IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA M. JEFFERS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:06-cv-0685-WKW

) 

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on February 1, 2008, wherein the following

proceedings were held and actions taken:

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

(a) Plaintiffs Barbara Jeffers and Joan Craig, represented by W. Don Eddins and

Theron Stokes;

(b) Defendant Russell County Board of Education, represented by Sydney S.

Smith;

(c) Defendant Charles Nacrelli, represented by Matthew C. Williams.

COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING:

Same as trial counsel.

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE: 

The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the Act of Congress known as Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The

suit also asserts state law claims of outrage, assault and battery, and assault and battery with

vicarious liability. The court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 11
2

U.S.C. §1331, 1343 (a) (4), 2201 & 2202. Plaintiffs filed charges of sex discrimination with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and timely filed the complaint after the

EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice issued right-to-sue notices. At all times material to this

complaint, plaintiffs were (and remain) female employees of the Russell County Board of Education.

The principal of Ladonia Elementary at times relevant to this action, Defendant Nacrelli, is a male.

3. PLEADINGS: 

The following pleadings and amendments were allowed: Complaint filed by plaintiffs and

Answers by both defendants; Motion to Compel discovery by plaintiffs and Response by Defendant

Russell County Board of Education; Defendant Russell County Board of Education and Defendant

Charles Nacrelli have filed motions for summary judgment, to which the plaintiffs have filed a

response; Defendant Russell County Board of Education filed a reply brief on January 25, 2008; the

motions for summary judgment are pending before the court.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

(a) The plaintiffs: Plaintiffs were victims of discrimination based upon their sex

in violation of Title VII. Specifically, they were subjected to pervasive sexual harassment by their

principal and immediate supervisor, Charles Nacrelli. During times relevant to this lawsuit, Jeffers

was a school counselor and Craig a bus driver. Plaintiffs also were victims of state law torts outrage

and assault and battery.

(i) Plaintiff Jeffers: Jeffers contends that Nacrelli repeatedly made

inappropriate remarks to her in the spring of 2005, bragging of his

sexual conquests and of the sexual prowess of Italian men. Jeffers

contends that, among other things, Nacrelli appeared naked in front

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 11
3

of her at a school party in July 2005 and repeatedly squeezed her

buttocks at the party. Jeffers further contends that Nacrelli picked her

up and bit her on the breast at school in September 2005. In the

spring of 2005, prior to the party, Jeffers reported the pervasive

harassment to Assistant Principal Coley. Later, the school party was

held in recognition of the promotion of assistant principal/supervisor

Coley to Principal of Oliver Elementary School. Jeffers reported the

incident of Nacrelli’s appearing naked and squeezing her buttocks to

Principal Coley the very night it happened and to Dewilda “Dillie”

Elliott, a female member of the Russell County Board of Education,

just a few days after the incident. Jeffers called board member Elliott

to request a transfer to a different school so she would not have to

work with Nacrelli but she was forced to return to Ladonia

Elementary under the supervision of Nacrelli. The sexual harassment

continued and, among other things, Nacrelli picked Jeffers up and bit

her on the breast at school one day. The school system conducted an

investigation only after Jeffers reported the sexual harassment

allegations to a third supervisor, Superintendent Rebecca Lee.

Subsequently, after the internal investigation the Russell County

Board of Education voted to terminate Nacrelli’s employment based

upon violation of the school system’s sexual harassment policy and

violation of federal law. Plaintiff Jeffers was a victim of both hostile

environment and tangible action sexual harassment, the tangible

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 11
4

action sexual harassment resulting from an illegal schedule she was

given in the fall of 2005 after she had rebuffed her supervisor’s

advances. In addition to the sexual harassment, Jeffers contends that

Nacrelli’s squeezing her buttocks and biting her breast amounted to

the state law torts of assault and battery, as well as outrage, a tort

recognized under Alabama law for egregious sexual harassment.

(ii) Plaintiff Craig: Craig also was a victim of hostile environment and

tangible action sexual harassment for which the Russell County Board

of Education is liable. Beginning in about 2002, Nacrelli began

propositioning Craig. Once the principal rode with her on her school

bus to view a problem at a bus stop and told her what “nice” legs she

had and how he would like to engage in sexual acts with her. He

repeated the same type conduct not long thereafter. Repeatedly

during the next several years until the Board voted to fire him,

Nacrelli would make obscene gestures, such as squeezing his penis

through his pants, at Craig. He would stroke her hair and tell her how

much he liked her long hair, prompting Craig to cut her hair short.

