Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02104/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02104-0/pdf.json

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

---

f 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

THOMAS EDWARD GREEN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 1 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 87-2104 

) 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ) 

NO. 2 OF SEQUOYAH COUNTY, ) 

OKLAHOMA, a/k/a Vian Public ) 

Schools: THE BOARD OF EDUCATION) 

OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ) 

NO. 2 OF SEQUOYAH COUNTY, ) 

OKLAHOMA: THOMAS YOUNG, PAT ) 

SULLIVAN, JOE FARMER, CHARLES ) 

SLOAN, and JAMES SIMMONS, in ) 

their individual and official ) 

capacities as members of the ) 

Board of Education of Inde- ) 

pendent School District No. 2 ) 

of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma: ) 

BOB W. HILL, Individually and ) 

in his official capacity as ) 

Superintendent of Independent ) 

School District No. 2 of ) 

Sequoyah County, Oklahoma: and ) 

JOE W. SMITH, Individually and ) 

in his official capacity as ) 

Principal of Independent School ) 

District No. 2 of Sequoyah ) 

County, Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

(D.C. No. 86-172-C) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 87-2104 Document: 010110024634 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 1 
Defendants appeal from a verdict holding them liable for 

violating plaintiff's right to equal protection. We conclude the 

evidence does not support the verdict; therefore, the judgment 

must be reversed. 

Plaintiff was employed by defendant school district as a 

coach and teacher, but he was discharged after a second occasion 

of paddling students for "academic reasons." Plaintiff filed a 

§ 1983 action claiming denial of due process and equal 

protection. 1 The jury found for plaintiff and awarded him $50,000 

in damages. The trial court ordered reinstatement and awarded 

plaintiff $15,000 in attorney fees. 

Although defendants raise a number of valid issues on appeal, 

the most critical is the lack of evidence to support the verdict. 

Plaintiff contends he was denied equal protection because he was 

singled out for punishing students for their academic failure. He 

argues other teachers within the defendant school district paddled 

students for the same reason he paddled them, and those teachers 

were not discharged. Thus, he concludes, he was treated 

differently and in a constitutionally impermissible way when he 

was terminated from his position. 

Plaintiff's arguments and the testimony presented at trial 

have blurred the line which circumscribes the legal issue. Mr. 

Green disputes the defendant board's policy regarding paddling and 

1The due process claims (and three pendent state claims as well) 

were dismissed, and plaintiff did not cross-appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2104 Document: 010110024634 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 2 
the manner in which the policy was employed. Much of the evidence 

demonstrates the school district's distinction between punishing a 

student for "disciplinary reasons" and punishing a student for 

"academic reasons'' was unclear. Yet, the legal issue has nothing 

to do with the clarity or wisdom of the district's policy. The 

question is whether the district deprived Mr. Green of the equal 

protection of that policy. 

There is evidence in the record that teachers did paddle 

students for what would appear to fit the district's definition of 

"academic reasons," but Mr. Green proved that in only one other 

instance was the teacher's action brought to the attention of 

Principal Smith. Phillip Parks paddled a student, and when Mr. 

Smith found out, he admonished Mr. Parks in the same way he 

admonished Mr. Green. There is no evidence that Mr. Parks paddled 

a student for an "academic reason" after being admonished for 

doing so. 

Contrarily, Mr. Green was told not to paddle again for 

academic failure but did so nevertheless. 

which obviously constituted disobedience 

instruction, was the basis for his discharge. 

This second incident, 

of his principal's 

It is of no significance in this case that other teachers 

paddled students and were not disciplined. It matters only that 

Mr. Green did not prove other teachers paddled after being told 

not to do so and then were not disciplined. The evidence 

indicates that Mr . . Green was the only teacher who disobeyed 

instructions; hence, he cannot complain of unequal treatment. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2104 Document: 010110024634 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 3 
, 

It bears passing comment that when defendants moved for 

directed verdict on the ground that the evidence did not indicate 

a lack of equal treatment, Mr. Green's counsel did not respond. 

Counsel did argue against the other grounds for the defendants' 

motion, but he left unanswered defendants' contention that 

plaintiff's evidence did not show "different treatment." 

Nonetheless, the trial court held, without particularization, 

"sufficient evidence" had been presented. We do not agree. 

In order to sustain a claim for denial of equal protection, 

Mr. Green was required to prove the defendants acted with 

discriminatory intent. Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 857 

F.2d 690 (10th Cir. 1988). He was further required to show that 

the decision to affect his employment was predicated on some 

constitutionally impermissible reason. Kneeland v. Bloom Township 

High School Dist. No. 206, 518 F. Supp. 890 (N.D. Ill. 1981). 

When, however, the evidence demonstrates the action affecting the 

plaintiff's employment would have been taken in any event, the 

plaintiff cannot prevail. Id. 

In this case, Mr. Green's proof falls short of demonstrating 

intentional discrimination on the part of the defendants. 

Moreover, the evidence indicates that the sole reason for Mr. 

Green's discharge was his failure to follow Mr. Smith's 

instructions. Consequently, the trial court erred in not granting 

defendants' motion for directed verdict. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-2104 Document: 010110024634 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 4 
• 

\ 

• 

Having reached that conclusion, we need not discuss the 

remaining issues. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED 

wi th instructions to enter judgment for the defendants. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-2104 Document: 010110024634 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 5