Ivey v. Savannah-Chatham Pub. Schs.

MARGARET D. IVEY, Plaintiff, v. SAVANNAH-CHATHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-16

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

August 11, 2021

ORDER

R STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This action arises out of the disability-based discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff Margaret Ivey claims she suffered during her employment as a teacher with Defendant Savannah-Chatham Public Schools.^[1] (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff proceeding pro se, sued Defendant for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). (Id. at p. 3.) Specifically, she asserts that Defendant discriminated against her because of her disability, failed to accommodate her disability, and retaliated against her in violation of the statute. (Id. at p. 4.) Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 15), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 17). Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc 20). Though Plaintiff did not file a Response to Defendant's Motion, she did file an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 19; see also doc. 22). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 17), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, (docs. 15, 19).

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff's Disability

Plaintiff contends that she suffered from a “degenerative disease of [her] back with spine” and “back/nerve damage” throughout her employment with Defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 4; doc. 1-1, p. 1; doc. 17-2, p. 5.) During her deposition, Plaintiff could not remember the exact date she was diagnosed with a spine disease, but she stated that she was diagnosed “some years before” she started working for Defendant and that it is an “ongoing condition[]” that developed prior to her employment with Defendant. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 5-9.) Furthermore, while “back/nerve damage” is the only disability listed in Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 1, p. 4), Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she also suffers from depression and anxiety, which she claims are caused by her back condition, and that the onset of the depression and anxiety predates her employment with Defendant. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 16-17.)

II. Plaintiff's Employment with Defendant

A. Issues with Job Performance and Coworkers at Pulaski Elementary School

Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant as a “teacher-on-loan” in June 2017. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 18-19.) At the time Plaintiff was hired, she did not tell anyone “at the District” that she suffered from a spine disease, depression, or anxiety, nor did she request any accommodations for those conditions. (Id. at pp. 19-20.)

In Fall 2018, Plaintiff worked as a kindergarten teacher at Pulaski Elementary School. (Id. at pp. 34-35.) On November 27, 2018, and December 7, 2018, Plaintiff underwent job performance assessments conducted by Principal Antonio Byrd and Assistant Principal Christina Tucker. (Id. at pp. 42-44, 79-84; doc. 17-6, pp. 3, 13-18.) Plaintiff received several Level II scores, indicating that Plaintiff “need[ed] improvement” in several categories, including instructional planning, differentiated instruction, and communication. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 79, 82-84; doc. 17-6, pp. 3, 13-18.)

On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff complained to Superintendent Ann Levett about the conduct of her co-teacher and paraprofessional, who were allegedly bullying Plaintiff through “name calling, taunting, unprofessional comments, and deliberately not doing their jobs.” (Doc. 17-2, pp. 47, 72-73.) Plaintiff stated that she could not “show up to work . . . with this continued bullying and having to do other people's jobs.” (Id. at p. 73.) Plaintiff's problems with her co-workers then persisted. On January 17, 2019, Assistant Principal Tucker emailed Plaintiff regarding two new allegations of communication and planning problems between Plaintiff and her co-workers, which Tucker described in detail in her email. (Id. at pp. 75-76.) Plaintiff responded that, among other things, she did not “appreciate being attacked with all of this nonsense, ” that her co-workers were “both liars, ” and that one of her co-workers grabbed a student “while yelling at him and then shoved him” during class on December 19, 2018. (Id. at pp. 74-75.) Plaintiff also notified the human resources department that Principal Byrd and Assistant Principal Tucker were “retaliat[ing] against and intimidat[ing]” her because of her complaint to Superintendent Levett. (Id. at pp. 88- 89.) On January 22, 2019, Principal Byrd, Assistant Principal Tucker, and Executive Director Kimberly Hancock (Byrd's supervisor) met with Plaintiff to discuss her complaints, and they offered to have the District facilitate a mediation of the dispute between Plaintiff and her co-workers. (Doc. 17-6, p. 4.) Plaintiff declined to participate in any mediation, and on January 29, 2019, Principal Byrd moved Plaintiff into a teacher-on-loan position at Pulaski.^[2] (Id.; doc. 17-2, pp. 35-36.) In this new role, Plaintiff retained the same salary and benefits but no longer worked with the co-teacher and paraprofessional. (Doc. 17-6, p. 5.) After informing Plaintiff of this decision, Principal Byrd told her to notify him “of the date and time when she would like to gather her materials” from her old classroom. (Id.)

