Murphy v. Spring

58 F.Supp.3d 1241

Cheryl MURPHY, Plaintiff

v.(1) Stephanie SPRING, an individual, (2) Jon Wheeler, an individual, (3) Latricia Pruitt, an individual, (4) Keith Ballard, in his individual and official capacities, (5) Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma a/k/a Tulsa Public Schools, a state governmental entity, and (6) Tulsa Public Schools Board of Education, a state governmental entity, Defendants.

Case No. 13–CV–96–TCK–PJC.

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

Signed Nov. 4, 2014.

Daniel E. Smolen, Smolen Smolen & Roytman PLLC, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff.

Phyllis L. Walta, Walta & Walta Attorneys at Law, Hennessey, OK, Mark Stanley Rains, Mark Rains Atty. at Law PLLC, Jenks, OK, Staci Lynette Roberds, Jerry Alan Richardson, John Eric Priddy, Rosenstein Fist & Ringold, Tulsa, OK, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

TERENCE C. KERN, District Judge.

Before the Court are the following pending motions: Defendant School District's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69); Defendant Keith Ballard's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72); Defendants Stephanie Spring and Jon Wheeler's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 75); and Defendant Latricia Pruitt's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 77); Defendants Stephanie Spring and Jon Wheeler's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Damages, Claims, Witnesses, and Exhibits (Doc. 104) and Motion to Strike by Defendants Tulsa School District and Dr. Keith Ballard (Doc. 106).

I. Factual Background

The following facts are either undisputed in the summary judgment record or construed in favor of Plaintiff Cheryl Murphy (“Murphy”). Murphy was hired by Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (“TPS”) as a support employee in 2000. After working as a support employee at two middle schools from 2000–2004, she went to work as a support employee in the Education Service Center (“ESC”), where she supported the director of elementary and secondary curriculum and instruction. After this director retired, Defendant Dr. Stephanie Spring (“Spring”), the Director of Secondary School Student Activities and Athletics, approached Murphy about working for her, and Murphy agreed. Beginning in the 2004–2005 school year, Murphy was assigned the position of Director's Secretary for TPS Athletic Department. Her office remained in the ESC, and Murphy viewed herself as having worked her way up to this position.

From 2004 until Murphy's suspension on June 17, 2011, Spring supervised Murphy. Murphy also supported the two Assistant Athletic Directors, Defendants Jon Wheeler (“Wheeler”) and Latricia Pruitt (“Pruitt”). On April 30, 2010, Spring gave Murphy a performance evaluation indicating Murphy met or exceeded expectations in ten different areas. There is no evidence that Murphy received any negative performance evaluations prior to June 2011.

A. Pre–Suspension Reporting Activities—Spring/Early Summer 2011

Murphy contends that in the spring or early summer of 2011, she reported or attempted to report wrongdoing by Spring and/or Wheeler on several occasions. First, Murphy raised concerns about certain fabricated quotes and invoices with Spring herself. She alleges that, after raising these concerns, Spring and Wheeler were hostile toward her and stopped speaking to her for five weeks prior to her suspension. Second, she called Kevin Burr (“Burr”), TPS Assistant Superintendent, and left a message regarding Spring. Burr never returned her call. Third, she made a report to Dr. Pauline Harris (“Harris”), who held the position of TPS compliance officer.¹ In a meeting conducted in Harris' office, Murphy told Harris that she was “being retaliated [against] for not agreeing to participate in situations that would put students in danger, things that were, I felt, unethical and illegal, and I wanted to file a complaint.” (Murphy Dep. 68.) Murphy also told her that “I'm concerned that there's a target on my back, and they're not speaking to me”; that she could not “conduct business”; and that she wanted to “file what I found in the support employees handbook or online ... I believe it was called a whistleblower complaint form.” (Id. 69.)² More specifically, Murphy testified:

Q. Okay. So give me the Reader Digest version that you gave her. Tell the jury exactly what you told [Harris].

A. I don't know that I can recall exactly, but basically, I told her about the concussion legislation, that we were not in compliance. That I had raised the issue and was being told that it didn't matter. I felt it did matter. There were kids being put out on the football field that did not have physicals, did not have concussion forms, which was part of that state legislation that required us to have. And I told her that money was flying in all different directions. There was money being locked up in our storage room. There was money being kept in the desks of [Wheeler] and Dr. Spring. There was racial discrimination going on. There was—I told her about the wall of shame which was in Dr. Spring's office. I voiced my concerns about bringing this to light to Dr. Spring and being basically turned on, if you want to use that term, or—that's basically the recap.

