IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANGELA PRICE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 

3:06-cv-742-MEF 

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION’S BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. Plaintiff Angela Price accuses a co-worker Jerrell Cottle at Handley 

Middle School of sexual harassment. (Ex. 1 Amended Complaint.) 

2. Price never reported her complaint to a supervisor prior to filing an 

EEOC complaint: not to her principal; not to her female assistant principal; not to 

the superintendent. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 28, 62-63; Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 13; Ex. 4, 

Foster Depo. 6-7; Ex. 5, Benefield Depo. 6.) 

3. Price represented in her complaint to the EEOC that she had reported 

her problem with Cottle to the assistant principal. Price admitted this was not true. 

 Q. You never went to the assistant principal with a direct 

complaint, did you? 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 37
2

 A. No. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 107.) 

4. Price knew to report sexual harassment to her supervisor. (Ex. 2, 

Price Depo. 51, 120, 52-53.) 

5. Price attended a sexual harassment seminar given by the District on 

February 16, 1998. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 23-25, 49.) 

6. After the seminar she reported a problem to her supervisor in 

accordance with the policy. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 30, 51.) 

7. Price admitted knowing to go to her supervisor concerning the prior 

incident. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 52-53.) 

8. As soon as Price reported the prior incident to her supervisor, it 

stopped. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 51.) 

9. As soon as Price’s complaint against Cottle came to the attention of 

her supervisors, it stopped. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 62, 108.) 

10. Q. You indicate that you complained to the assistant principal. 

Who was the assistant principal that you complained to? 

A. That was Robbie Benefield. That was the comments being 

made in front of the office. I assumed she heard. 

Q. All right. Here you're telling the EEO that you went to the 

assistant principal and complained, that wouldn't be true, would it? 

A. Not a direct complaint. 

Q. You never went to the assistant principal with a direct 

complaint, did you? 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 37
3

A. No. 

Q. She may have been in the vicinity when you were talking 

with other people, but that's the closest you came to sharing with the 

assistant principal your concern about Cottle; would that be right? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And you say, but nothing has been done. Did you expect 

or ever ask the teachers to do something about Cottle? 

A. Not them personally, no. 

Q. Did you ever ask the school secretary to do something 

about Cottle? 

A. Not a direct -- no. 

Q. Did you ever ask the counselor in '03 to do something 

about Cottle? 

A. No. 

Q. Did you ever ask the assistant principal to do something 

about Cottle? 

A. No. 

Q. So you never asked them to do anything about Cottle? 

A. No. 

Q. But as soon as this was brought to the attention of the 

superintendent, principal, and assistant principal, they did something 

about it? 

A. Yes. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 106-108.) 

11. Rosemarie Marshall, school secretary and bookkeeper, talked with 

Price almost daily. (Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 7.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 37
4

12. Price mentioned to Marshall that Cottle had asked her to go to Florida. 

(Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 7.) 

13. Price did not seem upset when she mentioned this to Marshall. (Ex. 6, 

Marshall Depo. 8.) 

14. Marshall thought nothing of this information because Cottle had made 

the same comment to Marshall in a joking manner. (Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 8.) 

15. Q. Okay. And what did you say, did you say anything to 

Price when she made the comment about him asking her to go to 

Florida? 

A No, I did not. 

Q And did you believe that he had asked her to go to 

Florida? 

A There was a possibility because he's a very friendly guy 

like that and he had also said something to me to that effect one time, 

I knew it was a family vacation, we had talked about it when he was 

picking up his check, and so when I went outside that afternoon, I 

said, "I'm so jealous because you're going to Florida." 

 He said, "Well, just hop in and let's go," but it was a 

family vacation. I took, you know, I didn't think anything about it. 

(Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 8.) 

16. Marshall does not believe Cottle was sexually harassing Price. (Ex. 6, 

Marshall Depo. 9.) 

17. A. She never made any remarks, you know, that was, that would 

make me think she was upset and she was smiling about it when she would tell us. 

(Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 20.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 37
5

18. Both Price and Cottle are part-time crossing guards at Handley Middle 

School in the Roanoke School System. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 12.) 

19. Cottle is a 68-year old retired CSX Railroad manager, who supervised 

some one hundred CSX dispatchers. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1.) 

20. Cottle has never been accused of employee misconduct or sexual 

harassment in his entire career. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1.) 

21. The EEOC complaint was filed in September of 2005. (Ex. 8, EEOC 

Charge of Discrimination.) 

