Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03148/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 2 4 1990 

!\OBERT L. l--IOECKER 

Clerk 

FLORABELLE HANNA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 373, BOARD ) 

OF EDUCATION OF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT) 

NO. 373; CLARK WHITING; FRED SAAB; ) 

CYRIL BROWN; DIANNA HARPER; and JERRI ) 

STUCKY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-3148 

(D.C. No. 85-4079-C) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before TACHA and SETH, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting a 

directed verdict in favor of the defendants at the close of the 

presentation of the plaintiff's evidence in a case alleging age 

discrimination and retaliation against plaintiff in the defendant 

school district. Plaintiff alleges that the school district 

discriminated against her on the basis of age when they refused to 

grant a transfer between schools, submitted her actions to intense 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3148 Document: 01019970504 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 1 
scrutiny, and generally failed to address other aspects of her 

employment relationship which she alleges were the result of age 

discrimination. Defendant further alleges that the district court 

erred in granting defendants' motion in limine and refusing to 

admit into evidence the testimony of other persons regarding 

defendants' employment practices and an alleged pattern of age 

discrimination. We affirm. 

We agree with the district court that the record in this case 

does not contain adequate evidence of age discrimination or of 

retaliation to permit a jury to find that age was the determining 

factor for any of the alleged adverse treatment. Plaintiff may 

seek to prove age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act in one of two ways: (1) by introducing direct 

evidence of discriminatory intent; or (2) by showing a prima facie 

case of discrimination. See Trans World Airlines, Inc.~ 

Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985). Plaintiff sought to show 

direct evidence from two statements, one made by defendant Brown 

while President of the Board of Education, and another made by 

defendant Stucky, her principal. We agree with the district court 

that neither of the statements, taken in context, sustains any 

inference of discrimination. Nor do we find other direct evidence 

in the record that would supply the necessary showing of 

discriminatory intent. 

Plaintiff's second contention is that the defendants 

retaliated against her after she made age discrimination 

complaints and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. The elements of a prima facie case of 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3148 Document: 01019970504 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 2 
retaliation are laid out in Anderson~ Phillips Petroleum Co., 

861 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1988): (1) plaintiff was engaged in 

protected opposition to discrimination or was participating in an 

administrative or judicial proceeding relevant to the 

discrimination; (2) adverse action by employer contemporaneously 

or subsequent to the employee's protected activity; and (3) causal 

connection between the employee's activity and the employer's 

action. Id. at 634. The causal connection can be shown by 

circumstantial evidence. Finally, all that is required is that 

the employee have a reasonable belief that the employer's actions 

violate the ADEA, even if they in fact do not. 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff has not 

established a prima facie case. First, we agree with the district 

court's conclusion that the facts simply do not support 

plaintiff's position. The causal connection is remote in time. 

The gravaman of many of plaintiff's complaints about defendants' 

action has no apparent age nexus, but rather appears to revolve 

around disagreements over pedagogical methods and personalities. 

In any event, we agree with the district court's assessment that 

no reasonable jury could find that defendants' articulated reason 

for plaintiff's transfer to resolve a personal conflict was merely 

a ''pretext" for defendants' discriminatory conduct. Generalized 

allegations that younger teachers were treated differently is 

simply not sufficient to prevail under the ADEA; substantive facts 

and evidence must be produced. 

Nor do we find that plaintiff has adequately shown 

discrimination in the terms and conditions of her employment. We 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3148 Document: 01019970504 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 3 
agree with the district court that the ADEA does not serve as a 

vehicle for litigating changes in working conditions and/or duties 

that do not materially disadvantage older employees. Cf. Rotert 

v. Jefferson Fed. Savs. ~ Loan Ass'n, 623 F. Supp. 1114, 1119 (D. 

Conn. 1985); 29 u.s.c. § 62l(a)(l). Similarly, we find that 

plaintiff has not stated a cause for constructive discharge. 

Cockrell v. Boise Cascade Corp., 781 F.2d 173 (10th Cir. 1986), 

states that ''a constructive discharge occurs when an employer 

deliberately makes or allows the employee's working conditions to 

become so intolerable that the employee has no other choice but to 

quit." Id. at 177 (quoting Irving~ Dubuque Packing Co., 689 

F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir. 1982)). The determination is objective. 

See Derr~ Gulf Oil Corp., 796 F.2d 340, 343 (10th Cir. 1986). 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff has not shown such 

conditions that a reasonable jury would find them intolerable. 

The frequency of visits by the principal was not shown to be 

significantly greater than that for other teachers, nor has 

plaintiff shown that the visits subjected her to extraordinary 

hardship beyond mere general allegations. Plaintiff has simply 

not established a prima facie case of constructive discharge. 

Plaintiff's last claim is that the defendants' dismissed her 

due to her speech about age discrimination in the district. We 

agree with the district court that plaintiff has wholly failed to 

present adequate evidence to permit resolution of her speech's 

protected nature. Plaintiff has simply not shown that her speech 

was related to a matter of public and not private concern. See 

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Absent such a showing, 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3148 Document: 01019970504 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 4 
federal judicial intervention is not warranted. Nor has plaintiff 

shown that her interest in her speech outweighs that of the school 

district and its officers in effective administration. Similarly, 

plaintiff has not shown that her speech was a substantial or 

motivating factor for the alleged adverse actions. Brown v. 

Reardon, 770 F.2d 896 (10th Cir. 1985). Because plaintiff has 

failed to produce necessary facts to support her claims, we agree 

with the district court that a directed verdict is appropriate. 

In summary, the record lacks any evidence showing that 

plaintiff is the victim of age discrimination prohibited by the 

ADEA. Nor do we find that the district court abused its 

discretion in granting defendants' motion in limine to exclude 

testimony by former employees. The proffered testimony lacks the 

significant connection with age discrimination necessary to 

support a finding that the district court abused its discretion in 

excluding it. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

5 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3148 Document: 01019970504 Date Filed: 05/24/1990 Page: 5