¹ which was previously used by Lindsay Warren ("Ms. Warren"), another teacher at Hunterdon Central. Id. at ¶ 7. Subsequently, an unidentified parent complained about a comment that Plaintiff allegedly made during a class discussion which followed the Malala Video, i.e., the manner in which a woman dresses is a method of rape prevention.² Id. at ¶ 8.

Mr. Zywicki had a conversation with Plaintiff to address the parent's complaint, but the parties dispute the events which then occurred. Id. at ¶ 9. According to Defendants, Mr. Zywicki informed Plaintiff, in a written communication, that he had accepted her representation that the parent's complaint was inaccurate, and he advised her to "simply be aware of the different messages that students might take away from current event conversations." Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. However, in addition to these written statements, Plaintiff maintains that Mr. Zywicki "simultaneously told" her that she "wasn't Lindsay," and he forbade her from referencing the "Near East" or "Islam." Pl.'s Counterstatement of Material Facts ("Pl.'s Facts"), ¶ 10. Nonetheless,Plaintiff admits she was subsequently invited by the school to share her personal story with a class of students, and she assisted in separate lessons that pertained to the history and politics of Kafir Rai and Islam. Defs. Facts, ¶ 11.

On February 2, 2014, defendant Rebecca Lucas ("Ms. Lucas") replaced Dr. Zywicki as the supervisor of social studies for Hunterdon Central. Id. at ¶ 13. In March 2014, a parent complained to "non-Arab, non-Muslim, non-Palestinian teachers" about the use of the novel "The Lemon Tree," in a classroom where Plaintiff served as a translator during a webcam session with the book's protagonist. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16. Plaintiff does not dispute that the parent's complaint was in writing, and it neither referenced Plaintiff nor the translation services which she provided. Id. at ¶ 15. Rather, Plaintiff maintains that she never read the parent's written complaint. Pl's. Facts, ¶ 15.

In May 2014, an incident occurred where Plaintiff's students apparently misunderstood her lesson about the actions of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, prompting a debate about whether Osama bin Laden was a terrorist; Plaintiff, in no way, intended to suggest Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff's contract was renewed for the following 2014/2015 school year, and she was assigned to teach U.S. History and Global Studies. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff does not dispute the renewal of her contract, but she clarifies that she was "offered a position" for the new school year prior to the "John Brown/Osama bin Laden" incident. Pl's. Facts, at ¶ 20.

The parties dispute the events which occurred on September 8, 2014, during the first week of Plaintiff's second year of teaching. According to Defendants, some of Plaintiff's Jewish students construed Plaintiff's comments, during a class, as having asked them to identify their religious affiliations. Defs. Facts, at ¶ 21. Although Plaintiff denies this fact, she admits that a parent whose child was allegedly questioned subsequently wrote a complaint, in which the parent expressed her disapproval and notified the school that her daughter's civil rights had been violated. Id. at ¶ 22.Other parents whose children were allegedly questioned requested to have their children removed from Plaintiff's classroom. Id. at ¶ 24.

On September 8, 2014, in a Facebook post, a student alleged that Plaintiff's brother was a terrorist. Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiff's mentor re-published the Facebook post to a classroom which was taught by two of his colleagues, after which all three individuals were reprimanded for such actions. Id. at ¶¶ 28-29. The Facebook post, as well as the aforementioned parent's written complaint, were addressed by the school during two meetings with Plaintiff on September 9, 2014, one of which was recorded, and during a third recorded meeting on September 11, 2014. Id. at ¶ 30.

Plaintiff was called over the telephone to attend the recorded meeting on September 9, 2014, which took place in Defendant Cooley's office.³ Id. at ¶ 31. During the meeting, the following information was relayed to Plaintiff: a "call had been made [to the District's attorney] to find out what could be done about the Facebook post"; "we do not condone this behavior"; and "we will do what we can in terms of what the attorney says we can do." Id. at ¶¶ 32-33. Plaintiff was also provided with an opportunity to explain the lesson which prompted some students to believe that they had been asked to identify their religious affiliations. Id. at ¶ 34. Defendants explain that, at no point during this meeting was Plaintiff accused of discriminating against Jewish children, nor did they suggest that Plaintiff intended to "single [Jewish children] out by religion."Id. at ¶¶ 36-37. However, Plaintiff maintains that "a reasonable person in her circumstances could feel and believe that" various unspecified "portions of the conversation were accusatory." Pl.'s Facts, ¶ 36.

During the meeting on September 11, 2014, Plaintiff was again informed that the student's Facebook post was "unacceptable," and that the student's mother "was horrified and conveyed her apologies." Defs.' Facts, ¶ 38. In addition, while Defendants stated that they could not punish the student, because his Facebook post was allegedly protected by the First Amendment, Plaintiff was advised, on multiple occasions, that she could contact her union in order to determine if she had a private cause of action. Id. at ¶¶ 39-40. The parties dispute the manner in which the remainder of the meeting was conducted. According to Defendants, although Plaintiff's brother was discussed, it was only within the context of the student's Facebook post, and Plaintiff was never questioned about him; rather, Plaintiff voluntarily shared information about him. Id. at ¶¶ 41-42. However, Plaintiff avers that there was a "lengthy colloquy" about Plaintiff's brother, during which "Defendants fully engaged in that process and asked her questions." Pl.'s Facts, ¶¶ 41-42.

Furthermore, in the beginning of the 2014/2015 school year, Plaintiff engaged in a lengthy email exchange with a student's parent, lasting for a period of more than several months. Defs.' Facts, at ¶ 44. Plaintiff subsequently wrote to her mentor, Mr. DeTample, and stated that "I cannot deal with this mom. I'm not going to reply to her at all." Id. Defendants also chronicle an incident wherein Plaintiff allegedly used a paper which the student wrote as an exemplar in a class, in order to embarrass that student. Plaintiff explains that the supervisor of the English Department recommended that she provide examples of "A," "B," and "C" papers to her students for educational purposes. Id. at ¶ 44; Pl.'s Facts, ¶ 44.

The parties also dispute an incident which allegedly occurred during an unspecified time of Plaintiff's second year of teaching. According to Defendants, Plaintiff mistreated a student with accommodations mandated by Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "Section 504 student"), after which her mother requested to have her removed from Plaintiff's classroom. Id. at ¶¶ 48-49. Conversely, Plaintiff disputes that she mistreated the Section 504 student, and, according to Plaintiff, the guidance counselor actually suggested to remove the Section 504 student from her classroom, and that the Section 504 student's mother merely concurred with that recommendation. Pl.'s Facts, ¶ 49.

On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant Lucas, informing her of a meeting scheduled for April 16, 2015, and her right to be represented by a member of the union. Defs.' Facts, ¶¶ 56-57. Plaintiff attended the meeting with Adam Leonard, a colleague and union representative, during which Defendant Lucas informed Plai...