22. Cottle had knee surgery in January of 2005; and again in June of 

2007. Cottle uses a walker. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 2; Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 25.) 

23. Roanoke has a no tolerance sexual harassment policy. (Ex. 10, Sexual 

Harassment Policy.) 

24. The policy appears in the District’s policy manual and in the Student 

Handbook. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 66, 76.) 

25. The District conducts classes at the beginning of each school year on 

sexual harassment. Employees are told to report harassment to their supervisor. 

(Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 12; Ex. 5, Benefield Depo. 8; Ex. 4, Foster Depo. 10.) 

26. Greg Foster was the principal of Handley Middle School during the 

2004-2005 school year. ((Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 1; Ex. 4, Foster Depo. Ex. 1.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 37
6

27. Robbie Benefield was the assistant principal of Handley Middle 

School during the 2004-2005 school year. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 16; Ex. 5, Benefield 

Depo. Ex. 1.) 

28. Chuck Marcum was the superintendent of the Roanoke City School 

System during the 2004-2005 school year. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 17; Ex. 3, Marcum 

Depo. Ex. 1.) 

Allegations of Sexual Harassment

29. Price alleged in her EEOC complaint that she suffered sexual 

harassment by Cottle during the 2003-2004 school year. According to Price the 

harassment persisted throughout the 2004-2005 school year and ultimately through 

October 2005. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 108-109, 110-111.) 

30. Price would on occasion approach Cottle at his crossing guard post in 

the mornings but ceased doing so as of December 2004. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 55-

56.) 

31. Price recorded the dates of Cottle’s alleged sexual harassment in a 

pocket calendar she kept in her purse. After six months of logging incidents of 

harassment in this calendar, Price transferred the dates to a document stored on her 

computer and threw away the calendar. The first computer entry dates back to the 

fall of 2002/Winter of 2003. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 20-22.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 6 of 37
7

32. Price characterized Cottle’s inappropriate interactions with her during 

the 2002-2003 school year as sporadic and admitted she did not feel threatened or 

upset by them. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 26-27.) 

33. Price became worried about Cottle’s behavior in the fall of 2003. (Ex. 

2, Price Depo. 27.) 

34. In the fall of 2003, Cottle asked Price to accompany him to Florida 

where he planned to travel for a doctor’s appointment. Price thought it was a joke. 

She told Rosemarie Marshall, the school secretary, about Cottle’s invitation. (Ex. 

2, Price Depo. 95-96.) 

35. In December 2003, Cottle told Price that she was pretty and asked to 

see her green eyes. Again, Price shared these conversations with Marshall. (Ex. 2, 

Price Depo. 98-99.) 

36. Other than the above remarks, Price does not recall any other 

incidents during the 2003-2004 school year that would constitute sexual 

harassment. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 108-110.) 

37. Price believes Cottle made the following remarks between August 

2005 and October 2005: 

• Cottle told her she “looks good enough to eat this morning.” 

Price was shocked by this comment. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 71.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 7 of 37
8

• Cottle told her she looked good and asked her to remove her 

glasses in order to see her pretty green eyes. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 71, 

73.) 

• Cottle proposed that he and Price take a trip together or “go 

driving.” He suggested they tell people they had a school board 

meeting and instead go to LaGrange. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 71-72.) 

• Cottle indicated that he would like to kiss Price on her cheek, 

on her shoulder and on the back of her hand. During this incident, 

Price said Cottle touched her on the cheek, shoulder and hand. Price 

rebuffed his advances and told him to stop. Cottle explained that in 

France they kiss on the hands, and Price told him that he was not 

going to kiss her anywhere. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 72-73, 102-103.) 

• Cottle told Price that he wished he had found her before her 

husband. Price said it would have done him no good. (Ex. 2, Price 

Depo. 73.) 

38. Price recalled other incidents that occurred during the 2004-2005 

school year and the Fall of 2005 that were not documented. Those incidents 

include: 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 8 of 37
9

• During the winter months, Cottle would touch Price with his 

hands to indicate the cold. Price would tell him to stop and push his 

hand away. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 114.) 

• Cottle commented on her Auburn shirt and offered to buy her 

an Alabama shirt. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 112.) 

• Cottle said she had pretty legs. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 113.) 

39. Price said the last inappropriate incident involving Cottle occurred in 

October 2005, and since that date, Cottle has done nothing to offend her. (Ex. 2, 

Price Depo. 59, 64.) 

