Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ingram v. The Houston County Board of Education

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division

September 12, 2017

REDONNA INGRAM, Plaintiff,
v.
THE HOUSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Redonna Ingram (“Ingram”) brings this action against her employer, the Houston County Board of Education, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), alleging that she was retaliated against for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Ingram asserts that in 2013 she was denied promotions to four administrative positions by then Superintendent Tim Pitchford (“Pitchford”) in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge in 2009. The Houston County Board of Education (“the Board”) is the sole defendant in this action. The court has jurisdiction of her claim pursuant to the jurisdictional grant in Title VII and its federal question jurisdiction.

         This case is now pending before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 16). The plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 22). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment. After careful review of the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff's response, and the evidentiary submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion, the court concludes that the defendant's motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine [dispute[1] as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citation omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record, including pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits], which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine [dispute] of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by presenting evidence which would be admissible at trial indicating there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-324.

         Once the movant meets its evidentiary burden and demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish, with appropriate evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine dispute material to his case exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.”). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263.

         To survive the movant's properly supported motion for summary judgment, a party is required to produce “sufficient [favorable] evidence” “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). “If the evidence [on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly probative . . . summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-250. “A mere ‘scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for that party.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Anderson, supra). Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact and, therefore, do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., Inc., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001). Hence, when a nonmoving party fails to set forth specific facts supported by appropriate evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case and on which the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 (“[F]ailure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”).

         For summary judgment purposes, only disputes involving material facts are relevant. United States v. 5800 SW 74th Ave., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). What is material is determined by the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Lofton v. Sec'y of Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Only factual disputes that are material under the substantive law governing the case will preclude entry of summary judgment.”). “The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case.” McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine [dispute] for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co, Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In cases where the evidence before the court which is admissible on its face or which can be reduced to admissible form indicates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-324 (summary judgment appropriate where pleadings, evidentiary materials and affidavits before the court show there is no genuine dispute as to a requisite material fact); Waddell, 276 F.3d at 1279 (to establish a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must produce evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict in his favor). However, if there is a conflict in the evidence, “the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Ruiz de Molina v. Merritt & Furman Ins. Agency, 207 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2000).

         Although factual inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and pro se complaints are entitled to liberal interpretation by the courts, a pro se litigant does not escape the burden of establishing by sufficient evidence a genuine dispute of material fact. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529 (2006); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, the plaintiff's pro se status alone does not mandate this court's disregard of elementary principles of production and proof in a civil case.

         III. FACTS[2]

Redonna Dawn Ingram has been employed as a teacher with the Houston County Board of Education since 1992. She has a bachelor's degree in Elementary Education and a Masters degree in Educational Leadership. It is undisputed that she meets the requirements and qualifications for promotion to an administrative position with the Board. After being denied an administrative position in 2005, Ingram filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in December 2009. (Doc. # 22, Pl's Ex. H). At that time, Ingram alleged that she had been discriminated against based on her sex, age, and religion. Ingram asserted that she had been told that Superintendent Pitchford “said he did not hire [her] for the position because [her] children went to private school.” (Id.) She further asserted that she had again been denied administrative positions in 2009 for the same reason. (Id.) After filing her EEOC charge, Ingram did not pursue any further action.

         During the summer of 2013, Ingram applied for four (4) administrative positions: Reading Coach at Rehobeth Elementary School, Assistant Principal at Wicksburg High School, Principal at Rehobeth High School, and Assistant Principal at Rehobeth High School. Each position was filled after a selection committee interviewed applicants and selected three candidates. Superintendent Pitchford then recommended to the Board the selection committee's first choice for each position, and the Board approved Pitchford's recommendations.

         The selection committee for the Reading Coach position at Rehobeth Elementary school was composed of Principal Greg Yance, Pat Tyson and Melanie Mixon. After interviewing the applicants including Ingram, the committee selected Shannon Jones as their first choice for the position. Pitchford recommended Jones to the Board for the position, and the Board ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.