Written by Daniel Royce, Esq.
A critical component of educational infrastructure of public schools are the bus drivers tasked with transporting children safely to and from school each day. Despite their critical role, school boards are not immune from claims arising from their own drivers. In Cook v. Prince George County School Board, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-129-HEH (Eastern District of Virginia), the Eastern District had the opportunity to re-visit and weigh in on discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII when it granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Prince George School Board.
Facts and Background
Lillie M. Cook (“plaintiff”) was employed as a school bus driver for Prince George from 2013 until June of 2020. The school board elected not to renew her contract for the 2020/21 school year. Plaintiff, who is black, alleges that her contract was not renewed because of her race, and because she filed a report accusing the School Board of discrimination and workplace harassment. The Board asserted that plaintiff was neither subject to discrimination nor retaliation and simply not retained because she was not meeting the Board’s legitimate expectations.
In December 2019, plaintiff was reprimanded for rushing a child to get on the bus. In Early January, a white bus driver reported that plaintiff and other drivers were talking negatively about the supervisor. Portions of this conversation were recorded on the bus recording system. As a result of this unprofessional conduct, the plaintiff was issued a letter of reprimand on January 10, 2020
On February 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a report of discrimination and harassment with the School Board. Plaintiff addressed the letter of reprimand, but also drew attention to being accused of “boycotting” the Holiday party (which was not mandatory), that she was not provided a jacket (like other drivers), and her supervisor targeted her and harassed her to fill her personnel file with “unsubstantiated claims and unfounded complaints”.
A Compliance officer investigated the report of discrimination and harassment and found that information did not rise to the level of harassment, did not contribute to a hostile work environment, nor did it substantially and/or unreasonably interfere with plaintiff’s work. After this investigation, reports of poor job performance and insubordination continued to arise. On February 12, 2020, plaintiff was given a written warning for failure to timely submit seating charts. On the same day, plaintiff was issued verbal coaching for allegations that she allegedly had run a red light on February 5, 2020.
On April 2, 2020, plaintiff had her 2019/2020 performance review and was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Much of the concerns related to negative and insubordinate behavior. Management recommended her contract not be renewed. On May 21, 2020, plaintiff was formally advised that her contract was not going to be renewed and she was free to pursue other opportunities. Plaintiff resigned on June 1, 2020, and her last day of work was on June 12, 2020. As part of her allegations, the plaintiff asserts that a white driver was given a satisfactory performance review despite similar issues and concerns including a letter of reprimand. A white driver was hired to fill plaintiff’s role.
Legal Discussion
Plaintiff alleges that the School Board discriminated against her based upon her race and it retaliated against her after she engaged in protected activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for the defendant as to both claims. To prevail on a discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case: (1) being a member of a protected class; (2) suffering an adverse employment action; (3) meeting the defendant’s legitimate expectations; and (4) an inference of discrimination from circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action.
As to element three, expectations are “legitimate” unless plaintiff can muster evidence that expectations are a “sham designed to hide the employer’s discriminatory purpose.” Thus, the material inquiry is whether plaintiff was meeting her employer’s expectations close in time with non-renewal, as opposed to the past.
The School Board offered uncontradicted evidence that plaintiff’s supervisors thought she was not meeting expectations. There was no evidence in the record that these expectations were a sham, and even if plaintiff’s claim could survive the third element (which it could not), her claim would also fail based on failure to satisfy the fourth element. Chiefly, there was an absence of evidence that “similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.” Yet again, even if plaintiff satisfied element four (which she did not), and thus proved a prima facie case, the School Board provided several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not renewing plaintiff’s contract.
In short, the plaintiff failed to prove her failure to meet expectations was merely a pretext. As to plaintiff’s claim for retaliation, the Court held plaintiff was only able to establish a temporal proximity between her protected activity (filing a report with the School Board alleging harassment and discrimination) and termination of her employment. She failed to demonstrate that her protected activity was the “but for” cause of her contract non-renewal.
An Endorsement for Quality Document Retention and Record Keeping with regard to Public Entity Employees
Aside from providing a primer and review of the law pertaining to Title VII claims, this case also presents a compelling justification for the benefits of thorough documentation of employee behavioral and disciplinary issues. In evaluating your human resources department make sure to address important questions such as:
- Is there a documented employee code of conduct?
- Is there ongoing review and training related to the code of conduct?
- Are rules and expectations clearly delineated?
- How often are employee evaluations conducted?
- Are the evaluations documented and are performance/behavioral issues clearly noted?
- Is there a documented system in place for documenting behavioral and/or performance issues?
- Are there clearly defined levels of disciplinary action?
- Are disciplinary measures clearly spelled out as related to particular infractions?
- Is this documented and reviewed with employees?
- Is there a diversity and inclusivity policy in the organization?
- Is discrimination and harassment clearly defined?
- Are employees educated on these policies?
These are just a handful of questions which should be considered in formulating a plan/policy to defend claims like the one presented by the Cook case. In such scenarios, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ultimately, Prince George was able to prevail on Summary Judgment because of the plaintiff’s documented history of disciplinary issues. A well-considered plan should be in place to prevent these types of claims from arising in the context of employee terminations.
The experienced lawyers of KPM spend great time and effort to stay aware of pertinent cases in the realm of Public Risk Management, and we can be counted on to be experts in cases involving public schools, parks, and public recreation areas. You can trust KPM to be knowledgeable in public risk management and continue to keep you updated on cases and authorities that will significantly impact our clients. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with questions, concerns, or for assistance.