A lawsuit claiming retaliatory action was taken against a local teacher has been dismissed by a federal judge.
The suit, filed two years ago by Smithville Elementary teacher and a 3rd District County Commissioner Bradley Hendrix, named the DeKalb County Board of Education and former Director of Schools Mark Willoughby. The suit claimed there retaliatory actions taken against him because of a vote he made as a member of the county commission.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp, however, granted a motion last week to issue a summary judgement in the case in favor of the defendants.
The suit, filed in May 2014, claimed that "after he voted against the land purchase in March 2011, he was subjected to harassment and retaliation by Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Tanner in a myriad of ways."
The suit purported that a March 2011 vote against the purchase of land to build a new school began a pattern of retaliation against Hendrix. Hendrix was initially reprimanded for leaving a field trip to a Chuck E. Cheese in Murfreesboro early to attend a basketball game in Smithville in December 2011.
Hendrix’s principal, Dr. Billy Tanner, maintained that Hendrix did so without permission, recommending to then director of schools Willoughby that Hendrix be suspended for one day without pay. Willoughby concurred, but Hendrix appealed to the school board, where the suspension was expanded to three days.
Hendrix then received a letter of "reprimand and plan of corrective action" signed by the director in May 2012. The letter accused Hendrix of having a history of leaving school and school activities early without permission, mentioning the Chuck E. Cheese incident as an example. The letter also stated that Hendrix had attended an Autism program in April, 2012, leaving without permission.
Hendrix pointed to the posting of an opening for the position of supervisor of attendance job in May 2013. Hendrix applied for the job, he applied for the position but was passed over, though he had an administrator’s endorsement and had filed for a supervisor of attendance endorsement when the application was made, which he received a few days after the application was filed.
The suit accused that Willoughby chose Joey Reeder for the position, saying he was the most qualified, and that he was the only applicant with prior experience. Willoughby also claimed, according to court documents, that he would have chosen David Gash as a second choice for the position because he had prior administrative experience.
Willoughby allegedly stated that he would not have chosen Hendrix if he had been the only applicant, because of Hendrix’s history of leaving school without permission to attend to personal matters, and would have reposted the job.
In his ruling, Sharp wrote that Hendrix "can identify no retaliatory actions that occurred between the letter of reprimand of May 11, 2012 and his failure to receive the Supervisor of Attendance position in June 2013." The ruling stated.
"The arguments he raises in support of his continuing violation theory are not supported by the record," Judge Sharp wrote in his order granting summary judgment. The judge wrote, "The lack of factual support for a continuing violation theory aside, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims based on those alleged violations fail for lack of causation. The first alleged retaliatory action after the vote on the land purchase that can be attributed to Defendant Willoughby was his approval of a one day suspension for the Chuck E. Cheese incident some nine months after the land purchase vote. The other two decisions that can be fairly attributed to Defendant Willoughby—the letter of reprimand and the refusal to hire Plaintiff as Director of Attendance—occurred some 14 and 26 months, respectively, after the vote. In the absence of anything more, the temporal proximity between those decisions and Plaintiff’s vote on the land purchase is too remote to show causation."
Sharp’s ruling concluded by saying: "This Court has considered the entire record, including Plaintiff’s (Hendrix) deposition testimony, but finds insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff was retaliated against because he voted against the land purchase in his role as a County Commissioner. In fact, on the only alleged retaliatory act which took place within the statute of limitations, the record reflects that Defendant (Willoughby) chose the individual who not only had the specific license for Supervisor of Attendance but who also had experience in that position."