When she and a nephew came to school on their motorcycles, to eat

lunch with her grand-nephews, Nacrelli followed them outside and

squeezed Craig’s buttocks and told her he wanted to ride the bike

with her and hold onto her breasts. The sexually charged conduct

continued until Nacrelli was forced out of the school system. In

addition to the hostile environment, Craig was the victim of tangible

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 4 of 11
5

action sexual harassment. Craig had accepted extra bus trips for

extracurricular activities to supplement her income. However, despite

the fact that she earned only about $15,000 annually, Craig gave up

the field trips rather than face Nacrelli and his barrage of harassing

statements and gestures. Craig also claims Principal Nacrelli

personally is responsible for the state law torts of assault and battery

and outrage against her. Nacrelli squeezed her buttocks and rubbed

her legs and made obscene gestures toward her. Craig contends that

she reported the sexual harassment to Assistant Superintendent Lillian

Baker in August 2005. She reported the matter subsequently to

Superintendent Lee, but by then Nacrelli had been suspended.

Nacrelli lost his job based upon the sexual misconduct against Jeffers

and Craig.

(iii) As a proximate cause of the defendants’ actions, the plaintiffs have

suffered mental anguish and emotional distress and other damages.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, benefits and

injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses, and all other relief to which the court deems the plaintiffs

are entitled.

(b) The defendants:

(i) Defendant Russell County Board of Education: The Russell

County Board of Education disputes that Nacrelli was Craig’s

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 5 of 11
6

supervisor. The Board contends that the party of July 2005 at the

home of Nacrelli was a social event and not connected with the Board

in any manner. The Board contends that Jeffers first reported her

allegations on September 20, 2005, and that Craig first reported her

allegations on October 25, 2005. The Board contends that once

Jeffers reported to Superintendent Lee on September 20, 2005, that it

took immediate and appropriate action by investigating the allegations

and suspending Nacrelli from his job on September 23, 2005 and then

subsequently voting to terminate his employment. By the time Craig

reported her allegations Nacrelli had been removed as principal of the

school. The Board denies that either Jeffers or Craig have been the

victims of sexual harassment. The Board contends that neither Jeffers

nor Craig worked in a hostile work environment. The Board contends

that neither Jeffers nor Craig has proved a prima facie case. They

have failed to prove that the alleged actions of Nacrelli were

pervasive and severe. They have failed to prove a basis upon which

the Board is vicariously liable for Nacrelli’s actions. The Board

denies all material allegations of Jeffers and Craig. The Board

contends that it has sovereign immunity as to the claims of Jeffers and

Craig of state law assault and battery and is not vicariously liable for

such claims. The Board contends that neither Jeffers nor Craig is

entitled to punitive damages, and that the Board is not vicariously

liable for such claims. The Board contends that it is entitled to the

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 6 of 11
7

affirmative defenses under Faragher and Ellerth. The Board had a

sexual harassment policy prior to the alleged sexual harassment. The

Board’s policy had been distributed to the schools and to the

transportation department. Both Jeffers and Craig were aware of the

policy. The Board exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct

the alleged sexual harassing behavior. Both Jeffers and Craig failed

to promptly take advantage of the Board’s preventive and corrective

opportunities. The Board contends that neither Jeffers nor Craig

suffered a tangible employment action. The Board contends that

Craig did not suffer a constructive discharge. The Board contends

that claims arising more than 180 days before the filing of the EEOC

Charge by Jeffers on December 23, 2005 and by Craig on January 19,

2006, are barred by the statute of limitations under Ledbetter v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The Board contends that some, if not

all, claims of Jeffers and Craig occurred more than 180 days before

the filing of their EEOC Charges. The Board contends that all of the

alleged actions of Nacrelli were done outside the line and scope of his

employment. The Board contends that all of the alleged actions of

Nacrelli were not known by the Board; were not approved by the

Board; and were not condoned by the Board.

(ii) Defendant Charles Nacrelli: Defendant Nacrelli has no recollection

of appearing naked in front of Jeffers at a pool party held at his home

in July 2005. Jeffers claims that Nacrelli “rubbed up” on her behind

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 7 of 11
8

several times that night. Nacrelli has no memory of this incident.

Jeffers admits that she, herself, was flirting with men that night, yet

maintains that Nacrelli’s conduct was unwanted and offensive.

