2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-12-2015

Thomas Kirschling v. Atlantic City Board of Educati

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This March is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Thomas Kirschling v. Atlantic City Board of Educati" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 251.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/251
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 14-1927

_______________

THOMAS KIRSCHLING,

 Appellant

v.

ATLANTIC CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(Civ. No. 1-11-cv-04479)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 13, 2015

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 12, 2015)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

Thomas Kirschling appeals the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to 

the Atlantic City Board of Education. Kirschling’s sole claim is for race-based constructive 

discharge under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.1 See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1, 

et seq. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

Kirschling, a Caucasian male, worked as the Atlantic City School District’s 

Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources from 2000 to 2009. The District educates

over 7,000 mostly African-American students, and Kirschling’s position put him in charge 

of personnel management. Kirschling was a longtime public school human resources 

professional who holds a Ph. D. in education, and it is not disputed that he was highly 

qualified for his position. According to Kirschling, personnel matters in the District were 

highly politicized, and Board members often interceded on behalf of family members 

and/or politically connected individuals who were candidates for jobs. On Kirschling’s 

telling, he and Board members clashed during his tenure over his unwillingness to favor 

Board members’ preferred candidates, as well as over his implementation of the Board’s 

drug testing policy, which he interpreted to require testing of all candidates for internal 

promotion. The Board was predominantly African-American at all relevant points.

In 2007, Kirschling negotiated a new three-year contract that made him the highest

paid Assistant Superintendent in the District. The April 2008 election caused a change in 

 

1 The District Court had diversity jurisdiction because Kirschling is a citizen of Florida and 

the Board is a citizen of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction to review 
3

the Board’s composition, however, and Board members hostile to Kirschling now 

commanded a majority. The new majority immediately sought to oust Kirschling, and by

late 2008 Kirschling and the Board were in buyout negotiations. As part of the negotiations, 

Kirschling made a buyout demand that claimed entitlement to 120 sick and vacation days, 

including 96 days “rolled over” from his previous employment with a different school 

district. In February 2009, the District notified Kirschling that it believed that 34 of his 

claimed days were not properly claimed under the District’s comp-time policy, and further 

that he failed to report as vacation 11 days for which he was out of state. In March 2009, 

the District notified Kirschling that it learned he had been previously compensated for the 

96 days “rolled over” from his previous employer and that the District believed he 

misrepresented this fact at the start of his employment in 2000. The District suspended 

Kirschling with pay pending investigation, and the suspension made local news. With the 

Board preparing formal charges of fraud to be presented to criminal prosecutors and state 

tenure authorities, Kirschling resigned outright in July 2009. Kirschling’s duties were 

assumed on an interim basis by a Caucasian woman, Donna Haye, and a year later they 

were permanently assumed by an African-American woman, Diane Saunders.

In June 2011, Kirschling filed the instant suit in New Jersey state court alleging racebased constructive discharge in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. 

According to Kirschling, his resignation under duress was far from voluntary, and the 

Board’s campaign to oust him—including the allegedly improper time record charges—

 

the final order of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 
4

was motivated by improper considerations related to his race. The Board removed the case 

to the District of New Jersey, and the District Court granted summary judgment to the 

Board on the basis that Kirschling failed to state a prima facie case. Kirschling then filed 

this appeal.

2

Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff states a prima facie case of race-based 

constructive discharge by showing (1) that he is in a protected class or that the employer 

may be the unusual one that discriminates against the majority; (2) he was otherwise 

qualified and performing the essential functions of the job; (3) his resignation was 

constructively a discharge; and (4) that the employer thereafter sought similarly qualified 

individuals for the job. Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co., 117 N.J. 539, 550-51 (1990). 

The District Court entered judgment for the Board on the basis that Kirschling

cannot show a constructive discharge.3 A discrimination claim based on constructive

 

2 We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Doe v. Indian River 

Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256, 275 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). In doing so, we apply the same standard 

as the district court. Id. That is, summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In deciding whether summary 

judgment is warranted, we “must view the facts in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor.” Doe, 653 F.3d at 275 n.7.

3 The District Court also concluded that the background circumstances of the case raised no

suspicion that the Board is “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 

See Erickson, 117 N.J. at 551. We have previously explained that “[s]tating the prima facie 

case in terms of ‘background circumstances’ and the uniqueness of the particular employer 

is both problematic and unnecessary.” Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 161 (3d Cir. 

1999). “[M]any of the courts that have tried to apply such an analysis have concluded that 

it results in a heightened burden for the plaintiff despite the . . . proclamations to the 

contrary by the court that developed the test.” Id.
5

discharge arises when “an employer knowingly permit[s] conditions of discrimination in 

employment so intolerable that a reasonable person subject to them would resign.” 

Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Cir., 174 N.J. 1, 27-29 (2002). “The standard 

envisions a sense of outrageous, coercive[,] and unconscionable requirements . . . 

[involving] more egregious conduct than that sufficient for a hostile work environment 

claim.” Id. at 28. Furthermore, “an employee has the obligation to do what is necessary and 

reasonable in order to remain employed rather than simply quit.” Id. “A trial court should 

consider the nature of the harassment, the closeness of the working relationship between 

the harasser and the victim, whether the employee resorted to internal grievance 

procedures, the responsiveness of the employer to the employee's complaints, and all other 

relevant circumstances.” Id.

Applying these standards, we agree with the District Court that Kirschling pled no 

facts that would make a reasonable person feel there was no choice but to resign. No doubt 

that Board members’ criticism of his job performance and open desire to remove him made 

for a stressful and unwelcome experience, but Kirschling’s allegations here fall far short of 

the unremitting, proximate harassment contemplated by New Jersey law. See id. Nor can 

we conclude that Kirschling was forced to resign in light of the disputed fraud allegations.

The tenure laws prevented the District from firing Kirschling before proving its case against 

him to the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education, see N.J.A.C. 6A:3-

5.5, and an accused employee may not claim involuntary resignation where he resigned

without availing himself of procedural protections against unsubstantiated charges. See
6

Palka v. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447, 453 (7th Cir. 2010); Hargray v. City of Hallandale, 57 

F.3d 1560, 1568-69 (11th Cir. 1995). By declining to fight the allegedly wrongful 

accusations on the merits, Kirschling failed to do what was “necessary and reasonable in 

order to remain employed.” See Shepherd, 174 N.J. at 28.

Because Kirschling cannot show a constructive discharge, he fails to state a prima 

facie case of discrimination. The District Court’s grant of summary judgment was proper.