40. Price filed her Equal Employment Opportunity complaint (hereinafter 

“EEO complaint”) on September 23, 2005. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 59.) 

41. In early October 2005, Price met with Marcum, Foster and Benefield 

to discuss the EEO complaint, and at that meeting, they indicated that they had no 

knowledge of the sexual harassment prior to receiving the complaint. (Ex. 2, Price 

Depo. 62-63.) 

42. Following this meeting, Cottle ceased to engage in inappropriate 

conduct or make offensive comments. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 64, 123-124.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 9 of 37
10

Prior Sexual Harassment Experience

43. The Roanoke City School Board has a written policy on sexual 

harassment that outlines the procedures an employee must follow in order to report 

such misconduct. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 76.) 

44. Prior to accepting the crossing guard position, Price worked full-time 

as a custodian from 1996 though 2002. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 13-14.) 

45. In February of 1998, the Roanoke City School system sponsored a 

sexual harassment and special education question and answer workshop led by 

attorney Donald B. Sweeney, Jr. This seminar was intended to supplement and 

clarify the Board’s policy on sexual harassment. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 23) 

46. Price does not recall attending the sexual harassment workshop 

sponsored by the school system in February of 1998. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 24-25.) 

47. Price nevertheless identified her signature on a document verifying 

that she had attended the sexual harassment and special education workshop 

sponsored by the Roanoke City School System on February 16, 1998. (Ex. 2, Price 

Depo. 130-131.) 

48. In approximately 1998 or 1999, Price experienced problems with a 

fellow custodian, Elton Overton. When in her presence, Overton allegedly made 

inappropriate and offensive sounds. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 50-52.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 10 of 37
11

49. Price complained to Marshall, the school secretary, but the 

misconduct continued. Price then notified the maintenance supervisor, Jamie 

Taylor, who spoke with Overton, and the misconduct stopped. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 

50-52.) 

Failure to Report the Sexual Harassment

50. Although she saw him on a daily basis, Price never complained to the 

school principal, Foster, about the alleged sexual harassment prior to filing her 

EEO complaint. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 28, 32.) 

51. Price admitted that she had a friendly relationship with Marcum, the 

current school superintendent and former principal at the school. However, Price 

never complained to him about the alleged harassment during his tenure as 

principal or as superintendent. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 41-42.) 

52. Robbie Benefield is the female assistant principal Although she saw 

her on a regular basis and felt comfortable speaking with her about the incidents 

involving Cottle, Price never directly lodged a complaint with the assistant 

principal, Benefield, prior to filing her EEO complaint. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 28, 33, 

107.) 

53. In her EEO complaint, Price indicated that she notified Benefield of 

the sexual harassment. However, Price based this statement on the assumption that 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 11 of 37
12

the assistant principal overheard complaints Price made to other office workers. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 106-107.) 

54. Price said it was safe to assume that neither the principal nor the 

assistant principal knew of her problems with Cottle. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 29.) 

55. Price did speak with Rosemarie Marshall, the school secretary, about 

her worrisome interactions with Cottle but never asked Marshall to tell the 

principal nor did Marshall suggest she notify the principal. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 30-

31.) 

56. Price also told Sherry Yarbrough, the school receptionist, about 

certain comments made by Cottle. However, Price never sought advice or 

guidance from Yarbrough about how she should handle the situation or with whom 

she should speak regarding these matters. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 42-44.) 

57. Price admitted that her past experience with sexual harassment 

indicated that complaints to the school secretary failed to remedy situation. 

However, her complaints to a person in a supervisory capacity did effectively stop 

the harassment. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 52.) 

58. In her EEO complaint, Price indicated that she had complained to 

teachers about Cottle’s conduct. However, Price did not specifically describe her 

concerns nor did she say that they upset her. She merely told them that she was 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 12 of 37
13

going to wait inside the building for Cottle to leave because she felt uncomfortable 

around him. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 104.) 

59. Although she felt comfortable speaking with Hunter about her 

problem with Cottle, Price did not ask her for advice or guidance as to how to 

remedy the situation. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 36-37.) 

60. Price believes Clarke, a fifth grade teacher, observed her in the school 

office avoiding Cottle, but again although she felt comfortable speaking with her, 

Price did not directly voice her concerns to Clarke. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 37-39.) 

