Henderson v. Sch. Dist. of Springfield R-12

650 F.Supp.3d 786

Brooke HENDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SPRINGFIELD R-12, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 6:21-cv-03219-MDH

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

Signed January 12, 2023

Braden Boucek, Pro Hac Vice, Celia Howard O'Leary, Pro Hac Vice, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Roswell, GA, Kimberly S. Hermann, Pro Hac Vice, Roswell, GA, Jeffrey Clayman, Pro Hac Vice, Pipes Miles Beckman, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Derek H. MacKay, Knight Nicastro MacKay LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Ransom A. Ellis, III, Tina G. Fowler, Todd A. Johnson, Ellis, Ellis, Hammons & Johnson, PC, Springfield, MO, Eric Ryan Olson, Husch Blackwell LLP, Springfield, MO, for Defendants.

ORDER

DOUGLAS HARPOOL, United States District Judge

Before the Court are Defendants School District of Springfield R-12 ("Defendant SPS"), Superintendent Grenita Lathan ("Defendant Lathan"), Dr. Yvania Garcia-Pusateri ("Defendant Garcia-Pusateri"), and Lawrence Anderson's ("Defendant Anderson's") (collectively "Defendants' ") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 74) and Plaintiffs Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley's (collectively "Plaintiffs' ") Motion for Summary Judgement. (Doc. 76). The parties have fully briefed issues raised in the motions. The Court has reviewed all briefing and the matter is now ripe for review. For reasons herein, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED and Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' allegations stem from their participation in a professional development training during October 2020. Defendant SPS is an urban school district located in Springfield, Missouri with more than 24,000 enrolled students. At the time of the training, Defendant Garcia-Pusateri and Defendant Anderson were both employed by Defendant SPS in its Office of Diversity and Equity. Defendant SPS has employed Defendant Lathan as superintendent since July 1, 2021. Defendant SPS has employed Plaintiff Lumley as a secretary since July 9, 2020, first in its Special Services Department and later in its Analytics, Accountability, and Assessment Department. Defendant SPS has employed Plaintiff Henderson at all times during this dispute as a 504 Process Coordinator in the Special Services Department. Plaintiffs remain employed by Defendant SPS. Plaintiff Henderson attended the training at issue virtually October 14, 2020. Plaintiff Lumley attended an in-person version of the same training October 6, 2020. The two training sessions were substantially similar. Defendant Garcia-Pusateri and Defendant Anderson both took part in the training sessions Plaintiffs attended. The training included distribution of written handouts, videos, and a variety of small and large group discussions. After the training, Plaintiff Henderson completed an online module and corresponding multiple-choice questions.

The professional training covered themes of "equity" and "anti-racism." Plaintiffs generally took issue with some of the concepts presented during the training session and also during the online module. Plaintiffs found the concepts presented during the training to be at odds with their personal views. During the training sessions, Plaintiffs spoke openly about their disagreement with some of the content of the training session. The online module included videos and multiple-choice questions also related to themes of equity and anti-racism. Plaintiff Henderson selected certain credited answers on the online multiple-choice questions, even though those answers were at odds with her personal opinions. Plaintiff Henderson did this in order to receive credit for completing the online module. Defendant SPS informed Plaintiff Henderson completion of the online module was required. Similarly, Defendant SPS employees had to attend the training session to receive professional development credit and compensation. Plaintiffs received credit and compensation for attending the training. Plaintiffs have never faced any official discipline throughout their employment with Defendant SPS. Plaintiffs suffered no adverse employment action arising out of their participation in the training program. They were not fired, demoted, suspended, transferred, or disciplined. The district did not fail to promote them or change their duties or work assignments in retaliation and there is no claim their participation in the training program, or any opinion they expressed during the training program, has in any way impacted the compensation or benefits of their employment with the district.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges three counts of constitutional violations under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory order from this Court finding as unconstitutional Defendants' equity and anti-racism professional training and permanently enjoining Defendants from conducting the training in the future. Plaintiffs also seek nominal damages for each day of training.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper where, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357, 1359 (8th Cir. 1993). "Where there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate." Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2011). Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the movant meets the initial step, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To satisfy this burden, the nonmoving party must "do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

ARGUMENT

The Constitution of the United States limits this Court's jurisdiction to deciding "cases" and "controversies" between parties. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). For a dispute to qualify as a justiciable case or controversy under the Constitution, plaintiffs must have standing to bring their claims. Id. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Standing requires plaintiffs suffer an injury-in-fact that is traceable to the actions of the defendant and likely to be redressed by the Court's favorable decision. Id. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The Supreme Court has held that injury-in-fact, in turn, is "an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citations omitted). The injury-in-fact requirement allows courts to avoid becoming involved in disputes of a political nature, unnecessarily injecting the judicial branch into politicized controversies. "Federal courts sit solely to decide on the rights of individuals . . . and must . . . refrai[n] from passing upon the constitutionality of an act . . . unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it." Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598-99, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007) (citations omitted). Critics from both ends of the political spectrum have been quick to condemn activist judges' decisions with results contrary to their preferences, even in cases where parties have actually suffered an injury-in-fact. Judicial intervention in cases without such injury would certainly receive, and more validly deserve, such criticism.

Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack standing because they failed to suffer an injury-in-fact. (Doc. 75 at 45). Plaintiffs' exact claims about injury-in-fact remain somewhat unclear. Plaintiffs argue they suffered an injury-in-fact when Defendant SPS, "presented [Plaintiffs] with three choices: (1) say what [Defendant] SPS wanted to hear by affirming anti-racism and equity; (2) refrain from speaking and risk being labeled white supremacists; or (3) speak out and risk losing professional development credit and pay." (Doc. 78 at 75). Plaintiffs reiterate this theory elsewhere, arguing Defendant SPS forced this choice upon Plaintiffs when they claimed the views expressed during training were part of employees' professional responsibilities. (Doc. 77 at 31). Plaintiffs then contend Defendants compelled Plaintiff Henderson's speech and discriminated against Plaintiff Henderson's viewpoints when Defendants required Plaintiff Henderson to complete online multiple-choice questions, which in turn required Plaintiff Henderson select certain credited responses inconsistent with Defendant Henderson's personal beliefs. (Doc. 77 at 37-40). The selection of the online questions' credited responses rather than alternative responses consistent with Defendant Henderson's personal beliefs, Plaintiffs argue, amounts to viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech. (Doc. 77 at 37-40). Taken altogether, the Court understands Plaintiffs to argue Plaintiffs suffered injury when Defendants' professional training and online questions: 1) compelled Plaintiffs' speech; 2) chilled Plaintiffs' speech; and 3) discriminated against Plaintiffs' viewpoints. Further injury occurred, Plaintiffs appear to argue, when Defendants required Plaintiffs to partake in the alleged unconstitutional training and online multiple-choice questions as part of their employment with Defendant SPS¹. The Court will address each of these theories in turn.

I. Professional Training: Compelled...