Litaker v. Hoover Bd. of Educ.

277 F.Supp.3d 1267

Robin LITAKER, Plaintiff,

v.HOOVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:14–cv–02176–MHH

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

Signed September 29, 2017

Kevin W. Jent, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Anne R. Yuengert, Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Robin Litaker worked for the Hoover Board of Education for 21 years. The Hoover Board selected Ms. Litaker as the principal of Trace Crossings Elementary School in 2010. Ms. Litaker received favorable ratings for her first two years at Trace Crossings, and the Board gave her a three-year contract in June 2012. Five months later, former Hoover Superintendent Andy Craig transferred Ms. Litaker from her position as the principal at Trace Crossings to the Board's Central Office. Mr. Craig did not give Ms. Litaker a formal Central Office position, and he did not offer her a position as principal at another school in the district. Instead, after giving her odd jobs in the Central Office, Mr. Craig had his assistant superintendent, Dr. Ron Dodson, inform Ms. Litaker that she would have to serve as the assistant principal at the district's alternative school. Ms. Litaker was not qualified for that position. Ms. Litaker refused the assistant principal position, and she resigned.

After her resignation, Ms. Litaker sued the Board, Mr. Craig, and former Assistant Superintendent Carol Barber. Ms. Litaker contends that the Board and Mr. Craig discriminated against her because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the Board, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Barber violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In addition to these federal claims, Ms. Litaker asserts state law claims for breach of contract and defamation. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the defendants have asked the Court to enter judgment in their favor on all of Ms. Litaker's claims. (Doc. 19; Doc. 20). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motions.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite "to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the record and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc. , 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015).

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Litaker began her 21–year career with the Hoover city school system in 1992 as a teacher at Trace Crossings Elementary School. (Doc. 21–1, p. 5). In 1998, while teaching at Trace Crossings, she was honored as Alabama's State Teacher of the Year. (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 3). Ms. Litaker worked at other Hoover schools as a teacher and assistant principal before returning to Trace Crossings as the principal in 2010. (Doc. 21–1, p. 5; Doc. 21–4, p. 7). When the Board selected Ms. Litaker to serve as the principal at Trace Crossings, she and former Superintendent Andy Craig, on behalf of the Board, entered a two year probationary contract. (Doc. 21–1, pp. 42, 111–115; Doc. 21–4, p. 10). Ms. Litaker received positive evaluations during her first two years at Trace Crossings. (Doc. 21–2, pp. 101–108).

When Ms. Litaker arrived at Trace Crossings in 2010, she reported to Mr. Craig and Assistant Superintendent Carol Barber, who oversaw elementary and middle school principals. Mr. Craig and Ms. Barber told Ms. Litaker that Trace Crossings "had multiple, serious issues and a toxic working environment." (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 7). According to Ms. Litaker, the problems were both instructional and administrative. (Doc. 27–1, ¶¶ 7–9). A third-party audit indicated that the school had "instructional, achievement and diversity issues." (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 7). The audit stated that Trace Crossings teachers were not using the state-mandated curriculum or board-approved instructional materials. (Doc. 27-8, pp. 19-20). Other problems included failure to properly observe teachers and follow state protocol with respect to keeping standardized tests in secure locations. (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 8). In addition, some teachers were charging students for tutoring sessions against Board policy; some teachers skipped units of study or did not turn in lesson plans; other teachers did not receive training for the school's math, reading, and science curriculum; and most teachers did not receive appropriate professional development. (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 8). Ms. Litaker testified that "[she] was told to go into the school and fix these things." (Doc. 21–1, p. 18).

Some teachers at Trace Crossings were upset when Ms. Litaker became principal because she held the teachers "accountable to the same standards" as other Hoover teachers with respect to turning in lesson plans and teaching to a written curriculum. (Doc. 21–1, pp. 17–18). According to Ms. Litaker, Trace Crossings's assistant principal, Dr. Debra Smith, made her (Ms. Litaker's) first year at Trace Crossings very difficult. Dr. Smith had applied for the principal position that Ms. Litaker received. (Doc. 21–6, p. 18). Dr. Smith told teachers not to listen to Ms. Litaker. (Doc. 21–1, pp. 9–11; Doc. 27–1, ¶ 11). After Ms. Litaker discussed the situation with Mr. Craig and Ms. Barber, Ms. Barber stated that "they intended to ‘chase [Dr. Smith] off’ by sending her to Crossroads Alternative" school. (Doc. 27–1, ¶ 12).

Despite these challenges, Ms. Litaker received a positive evaluation at the end of her first year as Trace Crossings's principal. (Doc. 21–1, p. 116). In the review dated January 13, 2011, Ms. Barber gave Ms. Litaker 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 4 in every area on the review form. (Doc. 21–1, pp. 116–119). Ms. Barber gave Ms. Litaker the highest possible score for "collaboration processes and skills." Her review states:

As a first year principal, inherited a faculty/staff where culture, climate, and practices had to change. Began process of change by meeting with people—individually, in small groups, and in larger groups. Listened to people. Identified areas where she would not allow any negotiations; identified areas where input was needed and encouraged. Planned transition activities to gain teacher and parent support. Established expectations and standards, yet building support and gaining teacher buy-in to new expectations and practices. Works hard to build on existing teacher strengths; acknowledges these strengths and delegates and empowers those to act. [Assistant Principal], currently in the school, applied for the principal position and was most upset w[hen] this did not occur. Filed an EEOC [charge]; district prevailed in the hiring of Ms. Litaker. Principal continues to work with this AP even though there appears to be a great deal of negative behavior involved. This skill area is an area of strength for Ms. Litaker.

(Doc. 21–1, p. 116). Ms. Litaker also received the highest possible score for "planning." Her review states:

Principal is developing ownership of new ideas as they evolve. Principal encourages input into decisions for the school[ ]. Principal is strategically planning for change, moving slowing and trying to take faculty and pa[r]ents with her as changes are implemented. Principal is establishing goals and identifying activities to support school goals. Input for change is encouraged from faculty/staff, students, and parents. Principal is using data from a variety of sources to establish goals and objectives (assessment data, survey data, parent and staff meetings, etc.).

(Doc. 21–1, p. 117). In addition, Ms. Litaker received the highest possible score for "problem solving." With respect to this category, Ms. Litaker's evaluation states:

Principal develops ownership of ideas by delegating, empowering others, and sharing. Input into solving problems is encouraged and acknowledged. Principal labels problems; brainstorms solutions with individuals/groups involved; develops ownership of solutions by allowing input into the solutions; shares data to help direct solutions; and builds consensus regarding the best solution for the problem. Principal has emphasized assessment data with faculty; helping teachers to understand profiles and to plan strategically for improvement.

(Doc. 21–1, p. 117). Ms. Barber also gave Ms. Litaker the highest score for "school operations and management." Ms. Litaker's evaluation states:

Principal is analytical in assessment of building practices and procedures. This is an area of strength for Ms. Litaker. She understands how to effectively schedule personnel to achieve maximum efficiency; establishes routines to benefit students and faculty; and establishes rapport with student[s] by creating a safe and secure learning environment (physically safe and emotionally safe)! Principal uses a critical eye to determine appearance of building and grounds and holds staff accountable for expressed expectations. Principal establishes high expectations and is willing to work with personnel as they change practices to meet changed expectations; however, will hold people accountable for agreed upon standards.

(Doc. 21–1, p. 118). In the 20...