61. Price cannot identify her direct supervisor for the crossing guard 

position. She typically notified Marshall, the school secretary, or Benefield, the 

assistant principal, when she had a work conflict. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 15.) 

62. Price asserted that she suffered emotional distress and mental anguish 

as a result of the sexual harassment. However, Price did not seek treatment from a 

counselor, psychologist or psychiatrist nor did she share her distress with any 

treating physician. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 121-122.) 

Rosemarie Marshall

Secretary/Bookkeeper

63. Marshall talked with Prior daily. (Ex. 12, Marshall Aff. 1; Ex. 6, 

Marshall Depo. 7.) 

64. Price never asked Marshall for a copy of the policy manual and never 

asked about the sexual harassment policy. (Ex. 12, Marshall Aff. 1.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 13 of 37
14

65. The policy manual was in Principal Foster’s office and in the library. 

(Ex. 12, Marshall Aff. 1; Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 7.) 

66. Price never asked Marshall how to report a problem with Cottle. (Ex. 

12, Marshall Aff. 2; Ex. 6.) 

67. Marshall does not believe the allegations. She has never heard Cottle 

say anything inappropriate. (Ex. 12, Marshall Aff. 2; Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 9.) 

68. Marshall believes Price is fabricating the allegations for money. (Ex. 

6, Marshall Depo. 20.) 

69. Price never complained as if she was being sexually harassed and 

would smile when she talked about Cottle flirting with her. (Ex. 6, Marshall Depo. 

15.) 

Greg Foster, Principal

70. Price never complained to Foster about Cottle or about being sexually 

harassed. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 1; Ex. 4, Foster Depo. 7.) 

71. Price never asked to see a copy of the Board policy manual. (Ex. 11, 

Foster Aff. 1-2.) 

72. Foster kept two or three copies of the policy manual in his office. 

There were copies available if Price had asked. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 3; Ex. 4, 

Foster Depo. 11.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 14 of 37
15

73. Foster maintains an open door policy for employees to share any 

problem or complaint with him. (Ex. 4, Foster Depo. 8; Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 2.) 

74. Foster tells all employees at the start of each school year about the 

sexual harassment policy. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 2; Ex. 4, Foster Depo. 10.) 

75. Foster does not tolerate sexual harassment and as soon as Price’s 

complaint came to his attention he addressed the problem immediately. (Ex. 11, 

Foster Aff. 3.) 

76. No one else has ever complained about Cottle. He is very friendly and 

well liked. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 3-4.) 

77. Cottle is married and devoted to his wife. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 4.) 

78. Price never complained to Foster or to his female assistant principal 

prior to filing her EEOC complaint. (Ex. 11, Foster Aff. 4.) 

79. Price never complained to Benefield about Cottle doing anything 

inappropriate. (Ex. 5, Benefield Depo. 7.) 

80. The first time Benefield learned of a problem was when they received 

the EEOC complaint. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 1; Ex. 5, Benefield Depo. 6.) 

81. Benefield has an open friendly relationship with Price. (Ex. 13, 

Benefield Aff. 1.) 

82. At no time prior to the filing of the complaint did Price complain 

about Cottle. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 15 of 37
16

83. Price came to the school office regularly (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

84. Price would call Benefield as her supervisor when she is sick or needs 

to miss work. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

85. Benefield can think of no reason why Price did not come to her about 

the policy manual or any complaint about Cottle. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 3.) 

86. As a female administrator, Benefield takes the sexual harassment 

policy very seriously. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

87. If Price had complained, Benefield would have investigated 

immediately as they did after receiving the EEOC complaint. (Ex. 13, Benefield 

Aff. 2.) 

88. Price never Benefield asked to see the policy manual or ask how to 

report a sexual harassment complaint. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

89. As soon as they received the EEOC complaint, Benefield, Foster and 

Marcum met with Price. They each told her they had no prior knowledge of a 

problem or complaint. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 2.) 

90. Benefield had no knowledge of a problem and no reason to suspect a 

problem. Benefield had never heard any other complaint about Cottle. (Ex. 13, 

Benefield Aff. 3.) 

91. Cottle has never said anything inappropriate to Benefield or to any 

other female employee to her knowledge. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 4.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 16 of 37
17

92. The problem stopped as soon as it was brought to the attention of the 

school supervisor. (Ex. 13, Benefield Aff. 4-5.) 

