Teacher sues district, claiming discrimination and retaliation

A teacher sued her school district for sex discrimination and retaliation. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and the teacher filed an appeal. 

The teacher had been employed with the district since 1996. Over two decades into her employment, the teacher spoke to a student about his grades in front of the class, causing the student to cry. The student's parent, also a teacher in the district, filed a grievance against her, alleging that the teacher degraded and embarrassed the student in front of his peers. 

The district conducted an investigation in response to the allegations and placed the teacher on administrative leave with pay based on findings that corroborated the parent's complaint and uncovered additional concerns regarding the teacher's classroom behavior.

A few weeks later, the principal submitted a written recommendation to the superintendent that the teacher's contract be terminated. The recommendation listed several additional documented incidents that parents had reported to the school in prior school years, in which other students had also been singled out in front of the class. One parent asked that her daughter be removed from the teacher's class based on her discussion of inappropriate adult topics in front of students, such as extramarital affairs.

The superintendent reviewed the investigative file and found a pattern and practice of humiliation of students, parental concerns, and insubordination over several years. The superintendent recommended termination to the board of trustees, but the board chose not to move forward with termination. The superintendent then decided to reassign the teacher to a different campus.

The teacher complained that the school to which she was transferred was 30 to 45 minutes away from her house. She submitted a hardship letter requesting a transfer to a closer school for an open position but her request was denied. She then filed a claim of sex discrimination and retaliation.

In support of her claim, the teacher alleged that the district reassigned her to a different campus in retaliation for her participation in a protected activity, specifically filing grievances. She also alleged that she was treated differently than male teachers, because two male teachers at the school were not suspended despite misbehavior. 

She alleged that one teacher, a Hispanic male, was "constantly late," and another teacher, also a Hispanic male, was accused of sexual harassment. She reported the teacher's alleged sexual harassment to the school district. She also reported the alleged sexual harassment to the police and the Texas Rangers. She alleged that the teacher was not suspended, and that the district retaliated against her for reporting the teacher by asking her to resign. 

The teacher stated that she had previously filed two grievances against her principal, but did not specify when these grievances were filed, what they contained, or whether the district took any action against her in response. Finally, the teacher alleged that she filed another grievance against her principal after the principal recommended her termination.

The court of appeals noted that in order to establish a claim for discrimination in an employment context, a plaintiff must show that:

1. the plaintiff belongs to a protected class;
2. the plaintiff qualified for the position;
3. the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action; and
4. the employer either replaced the plaintiff with someone outside the protected class or treated other similarly situated employees outside the protected class more favorably than the plaintiff. 

The district argued that the teacher failed to meet two of these criteria, namely, whether the teacher was subjected to an adverse action, and whether the district treated any other similarly situated employees outside her protected class more favorably than her.

With respect to whether the teacher had been subjected to an adverse employment action, the court of appeals noted that being placed on administrative leave with pay is not considered an "adverse employment action," because the teacher was paid and ultimately returned to work. 

The court also disagreed that being transferred to a different campus was an adverse employment action because there was no evidence that the school to which she was transferred was objectively worse. The teacher merely alleged that the school to which she was transferred was farther away from her house, and then submitted a hardship letter requesting a transfer to a closer school, which was denied. She did not present any evidence showing that as a result of the reassignment she suffered a demotion to a position with less prestige and inferior responsibilities or benefits.

Because the teacher failed to establish that the facts supported a claim for discrimination, the court of appeals upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit.