T he Hon. N ancyG

. Edm unds, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ctJudg e f ort he East er n Di st r i ct ofM i chi gan, si t t i ng * b yd e s i g n a ti o n .

T he p l ai nt i ffconce des o n ap peal t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l ydi sm i ssed h erf at her , Audi e Phi l l i ps, 1 a s a p a r ty b e c a u s e s h e h a s a tt a in e d th e a g e o f m a j o r ity, b e c a u s e p a r e n ta l lo s s o fc o n s o r tiu m is n o t c o g n iz a b le u n d e r S e c ti o n 1 9 8 3 a n d b e c a u s e , a s a p a re n t, h e l a c k s s ta n d i n g to a s s e rt a T i tl e IX c l a i m .

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0054n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 15, 2008 07- 5103 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
AM BR EA C . PH ILLIP S, a mino r, by her father and next of ki n, AU DI E L. PH IL L IP S, a n d AUD IE P HI LLIPS , ind iv idu all y , Plaint if fs-Appe llants,
v. A N D E R S O N C O U N TY B O A R D OF ED UCATION , Defendant -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL F RO M THE U NI TED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F OR THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF TENN ESSEE

Before: D AU GH TREY and GILM AN , C ircui t J udg es; ED MU ND S, D is tr ict J udg e. *
PERC UR IAM

. In this se x di sc ri minat ion ca se, pl ain ti ff Ambrea Phi ll ips ch all eng es 1 the o rd er

of the d is tr ict c our

t g ra nti ng su m m ar

y j udg ment t o the defendant, Anderson C o u n ty B o a rd o f E d u c a t i o n , o n h e r c l a i msu n d e r

4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 a n d T i t l e I X o f t he Edu cation Ame ndm ent s of 197 2, 20 U.S.C. § 168 1. Phillips cont end s (1) tha t the summ ary jud g ment order

was premature, t h e re b y depr iv ing her of the o ppor

tuni ty to compl ete07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 2 - dis cov er y , and ( 2) thatthe dis tr ict c our t er re d i n findi ng that t h e d efendant Boa rd of Edu cation was no t liable for discri m in a t in g against he r on the basis of her gende r. Beca use we f ind no rev ersible error in conn ection w ith the decision to g ra n tsu m m a ry jud g ment t o the defendant, and becau se the p lai nti ff has fail ed to demons trate t hat add itional d i s c ov er

y wou l d ha v e ai de d he r

c as e ag ai ns t th e Bo ard, we affi r m t he d i s tr ict
cour t’ s j udg ment.
I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
At t he ti me of the ev ents that g av e ri se to thi s l it ig ati on, A mbrea Phi ll ips was a s eni or at An derso n Coun ty Hig h Scho ol. I n her last sem este r be fore gradu ation sh e en rolled in the s chool ’s Off ic e Tech Co- Op prog ra m, w hic h empl oy ed her outs ide the sc hool dur ing the two mor nin g per iod s o f the four- per iod ac ademicday

. Her sc hedul e at the b eg inn ing of the s pr ing se mester in Janua ry 2006 cal led for her to hav e l unch immedi atel y after her morni ng at Co- Op, follo w ed by physi cal educ ati on dur ing the thi rd per iod and G ov er nment and Econo mics in the fourth p eriod. T he third-pe riod “w eightlif ting a nd co nditio ning” class in w hich th e plain tif

f enrolled was sche dule d to includ e ap proximate ly 30 m a le stud ent s, Phi ll ips , and one other

female s tudent

. The course w as not n ew , hav ing been offered for
sev eral y ears t o both m ale and female student s, and an additi onal weig htl ifti ng cl ass w it h bot h ma le and fema l e s tu de nt s was o ffered t ha t s am e s em es te r d ur i ng a d i fferen t c l ass per iod

. As par

t of the course, studentsw ere req uired to sp ot on e anot her , w hic h req uired some mi nimal physi cal co ntact.07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 3 - The circu m st a n ce s o f

Ph ill ip s’s rem o val f ro m th e w e igh tl if ti n g cla ss are di sp u te d , but the d is tr ict c our

t c or re ctl y

found thatthe dis pute w as not mat er ial to the deter minat ion of the d efendant’ s moti on for summar y j udg ment. The defendant cl aimed that Phi ll ipswas re mov ed after

the other

female s tudent w it hdrew from the cl ass on Thurs day , J anuar y 5. On Friday, Janua ry