B. Plaintiff's Accident and Workers' Compensation Claim

On January 30, 2019, at 6:30 a.m., Plaintiff-without notifying Principal Byrd or any other school administrator-began removing her belongings from her old classroom. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 54-55, 92, 94-95.) While moving items from the classroom and lifting them into her vehicle, she sustained injuries to her lower back, ankle, and right leg. (Id. at pp. 56, 95.) Plaintiff then sent a “Supervisor's Accident Report” to Assistant Principal Tucker and filed a workers' compensation claim. (Id. at pp. 93-95.) The Accident Report briefly described the accident but did not contain any reference to Plaintiff's pre-existing back condition, depression, or anxiety. (See id. at pp. 94- 95.) Instead, the only reference to any medical injury or condition in the Accident Report is Plaintiff's statement that “[l]ifting heavy item [sic] in class and into [her] vehicle caused injur[ies] to [her] back, ankle, and right leg.” (Id.)

Based on the timing, circumstances, and video footage of Plaintiff's alleged injury, Principal Byrd was suspicious of whether Plaintiff had actually sustained an injury. (Doc. 17-6, p. 6.) Thus, he reported the accident-along with his suspicions-to Executive Director Hancock and Director of Risk Management Rob Gordon. (Id. at pp. 6, 33.) Gordon notified Rzlyn Williams, a claims adjuster for Underwriters Safety & Claims, ^[3] about Plaintiff's injuries, and both agreed that Plaintiff's workers' compensation claim should be denied. (Doc. 17-3, pp. 1, 4.) While Williams does not remember whether she “spoke directly with [Plaintiff] about her workers' compensation claim, ” (id. at p. 4), Plaintiff contends that she called and spoke to Williams over the phone, (doc. 17-2, p. 22). During that phone call, Plaintiff told Williams that she suffered from “an injury that was a disability, ” (id.), but according to Williams's affidavit, even if she did speak with Plaintiff and learned about her pre-existing medical conditions, she did not relay that information to school administrators as she “had no discussions with District staff about whether [Plaintiff] had a disability that needed accommodation under the ADA, ” (doc. 17-3, p. 5). Williams sent Plaintiff a letter denying her claim. (Id. at p. 4.)

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff reported to Pulaski for the first time since the morning she fell, and she presented Principal Byrd with a doctor's note requesting that she be placed on “light duty.” (Doc. 17-2, p. 23; doc. 17-6, p. 6; doc. 15-1, p. 1.) Principal Byrd and Assistant Principal Tucker informed her that she could not return to work without a “full-duty release.” (Doc. 17-6, pp. 6-7; see also doc. 17-2, p. 23.) While Principal Byrd and Assistant Principal Tucker saw the “injury form, ” Plaintiff did not inform either of them that she suffered from a degenerative spine disease or any other medical condition, except for the injuries she sustained when she fell on January 30, 2019. (Doc. 17-2, pp. 23-24.) According to Plaintiff, “as far as [she knew], [Byrd and Tucker] knew [she] reported a work injury but did not know about [her] underlying degenerative condition.” (Id. at p. 25.) Furthermore, Plaintiff did not “remember talking about [her] underlying degenerative condition, back condition[, ] or . . . depression or anxiety with anybody in the human resources department.” (Id.) After Principal Byrd denied Plaintiff's lightduty request, Plaintiff left work and returned three days later with a full-duty release. (Doc. 17-6, p. 7.)

C. Transfer to Bloomingdale Elementary School and Subsequent Job Performance

Upon Plaintiff's return to work, Principal Byrd presented her with a Letter of Serious Concern and a Professional Development Plan (“PDP”) outlining his concerns about her “delay in reporting the claimed December 18 2018[, ] shoving incident by the paraprofessional in her classroom” and her “communications issues.” (Id. at pp. 7, 39-41.) Plaintiff contested the PDP, which she claims was “false, ” “defamatory, ” and an attempt to “impugn [her] character.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 1; see also doc. 17-6, p. 7.) After observing “continued deficiencies in [Plaintiff's] performance” and due to concern that Plaintiff's “personal relationships with [him], Assistant Principal Tucker, and her co-workers had deteriorated, ” Principal Byrd requested that Plaintiff be transferred to a different...