Chuck Marcum, Superintendent

93. The first knowledge Marcum had of Price’s complaint about Cottle 

was when he received the EEOC complaint. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 12-13; Ex. 14, 

Marcum Aff. 2.) 

94. Price gave no supervisor any notice that she was being sexually 

harassed. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 13; Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 2.) 

95. Marcum immediately set up interviews with Price, Cottle and other 

employees at the school. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 15; Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 2.) 

96. Marcum made notes of all interviews. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 15, Ex. 

3 and 4.) 

97. Marcum was unable to substantiate Price’s claim. (Ex. 14, Marcum 

Aff. 5; Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 48.) 

98. Marcum advised Cottle not to have anything to do with Price. If he 

did, it would be insubordination. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 58.) 

99. Marcum believes the action that they took was appropriate and 

addressed the problem effectively; and Price has had no further complaint. (Ex. 3, 

Marcum Depo. 58, 92.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 17 of 37
18

100. Roanoke has a sexual harassment policy and conducts mandatory 

seminars for all employees. (Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 3.) 

101. Price attended the sexual harassment seminar in 1998. (Ex. 3, Marcum 

Depo. 94.) 

102. At the seminar in 1998, employees were told how to report a sexual 

harassment complaint. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 94.) 

103. Price knew to report a complaint to her supervisor and did so in 1998 

or 1999. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 84; Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 3, 4.) 

104. Price has given no explanation why she did not mention her complaint 

to her female supervisor assistant principal Robbie Benefield. (Ex. 3, Marcum 

Depo. 18; Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 5.) 

105. Price wants money damages from the school district but she never 

gave the District a fair chance to address the problem. (Ex. 14, Marcum Aff. 6.) 

Jerrell Cottle, Crossing Guard

106. Cottle has received training at the first of every school year on sexual 

harassment. (Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 12.) 

107. Complaints of harassment should be reported to Principal Foster or 

Superintendent Marcum. (Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 12.) 

108. Cottle retired after a 30-year career with CSX Railroad. The last 15 

years he was in management. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 18 of 37
19

109. If anything he has said to Price was offensive, he apologizes. He did 

not mean to. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 2.) 

110. Cottle said that his comment to Price about going to Florida was said 

in a joking manner as he said it to other people. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1-2.) 

111. After meeting with Superintendent and Principal Foster about the 

allegations, he has never talked to Price again. (Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 1_??) 

112. Cottle is 68, married, and uses a walker after having knee surgery. 

(Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1-2; Ex. 9, Cottle Depo. 25.) 

113. Cottle is saddened by the complaint and denies that he has sexually 

harassed Price. (Ex. 7, Cottle Aff. 1-2.) 

Chris Martin, Secretary to Superintendent

114. Martin is the secretary to the Superintendent. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 1.) 

115. Price asked Martin for a copy of the Roanoke School District Policy 

Manual during the summer of 2005. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 1.) 

116. Martin explained that the central office copy was not intact because 

they were revising the policy manual. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 1.) 

117. Martin advised Price to go to her school where they had several 

copies. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 1.) 

118. Martin invited Price to come back if she had any problem. (Ex. 15, 

Martin Aff. 1.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 19 of 37
20

119. Price never called or came back. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 1.) 

120. Price did not ask for the sexual harassment policy; she wanted the 

entire manual. (Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 2.) 

121. Price never mentioned why she wanted the policy. (Ex. 15, Martin 

Aff. 2.) 

122. Price never mentioned any problem that she was having with Cottle. 

(Ex. 15, Martin Aff. 2.) 

123. All District employees attend seminars about sexual harassment. (Ex. 

15, Martin Aff. 2.) 

Angela Price, Plaintiff

124. Price admits she never complained to her principal even though she is 

on friendly terms with him. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 26, 28.) 

125. Price admitted she never complained to her female assistant principal. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 28.) 

126. When a prior complaint occurred in 1998 or 1999 she reported it to 

her supervisor and it was handled. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 30, 50, 51.) 

127. At that time Price knew to report problems to her supervisor. (Ex. 2, 

Price Depo. 52-53.) 

128. Price was comfortable talking with her female assistant principal. (Ex. 

2, Price Depo. 33.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 20 of 37
21

129. Price never asked the school secretary for advice or to whom she 

should complain. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 41.) 

130. Price never asked the school receptionist about what to do. (Ex. 2, 

Price Depo. 43.) 

