Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00340/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00340-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000rt Job Discrimination/Retaliation

---

[1] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHELTON M. FRYE, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0340-WS-N 

 ) 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

EDUCATION, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to stay during 

interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 81). The case is set for trial against defendants Escambia 

County Board of Education (“the Board”) and superintendent William Hines in August 

2010. Hines has recently taken an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order denying his 

motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination in the 

June 2008 selection of an assistant principal for Escambia County High School. Hines 

argued that he was protected by qualified immunity, but the Court ruled that, under the 

plaintiff’s version of the evidence, qualified immunity is not available. 

 The plaintiff opposes a stay on two grounds. First, he argues that a stay is 

inefficient because a verdict for the Board will effectively compel judgment for Hines as 

well and obviate a second trial. (Doc. 83 at 1-2). Maybe so, but a verdict for the plaintiff 

against the Board will not moot a second trial, so proceeding to trial now risks the very 

inefficiencies the plaintiff recognizes should be avoided. 

 Second, the plaintiff argues that the appeal is patently meritless because the only 

issue that could be presented is the long-decided one of whether intentional race 

discrimination violates clearly established law. (Doc. 84 at 3). Whether or not the appeal 

is meritless, proceeding to trial would be inefficient, as discussed above. Nor is it clear 

the plaintiff has accurately identified the only issue that could be argued on appeal. The 

Case 1:08-cv-00340-WS-N Document 85 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
[2] 

Court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether the defendants’ articulated reasons for his non-selection were 

a pretext for race discrimination. Were the appellate court to rule that the plaintiff’s 

evidence, even if believed, would not create a fact issue as to race discrimination, it could 

rule that Hines did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that he therefore is 

entitled to qualified immunity.1 

 For the reasons set forth above and in the defendants’ motion, the motion to stay is 

granted. This action is stayed pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal and further 

Court order. The trial and final pretrial conference are continued indefinitely. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2010. 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1

 Such a ruling presumably would also be dispositive of the plaintiff’s claim against the 

Board, further counseling against any trial before the appellate proceedings are concluded. 

Case 1:08-cv-00340-WS-N Document 85 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2