However, she never specifically told him to stop. Therefore, Nacrelli

was never put on notice, by Jeffers, that any of his behavior towards

her was unwanted. This pool party was the first of the “harassing”

incidents reported by Jeffers. The party was in July 2005, yet she did

not report anything about any of this “harassment” until two months

later on September 20, 2005. Jeffers alleges Nacrelli grabbed her

back and the back of her legs and swept her up into his arms, in a

cradle position, as if he was carrying her across a threshold. Nacrelli

states that he accidentally nipped the cloth of Jeffers’s shirt in the

process of picking her up. Jeffers concedes that his teeth only

touched her shirt. Her breasts were not touched with his mouth or

teeth, only her shirt was touched. Again, Jeffers never told Defendant

Nacrelli that his behavior was “offensive” to her, and Nacrelli

certainly never acted in a purposefully offending manner. None of

these alleged incidents of “harassment” are sufficient to satisfy the

requirements of a state cause of action for assault and battery, and the

tort of outrage. 

Nacrelli specifically denies all of Craig’s allegations of all

incidents alleged sexual harassment. Nacrelli denies ever telling Craig

that she had “nice legs” and all other sexually-charged innuendo that

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 8 of 11
9

Craig alleges. Nacrelli also denies ever touching Craig in any hostile,

sexual, or offensive manner. Nacrelli specifically denies ever “patting

(or squeezing) her on the behind,” as Craig alleges happened when

she was wearing a “dew rag” at school. None of these alleged

incidents of “harassment” are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of

a state cause of action for assault and battery, and the tort of outrage.

Nacrelli contends that his alleged acts of sexual harassment did not

cause mental anguish, emotional distress, or other damages to the

plaintiffs, and demands strict proof thereof. 

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES: 

(a) Plaintiffs are both female employees of the Russell County Board of

Education and were employed by the Russell County Board of Education

during the entire time Charles Nacrelli was principal at Ladonia Elementary

School. During that time, plaintiff Jeffers was a school counselor and Craig

a bus driver at Ladonia. 

(b) On November 15, 2005, the Russell County Board of Education voted to

terminate the employment of Charles Nacrelli due to his violation of the

Russell County Board of Education's policies and violation of federal laws.

(c) Charles Nacrelli was employed as a principal by the Russell County Board of

Education from 1999 until he resigned in 2006 rather than contest the Russell

County Board of Education’s decision to terminate his employment.

(d) During the 2004-05 school year, Brenda Coley was an assistant principal with

the Russell County Board of Education until on or about June 1, 2005, when

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 9 of 11
10

she was promoted to principal of Oliver Elementary, another school operated

by the Russell County Board of Education.

(e) At all times in calendar year 2005, Dewilda “Dillie” Elliott was an elected

member of the Russell County Board of Education.

(f) Plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination alleging violation of Title VII of the

1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, with the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and filed the complaint, on August 3,

2006, within 90 days of a notice of right to sue having been issued by the

EEOC. 

(g) All incidents of alleged abuse or misconduct occurred in Russell and Lee

counties in the State of Alabama.

(h) The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division,

has subject matter jurisdiction over all issues associated with the complaint.

It is ORDERED that:

1. The jury selection and trial of this case, which is to last 2-4 days, is set for March 10,

2008, at 10:00 a.m., in the G.W. Andrews Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 701

Avenue A, Opelika, Alabama. 

2. The parties shall file any requested voir dire questions, motions in limine fully briefed,

and any proposed jury instructions and verdict forms with legal citations thereon, on or before

February 29, 2008.

3. The parties shall file trial briefs, if any, on or before March 3, 2008. 

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 10 of 11
11

4. Each party shall submit at the time of trial, for use by the court, three copies of the

witness list, exhibit list, and notebook of pre-marked exhibits.

5. Each party shall submit a sufficient number of copies of exhibits for each of the jurors

and opposing counsel.

6. The parties shall review and comply with the Middle District of Alabama’s Order on

the E-Government Act.

7. The parties shall engage in good faith mediation and shall notify the court on or

before February 29, 2008, as to the status of the mediation.

8. All deadlines not otherwise affected by this order will remain as set forth in the

Amended Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. # 18) entered by the court on June 21, 2007.

9. The parties have indicated that there are no other disputes at this time. All

understandings, agreements, deadlines, and stipulations contained in this Order shall be binding on

all parties unless modified by the court.

DONE this 6th day of February, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 11 of 11