6, Princ ipal Bob McCracken consu lted wi th th e w eightlif ting teach er, Josh Ke rr, and de cided to remo v ed Ph illips from the course for safety and liability reaso ns. McCracken said th at he was con cerne d spe cif ically ab o u tP h il lips’s safety, the scho ol’s liability , and the risk of

sex ual assa ult. Phillips ma intain ed, howev er, tha t the othe r fe ma le stud entwas still part of the class on Fr iday, Janu ary 6, w hen Rhon da W ood f in, a secret ary f rom th e guidan ce of

f ice, ap proa ched the pa ir of fe ma le stud ent s in the w eightlif ting class and informe d the m th ey w ere be ing rem oved beca use th ey w ere the only gir ls enrolled in the class.
On Mond ay, Janua ry

9, Phillips spoke w ith McCracken and ano the r school of f icial, Mu rrell Al br ig ht, a b o u t h e r re mov al from the w eig htl ifti ng cl ass . Theyi nformed her that they co uld not per mit enroll ment consi sti ng of all male stu dents , a male teac her , and one or two female s tudent s. That s ame day Phi ll ips ’s fa th e r, A udi e Phi ll ips , c ontacted And erson Co unt y

High S choo l to co nf irm tha t his dau ghter w as no t remo v ed f rom th e class for bei ng i n troubl e and spok e to Al br ig ht. Audi e Phi ll ipsthen “ menti oned” T it le I X, but Al br ig ht informed him that itwas “o ur sc hool ” and t hat h is daug hter woul d notbe retur ned to t he c las s.07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 4 - At this po int, inste ad o f cont acting som eon e at th e cou nty Board of Educa tion, Audie Phi ll ips ca lle d a l o ca l tel ev is ion st ati on and the Tennes see Dep artment of Educat ion

. A
news repo rter f rom th e tele v ision stat ion inte rv iew ed McCracken on W edn esda y , Janu ary 11, at w hich tim e McCracken c o n f ir m e d t hatPhillips had bee n rem oved f rom class beca use h e w as conce rned for her safe ty in a classroom f illed alm ost ex clusiv ely w ith bo ys. That s ame day , a sta te attor ney contacted the Anderson Cou nty Direct or of Scho ols , V. L. Stonec iph er , t o i nform hi m of the pos si ble Tit le IX v iol ati on. Stonecip h e r met w it h Mc Crack en and tol d hi m, “ [Y]ou n eed to take care of this , if y ou dropped somebody from a class ma ke sure it’s not beca use of t heir [sic] sex.” S ton eciph er a lso instructe d the Board of Educat ion ’s Tit le IX

C oordin ator , C huck

Pug li si , to i nv est ig ate. Pug li si met w it h the pla int iff immedia tel y

and, later

that after noon, Mc Crack en i nformed her thatsh e had been reinsta ted to the w eightlif ting class.
P h il li p s re t u rn e d t o we ig h t li f t in g c la s s t h e n e xtd a y, h a vin g m is s e d o n ly t h re e d a ys of instruction al time . She ha d no subse quent p roblem s w ith the course, rece iv ed a n A in the c las s, and g ra duated at the end of the semes ter

. Nev erthel ess , Phil li ps and her father filed a compl ain t aga ins t the Anders on County Board of Educat ion i n federa l dis tr ict c our t,
ass erti ng v iol ati ons of her ri g hts under Sect ion 1983 and Ti tl e IX and cl aimi ng $1,0 00,000 in dam ages. Th ose d am ages w ere pred icated on the p laintif f’s a llegation tha t the stress of her re mov al from cl ass ca used her to be unab le to e a t and thereby w eaken ed her physi cal co ndi ti on to su ch an extent that she subs eq uentl y co ntract ed mononuc leo si s.07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 5 - In respon se to t he defendant’ s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, the pl ain ti ff

note d tha t she had soug ht and been g ra nted jud ic ial per mis si on to tak e further depos it ion s, w hic h had not yet be en c omplet ed; s he th erefore urg ed th e dist ri ct cour t t o find the mot ion for
summar y j udg ment premature i n l ig ht of the i ncompl ete d epos it ion s. Arg uin g i n fav or of del ay , t he pl ain ti ff

as ser ted that further

di sc ov er

y woul d es tabl is h tha t t he defendant had previously

ig nore d or covered up allegation s o f d iscriminatio n on tw o occasio ns. T he f irst involv ed an all eg ed af

