Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEBORAH BODENBENDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Ridge Christian School Inc.'s ("Kings Ridge") Motion for Summary Judgment
[62] be granted and that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Sur-Reply
(77] be denied. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order:
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate's Report and
Recommendations for clear error if no objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court must determine
de nova any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that is the subject of a
proper objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). As Plaintiff has filed
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 2 of 10
timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, the Court reviews the
II. DISCUSSION
Judge's findings are replete with claims that the Magistrate Judge erred by
making various "credibility" determinations. See Dkt. No. [83] at 10, 11, 13.
facts. See id. Such objections are misplaced. Upon review of the record, the Court
presented with a motion for summary judgment. See Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d
1087, 1090 (nth Cir. 1996). Although the Court disagrees with some of the
2
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 3 of 10
a. Age Discrimination
1. Direct Evidence
No. [83] at 7-8. Plaintiff claims Rhodes's and Gammage's statements are direct
discrimination under the ADEA with either direct or circumstantial evidence. See
Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App'x 805, 807 (11th Cir. 2011). Direct evidence
inference or presumption. See Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079,
1086 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[O]nly the most blatant remarks, whose intent could
Headmaster Rhodes's comment that "Kings Ridge was [hiring younger teachers]
because he felt like there w[ere] older teachers .. . getting ready to retire" did not
3
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 4 of 10
constitute direct evidence because Rhodes actually stated "Kings Ridge is hiring
younger teachers over older teachers." Dkt. Nos. [So] at 25; [83] at 8. However,
Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that Rhodes was not the decisionmaker in this
case-he was simply apprised of Principal Gammage's decision. See Dkt. No.[So]
at 25. Thus, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, Rhodes's statement is not direct
Principal Gammage's remark that she "believed in hiring younger teachers" direct
evidence of discrimination. Dkt. No. [83] at 8-9. This statement was made to
another teacher nearly a year before Plaintiffs position was eliminated.Dkt. No.
[80] at 26. As explained in the R&R, a comment about hiring preferences made
remote in time from the conduct at issue is not direct evidence. See id.at 25; see
also Ross v. Rhodes, 146 F.3d 1286, 1291 (nth Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Plaintiffs
2. Pretext
the basis of circumstantial (rather than direct) evidence, the Court must apply the
Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2012). Under the framework, once a
4
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 5 of 10
plaintiff has met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. See id. at 130S. In
this case, Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs position was eliminated because-
maintain a full teaching schedule for five grade levels while offering sufficient
help sessions for struggling students. Dkt. No. [So] at 13. The burden then shifts
id. A plaintiff may establish pretext "either directly by persuading the court that a
(quoting Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 24S, 256 (19S1)).
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine question
of fact as to pretext for a number of reasons. See Dkt. No. [So] at 30-47. On the
record provided, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that
(1) Plaintiff worked as a "math specialist" and that position was eliminated; (2)
Plaintiffs personal notes and testimony from other teachers do not reveal age-
based animus2; and, (3) Defendant's selection of other candidates for the second-
5
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 6 of 10
and third- grade positions is not evidence of pretext.3 See id. at 31, 38-40, 45-46.
material fact regarding the truth of Defendant's proffered reason for eliminating
provided a false reason for its decision to eliminate her position; and, (3)
position was a blatant post-hoc attempt to justify its decision to require her to
interview. See Dkt. No. [83] at 9-11. While the Magistrate Judge correctly noted
basis for inferring pretext. Likewise, the subjective beliefs of other teachers
cannot establish discriminatory animus. See id.
6
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 7 of 10
establish pretext, when presented with a motion for summary judgment the
1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the Court cannot
consider each piece of evidence in a vacuum-rather, the Court must view the
Here, when viewed in its entirety and construed in a light most favorable to
discriminated against Plaintiff. First, while the Magistrate Judge correctly stated
with the entire record." Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc., 146 F.3d 1291-92 (11th Cir. 1998)).
pretext, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant never offered an explanation
for providing an initially false and inconsistent reason for eliminating Plaintiffs
position. See Dkt. No. [So] at 33; cf. Robinson v. Hoover Enters., No. 1:103-cv-
2565-TWT, 2004 WL 2792057, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 20, 2004) (employer's initial
7
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 8 of 10
false reason did not constitute pretext because the employer later provided a
plausible explanation for offering the initial false reason). And, it is undisputed
that Defendant did not create its written hiring policy document until May 23,
2014-after the elimination of Plaintiffs position. Dkt. No. [So] at 41. Given that
discrimination." Keaton v. Cobb Cty., 545 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1303 (N.D. Ga.
of her age, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's findings with
regards to pretext.
b. Retaliation
Defendant's elimination of her position and subsequent decisions not to hire her
for various open positions do not establish pretext for retaliation. See Dkt. No.
[83] at 12. Where a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation, the
1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001). The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove
that the employer's provided reason is pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct.
See id. Here, the Magistrate Judge determined that, in attempting to establish
8
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 9 of 10
pretext, Plaintiff relied on many of the same arguments she offered in support of
her age discrimination claims. See Dkt. No. [80] at 49. As discussed in this Order,
sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment. Thus, the Court declines to
adopt the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as to the specific findings that this
The Magistrate Judge also held that Plaintiffs additional evidence with
respect to retaliation does not establish pretext. See id. Plaintiff objects, arguing
the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the human resources manager, Katrina
[83] at 14. This objection misstates the record, as the Court's review of the record
shows that Kramer acknowledged that Plaintiff lodged multiple complaints with
details (names and dates) of one incident. Dkt. No. [75-6] at 255. Further,
Plaintiff fails to recognize that a reasonable jury could not find the required
March and May 2014, and Defendant's later decision not to rehire Plaintiff in
December 2014. See Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (nth
Cir. 2007) ("The burden of causation can be met by showing close temporal
proximity between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment
9
Case 1:16-cv-04317-LMM Document 85 Filed 09/13/18 Page 10 of 10
action ... [b]ut mere temporal proximity, without more, must be very close.")
III. CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge's R&R [Bo]. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [62]
is DENIED and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Plantiffs Sur-Reply [77] is
DENIED.
O RD ERED to confer and notify the Court within seven days of the date of the
Magistrate Judge mediation without cost. If the case does not settle at mediation,
the parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a proposed pre-trial order
10