(Id. 69–70.) Fourth, Murphy made phone calls to the Oklahoma Education Association (“OEA”) prior to her suspension. Finally, Murphy anonymously reported to TPD and TPS campus police that Spring had been drinking at an athletic event.

On June 14, 2011, Spring submitted a “job target” to Bill Naftzger (“Naftzger”), TPS Director of Support Talent, which identified numerous problems with Murphy's performance including falsification of personnel records, chronic absenteeism, chronic tardiness, and insubordination. On June 17, 2011, Spring and Naftzger had a conference regarding the job target, and Naftzger determined that the facts justified Murphy's dismissal. In a confirmation email to Spring, Naftzger stated:

In follow-up to our meeting today [June 17, 2011] with regards to Cheryl Murphy, this is to confirm that I have explained the following to you:

• I have reviewed your Job Target report of June 14 to Ms. Murphy. Based on my review of the facts there are areas in the Job Target which justify Ms. Murphy's dismissal as opposed to a Job Target. Of particular concern to me is her repeated falsification of her personnel records.

• I am also concerned with the information you gave me today that at the Job Target conference she was not only uncooperative but she even made the statement to you, “If you want to wage war with me then all gloves are off.” I find this to be highly unprofessional and indicative of an employee who has no desire to work out issues with you. We quite simply cannot have employees like this.

As a result, it is my belief, and it is my understanding after our discussion your belief, that Ms. Murphy should be suspended today and that dismissal proceedings should be initiated against her on Monday. Please confirm back with me, in writing, that you share this method of going forward.

(Ex. 17 to Pls.' Resp. to TPS' Mot. for Summ. J.) Spring confirmed that she agreed Murphy should be terminated.

B. Suspension—June 17, 2011

On June 17, 2011, Gary Rudick (“Rudick”), chief of TPS' campus police department, delivered a letter from Naftzger to Murphy suspending her, ordering her off school property, and informing her that cause may exist for her dismissal. The suspension was with full pay and benefits. While packing personal items, Murphy made certain statements to Rudick, including that she would fight her termination, that she had talked to the OEA and an attorney, and that she knew all of Spring's dirty little secrets. Rudick reported Murphy's statements to Doug Mann, one of TPS' attorneys, and copied Spring and Burr.

C. First Recommendation for Termination—June 20, 2011

On June 20, 2011, Naftzger sent a “Termination Hearing Notice” to Murphy's home via certified mail. The notice states that Spring recommended termination based on Murphy's violation of ten different TPS rules. The notice states that a hearing would be held by the Tulsa School District Suspension, Demotion and Termination Review Committee (“Committee”) on June 29, 2011. If the Committee voted to terminate, demote, or take other disciplinary action, then the Committee would submit such recommendation to the TPS Board of Education (“Board”). Prior to any final action by the Board, Murphy would have the right to a due process hearing if she requested it.

D. Discovery of Illegally Obtained Emails—July 8, 2011

On July 8, 2011, John Priddy (“Priddy”), one of TPS' attorneys, met with Spring, Wheeler, and Pruitt in preparation for Murphy's due process hearing. (TPS' Statement of Fact 6.)³ During this meeting, Spring revealed that she had obtained copies of emails from Murphy's private Yahoo email account. Priddy viewed at least one email during this meeting but then refused to view the rest. On or around July 21, 2011, Priddy informed TPS Superintendent Dr. Keith Ballard (“Ballard”) about the emails, and Ballard requested that the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) conduct an investigation into Spring, Wheeler, and Pruitt's activity. TPD conducted a forensic examination of Spring, Wheeler, and Pruitt's computers and concluded that Spring and Wheeler had both accessed Murphy's private email account after Murphy's suspension. They viewed twenty-six of Murphy's private emails.

E. Withdrawal of Recommendation for Termination/First Reassignment—August 10, 2011

On or around August 10, 2011, Ballard sent the following letter to Murphy:

I am withdrawing the recommendation for your dismissal effective immediately. You are to report to Ms. Sue Ann Bell located at Plant Operations on Monday, at 8:00 a.m. August 15, 2011. You will hold the position of Director's secretary, grade CA–10. your status, salary, benefits and hours per day and contract length will be the same as your previous position. At the next payroll period you will be paid all pay and benefits you may have lost as a result of the decision of the suspension

...