fair betw een a hig h s chool pr inc ipa l and an employee; t he pr inc ipa l
w as subs eq uentl y

transfer re d to another hig h s chool

. In t he s econd i nci dent, the ass is tant
v oll ey bal l coac h at Anderson Cou nty Hi g h Scho ol all eg edl y car ri ed on a n in a ppropr iat e re lat ion shi p w it h a p layer on t he v oll ey bal l team. These i nci dents , t he pl ain ti ff mai ntai ned, est abl is h a p a ttern or

pol icy on t he par

t of the defendant of i ndi fference toward “ sex ual misco ndu ct.” The ju dg e nev erthel ess g ra nted summar y judg ment i n fav or

of the d efendants and dism issed pla intif

f ’s claims w ith prejud ice. From thatorder, the plaintif f now app eals.
II. D ISC US SION
W e re vie w de novo the g ra nt of s ummary jud g ment by a di str ict c our

t. See Cim inillo
v. Str eicher , 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Ci r. 2006). Summary j udg ment i s p ro per

w here “ the ple adi ng s, depos it ion s, an swer s to i nter ro g ator ies , and admi ss ion s o n fil e, t og ether w it h the a ff ida v it s, if any , s how thatthere i s no genui ne iss ue as to any m ater ial fact a nd th at the mov ing par

ty i s e nti tl ed to a j udg ment as a matter of la w.” F e d

. R. C iv . P. 56( c)

. A07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 6 - g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact e x is ts onl y w hen, ass uming the tr uth o f the non- mov ing party’s ev iden ce an d con struing all i n fe re nces f rom th at evidence in the light most fav orabl e to the n on- mov ing par ty , t here i s s uff ic ien t ev ide nce for a tr ier of fact to find for that par ty

. A non- mov ing par ty ca nnot w it hst and s ummary ju d gm e n t, how ev er , by int ro duci ng a “ mere sc int il la” of ev ide nce in it s favor . See Cim inillo , 434 F .3d a t 464

. A . Prema turity

of the Summary

Judgment Mot ion
Phi ll ips cl aims thatthe dis tr ict c our t er re d by

g ra nti ng the defendant’ s mot ion for
summar y j udg ment w hil e di sc ov er y was st ill o n g oin g , es peci all y i n l ig ht of pendi ng depos it ion s. The pl ain ti ff co ntends that the di str ict c our t’ s r uli ng on t he s ummary j udg ment
mo tion d enie d her the o ppo rtunity to produ ce suf f icient evidence of

the de fend ant ’s policy of dis re g ardin g se x

di sc ri minat ion i n the sc hool di str ict. Spec ific all y , pl ain ti ff now arg ues tha t she ne ede d de positio n test imo ny f rom sch ool district em ployees t o estab lish past ina ppropr iat e rela ti onshi ps between a v oll ey bal l coac h and a pl ay er , and a pr inc ipa l and an empl oy ee. As noted abov e, the plai nti ff rai sed thi s is sue in her

bri ef in oppos it ion to the defend ant ’s motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t, bu t she did not f ile a Rule 56(f ) af f idavit not if y ing the court of

her nee d for contin ued discovery . As a result, t h e d is t rict court decl ine d to del ay

i ts ru li ng on t he moti on for summar y j udg ment. Dispute s regarding discovery mat ters are revi ewed for abu se of discretion, and “a pla int if f c o m pla ini ng thata di str ict c our t g ra nted summar

y j udg ment w it hout all ow ing adeq uate dis cov er

y must, at a mini mum, be abl e to show thathe c oul d obt ain i nformati on07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 7 - throu gh discov erythatwould disclose ma terial facts.” Sier raClubv. Sl

ater , 120 F .3d 6 23, 638 ( 6th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (in te rn al q uotat ion mar ks and ci tati on omi tted)

. Howev er , w here the compl ain ing par

ty does not compl y

w it h the mandates of R ule 56( f) and fail s t o fil e ei ther
an a f f idavit or a mo tion g iv ing the district court the opp ortun ity to assess the nee d for mo re dis cov er y , “ thi s c our

t w il l not n o rm a lly addres s w hether there was adeq uate ti me for d is c overy .” Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park , 2 2 6 F

