Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01185/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United Statt:1§ Cmirt of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EDWARD J. ROMERO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ALBERT AGUAYO, DONALD MOSER, ) 

JAMES SCAMMAN, and SCHOOL ) 

DISTRICT NO. 1, CITY AND ) 

COUNTY OF DENVER, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

M~.Y 31 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1185 

(D.C. No. 87-M-6) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and VAR BEBBER, District 

Judge.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Edward Romero seeks recovery against 

defendants-appellees Albert Aguayo, Donald Moser, James Scanonan, 

and School District No. 1 pursuant to 42 u.s.c. SS 1983 and 1985. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants on all claims. We affirm. 

Romero was a teacher at Henry Junior High School during the 

1978-79 school year when there were racial difficulties, including 

a walkout by a number of Hispanic students. He was known to 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge for the 

United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting 

by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 1 
support the efforts of the Hispanic students at the school. 

Romero filed an action against the school district in state court, 

claiming he was transferred in retaliation for his advocacy of 

students' interests. 

Romero taught industrial arts and served as the head 

wrestling coach at Manual High School. During the 1982-83 

wrestling season, he was removed as coach because of a protest 

staged by his team at a wrestling meet. Romero amended his 

complaint in the ongoing state action, claiming this removal was 

also retaliatory. 

Glenn Scheele, the wrestling coach at West High School, 

testified on plaintiff's behalf in state court. Less than a month 

later, defendant Aguayo, who was then principal at West High 

School, fired Scheele as the wrestling coach. Scheele 

successfully brought an action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 based 

on this termination against several defendants, including Aguayo. 

Romero was subpoenaed to serve as a witness at this trial, but did 

not testify. Aguayo, who was then assistant superintendent in 

charge of secondary education for the school district, saw Romero 

at the trial and questioned him concerning his attendance. 

On the same day the jury returned its verdict in favor of 

Scheele, four Manual High School parents met the principal, 

defendant Donald Moser, to discuss their concerns regarding 

Romero's conduct. About two months later, Aguayo was contacted by 

one of these parents and agreed to meet with a group of parents. 

Moser was not informed of this meeting. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 2 
Four days after this meeting, Aguayo met with a security 

officer for the district and instructed him to investigate the 

parents' allegations against Romero. The next day, Aguayo sent a 

memorandum to James Scamman, the district's superintendent, 

relating the events of his meeting with the parents. A week after 

Aguayo's meeting with the parents, Moser signed a memorandum 

prepared by Aguayo recommending Romero's discharge. Aguayo 

suspended Romero the next day and recommended his discharge to 

Scamman. Two weeks later, Scamman filed charges against Romero 

with the board of education, recommending he be dismissed for 

"insubordination, and/or neglect of duty and/or immorality and/or 

other good and just cause." 

Pursuant to the procedures required by the Colorado Teacher 

Employment Dismissal and Tenure Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-63-101 

et~, a hearing was held before an officer in the Division of 

Hearing Officers of the Colorado Department of Administration. In 

his report, the officer noted Manual's administrators were aware 

of "some fairly serious misconduct" by Romero prior to the 

beginning of Aguayo's investigation in January 1986, but did not 

consider these actions grounds for discipline. The officer 

concluded, however, that Romero's conduct, including physical 

abuse, blackmail, and humiliation of students, justified his 

termination. On June 19, 1986, the board of education dismissed 

Romero. 

Romero then filed this civil rights action against Aguayo, 

Moser, Scamman, and the school district. In count one, he alleged 

the defendants terminated him in retaliation for his exercise of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 3 
his first amendment rights in violation of 42 u.s.c. § 1983. In 

count two, Romero asserted the defendants engaged in a conspiracy 

to effect his dismissal in violation of 42 u.s.c. § 1985(2). The 

district court dismissed the school board from the section 1985 

claim. The defendants then moved for summary judgment on all 

claims. The district court granted this motion. 

We review a summary judgment under the same standard the 

district court applies pursuant to Rule 56. Osgood Y..!.. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,, 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). In 

determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the 

court views all facts and inferences in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party. Burnette Y..!.. Dow Chemical Co., 849 F.2d 

1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 1988). A nonmoving party cannot survive a 

motion for summary judgment based on bare allegations in the 

pleadings without supporting evidence. After adequate time for 

discovery, summary judgment is mandatory against a party failing 

to show the existence of an essential element of his case. See 

Celotex Corp. Y..!.. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

To establish liability under section 1983, the plaintiff must 

demonstrate his exercise of protected rights was a "motivating 

factor" in the decision to terminate him. See Mount Healthy City 

School Dist. Bd. of Educ. Y..!.. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). If 

the plaintiff makes this showing, the defendants will still 

prevail if they show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

same decision would have been made regardless of the plaintiff's 

exercise of protected rights. Id. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 4 
In the present case, the district court concluded Romero 

failed to establish his exercise of protected rights was a 

motivating factor in the decision to terminate him. The district 

court relied heavily on the parties' stipulations in reaching its 

decision. In particular, it noted Romero agreed the board's 

decision was solely a result of the report of the hearing officer. 

The court concluded this broke the chain of causation between any 

improper actions on the part of any defendant and Romero's 

termination. 

Prior to the court's entry of summary judgment, Romero 

attempted to be relieved from this stipulation. The court 

permitted him to conduct additional discovery on this matter. 

Romero discovered a newspaper article reporting that a board 

member had said the board could consider matters beyond the 

administrative record in tenure dismissal proceedings. He argued 

the involvement of Daniel Bernard as special counsel for the board 

in relation to his termination stripped that proceeding of basic 

fairness. Romero noted Bernard was contacted by Michael Jackson, 

the individual who prosecuted the termination before the school 

board. Romero alleged Jackson somehow improperly influenced 

Bernard, who in turn improperly influenced the board. The 

district court concluded there was insufficient evidence on this 

point to allow Romero to escape from his prior agreement to the 

stipulation. 

Based on our review of the record, we conclude the district 

court properly found Romero presented no evidence indicating his 

exercise of protected rights played a motivating part in the board 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 5 
• 

of education's decision to terminate him. Romero was discharged 

according to the statutory procedure based on the officer's 

recommendations. Romero admits there is evidentiary support for 

the officer's factual findings concerning Romero's misconduct. 

The district court properly concluded these findings "break the 

chain of causation between any retaliatory motivation by the 

individual defendants in their investigative and prosecutive roles 

and the discharge decision." 

Romero was unable to demonstrate the board of education's 

decision to terminate him was influenced by anyone or anything 

except the officer's report. He presented no material evidence 

supporting his allegations concerning improprieties in the board's 

handling of this case. Romero was terminated because of his 

repeated misconduct while employed by the school district. The 

defendants' retaliatory motivations, if they did exist, were not a 

motivating factor in this decision. Romero also failed to present 

any evidence supporting his conspiracy claim under section 

1985(2). We AFFIRM. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1185 Document: 010110118050 Date Filed: 05/31/1991 Page: 6