Court: School District Was Within Its Rights to Punish Employee for Argument at Basketball Camp
(Editor’s Note: What follows is an excerpt from Sports Litigation Alert, the nation’s leading sports law periodical. Subscribers have access to more than 5,000 articles and case summaries.)
A federal judge from the Western District of Arkansas has granted a school district’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which it was sued for employment discrimination.
The underlying incident involved plaintiff/employee Angelia Williams, who got into a verbal confrontation with a high school basketball coach in the Harmony Grove School District on June 15, 2023, and was subsequently suspended without pay.
The plaintiff sued, alleging that she was discriminated against based on her gender and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101, et seq.
By way of background, the court noted the plaintiff was employed under two contracts with the school district. Under the first contract, Williams was employed as a reading interventionist aide in the special education department. Under the second contract, she was employed as a bus driver. On July 1, 2023, Williams was due to renew her contract as a special education aide.
On the day of the aforementioned incident, the plaintiff’s son, who was a student in the district, was attending a basketball camp sponsored by the district. Williams had volunteered to work at the gymnasium’s entry gate monitoring visitor passes and accepting money for the basketball camp. One of the people helping run the basketball camp was the high school boys’ basketball coach Eddie Potts (Coach Potts). That day, Williams confronted Coach Potts because she believed her minor son was being bullied by other students at the basketball camp and that Coach Potts was allowing it to happen.
During the confrontation, which occurred in front of 50 people, the plaintiff reminded Coach Potts of the state and federal regulations about bullying and suggested that he was aware of bullying incidents but chose not to do anything about them. Williams then stated that her son had been attending counseling because of the bullying. She further became belligerent in her language.
Later that night, Williams texted Coach Potts that “I am very sorry that I spoke to you in the manner I did. I know that was not the venue for me to speak with you, and certainly not an ugly manner.” Coach Potts then called the plaintiff. In the call, Williams told the coach that she still wanted to report the bullying students. She did so, contacting District Superintendent Albert L. Snow (Superintendent Snow). However, the district believed the plaintiff’s behavior was “unbecoming, unprofessional, disorderly based on her tone of voice, choice of words, disrespectful statements, and efforts to incite altercations between other adults.”
On June 20, 2023, Superintendent Snow sent Williams a Notice of Recommended Termination of Employment Contract because of her conduct on June 15, 2023. Superintendent Snow believed that the plaintiff’s conduct hampered her ability to effectively perform her job duties and warranted her termination. The plaintiff appealed the district school board.
On July 20, 2023, the board met and determined that Williams violated District Policy 8.45 Classified Personnel Code of Conduct. However, it declined to accept Superintendent Snow’s recommendation that she be terminated, and instead reduced the penalty to a one-semester suspension for the start of the 2023-2024 school year.
On February 7, 2024, Williams sued, alleging that the school district: (1) discriminated against her based on her gender in violation of Title VII and the ACRA; and (2) retaliated against her in violation of Title VII and the ACRA. On December 10, 2024, the district filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
In its discussion, the court considered whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim; and (2) whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Regarding the gender discrimination claim, … (To read more visit Sports Litigation Alert.)