. 3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( i n t e r nal citation s om itted ). Altho ugh the plaint if f here raised her conce rns abo ut th e in a d equacy of discovery

prior to summ aryjudgmen t, she did so i m p ro perly, as the district court
cor re ctl y note d. Mo re ov er , ev en i f we w ere to re ach the subs tanc e of t he cl aim, as di d the dis tr ict, w e woul d find no l eg al or factual rele v ance between t he al leg ati ons of “s ex ual mis condu ct” ci ted b y

the pla int iff and the all eg ati on of di sc ri minat ion i n her co mplai nt.
B. T he Gen der

D iscr imi nat io n Cl aims U nd er § 1983 and T it le I X
As the d is tr ict c our

t not ed in it s memorand um opi nio n, a cl aim under Secti on 1983 maybe mai ntai ned t o redress the depr iv ati on “ o f a n y rights, pr iv il eg es, or i mmuniti es sec ured by

the Con sti tuti on and laws” ar is ing f ro m “ any st atute , ordin ance, reg ula ti on, cus t o m, o r u s a g e , o f a n y S t a t e . ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3

. Th e c o u rt a l s o i d e n t i fied th e ap p ro priate stand ard ap plicable here, o bserving that“[a] mu nicipal liability claim against

. . . [a] Schoo l Board must be ex amined by appl y ing a two- prong ed i nq uir y : ( 1) W hether

the pla int iff has ass erted the depr iv ati on of a cons ti tuti onal r ig ht atal l; and (2 ) W hether

. . . t he Scho ol Boa rd is respo nsible for thatv iolation .” Doev. Clai bor ne C ounty, 103 F. 3d 4 9 5,07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 8 - 50 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 )

. F o r p l a i n t i ff t o s u c c e e d i n h e r c l a i m, o f c o u rs e , s h e m u s toffer ev ide nce suffici ent for a jur y to answer both q uest ion s aff ir mati v ely

. In thi s cas e , the pla int iff mig ht well be a ble to est abl is h to a j ur y ’s sa ti sfacti on th at s he s uffered a
cons ti tuti onal depr iv ati on w hen s he was temporar il y prev ented from att endi ng clas s o n the b a sis of h e r gen d e r a lo n e , a p ro p o sit io n th a t th e di st ric t c o u rtas su m e d w it h o u t d e cid in g. But the d is tr ict c our

t al so found, co rrect ly

we conc lud e, that she coul d not d emonst ra te t hat the A nderson Cou nty

Board of Educ ati o n wa s res ponsi ble , and therefore l iab le, for t he
v iolation of

her rig hts.
In reachi ng thatco ncl usi on, t he dist ri ct cour t eng ag ed in a thoroug h anal y si s o f the appl ic abl e s tatut es and c ase law

. Common to the cour t’ s dis posi ti on of both t he c iv il r ig hts
c l ai m a nd t he Ti tl e IX

c l ai m were i tsd et er mi na ti on s t ha t, e v en a fte r t ak i ng t he p l ai nt i f

f ’s all eg ati ons as tr ue, the re cord est abl is hed that Pr inc ipa l Mc Crack en w as not ex ecut ing an off ic ial pol icy

of the Board at the time he ordered th e pl ain ti ff ’s remov al from cl ass , nor was he a cting as a policy -make r on beh alf of the Boa rd; tha t the B oard h ad played no part in the d eci si on to remov e the plain ti ff f ro m the w eig htl ifti ng clas s; and that the Board had not failed to inv estigate th e plain tif f ’s comp laint, inst ead taking imme diate action on he r beha lf to cor re ct the si tuati on as so on as the Di re cto r of School s l ear ned of the probl em from an out side sou rce. Certainly, the re is no proo f thataf ter the Board had notice of the pla intif

f’s claim, it “ act[e d] w ith de li b e ra t e i ndif feren ce to kno w n acts of [discrimina tion] .” Davis v. Mo nr oe C ounty

Boar d of Educati

on , 526 U.S. 629 , 633 (1999 ).07-5103

Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education

- 9 - Beca use the reason s w hy j udg ment s houl d be entered for the defendant hav e been f ully articulate d by the district court, th e issuan ce of a deta iled op inion b y

this co urt would be dupl ic ati v e and woul d s er v e no useful pur pose. Acco rd ing ly , we AF FI RM the jud g ment of the di str ict c our

t upo n the reaso nin g se t outby thatco urt i n i ts memorand um opi nio n filed on D ecember

19, 2006.