131. Price wants money damages from the school. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 60). 

132. Superintendent Marcum met with her, along with Principal Foster and 

Assistant Principal Benefield after she filed the EEOC complaint. (Ex. 2, Price 

Depo. 62.) 

133. Superintendent Marcum, Principal Foster, Assistant Principal 

Benefield told her they knew nothing about the complaint until they received the 

EEOC complaint. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 63.) 

134. After meeting with Superintendent Marcum, Cottle has done nothing 

to bother her since. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 64.) 

135. Cottle asked her to go to Florida in 2003 when he was going for a 

doctor’s visit. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 95.) 

136. The EEOC complaint was filed two years later in September 2005. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 28.) 

137. Price thought it was a joke. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 96.) 

138. Price never specifically asked for a copy of the District’s sexual 

harassment policy. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 119.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 21 of 37
22

139. The harassment stopped after she met with Superintendent Marcum. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 124.) 

140. Price never complained to any Board member of the Roanoke Board 

of Education. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 124.) 

141. Price has not seen a psychiatrist or psychologist because of her 

problem with Cottle. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 114.) 

142. The only medical problem Price has had since 2003 was a back 

problem from a herniated disc. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 115.) 

143. Price represented to the EEOC she had complained to her assistant 

principal Benefield. Price admitted this was not true. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 106-

107.) 

Q. Did you ever ask the assistant principal to do something 

about Cottle? 

A. No. 

Q. So you never asked them to do anything about Cottle? 

A. No. 

Q. But as soon as this was brought to the attention of the 

superintendent, principal, and assistant principal, they did something 

about it? 

A. Yes. 

(Ex. 2, Price Depo. 107-108.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 22 of 37
23

Kristine Clarke

Fifth Grade Teacher

144. Clarke never heard Cottle say anything inappropriate. (Ex. 16, Clarke 

Depo. 9.) 

145. Clarke never heard anyone complain about Cottle. (Ex. 16, Clarke 

Depo. 9.)

146. Clarke never heard Price say she wanted to get away from Cottle. 

(Ex. 16, Clarke Depo. 14.)

147. The Board has a sexual harassment policy. (Ex. 16, Clarke Depo. 10.)

148. If you are harassed you report it to your supervisor. (Ex. 16, Clarke 

Depo. 10.)

149. The Board has sexual harassment seminars where you are told to 

report problems to your supervisor. (Ex. 16, Clarke Depo. 10.)

150. Policy manuals are kept in Principal Foster’s office. (Ex. 16, Clarke 

Depo. 10.)

151. Clarke saw Price talking to Cottle many times. (Ex. 16, Clarke Depo. 

13.)

Theresa Hunter

Teacher

152. Price never complained that Cottle had made any inappropriate 

remarks. (Ex. 17, Hunter Depo. 7, 10, 17.)

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 23 of 37
24

153. Roanoke’s sexual harassment policy tells you to report to your 

supervisor. (Ex. 17, Hunter Depo. 24.)

Delia Harmon

Teacher

154. Price never complained about Cottle or said that Cottle had done 

anything inappropriate. (Ex. 18, Harmon Depo. 7.)

155. If Harmon had any sexual harassment problem, she would have 

reported it to her supervisor, Ms. Benefield. (Ex. 18, Harmon Depo. 9.)

Marilyn Pollard

Special Ed Aide

156. Price mentioned to her that Cottle asked her to drive him to Florida 

because of a health issue. (Ex. 19, Pollard Depo. 7.)

157. Pollard observed Price talking to Cottle either at her car or his truck. 

(Ex. 19, Pollard Depo. 10.)

158. Pollard is familiar with the Board’s sexual harassment policy. If she 

had a problem, she would report it to her teacher, then the assistant principal, then 

the principal, then to Donna Hodges, then to the Superintendent. (Ex. 19, Pollard 

Depo. 12.)

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 24 of 37
25

Sherry Yarbrough

Front Officer Secretary

Handley Middle School

159. Price mentioned that Cottle had asked her to go to Florida. She did not 

seem upset or concerned. Just reporting information. (Ex. 20, Yarbrough Depo. 8-

10.)

160. Price never complained that Cottle said anything offensive. (Ex. 20, 

Yarbrough Depo. 10.)

161. Yarbrough would see Price walk over to Cottle’s truck to talk almost 

every day. This seemed contradictory. (Ex. 20, Yarbrough Depo. 12, 13.)

162. The policy manuals are kept both in Principal Foster’s office and in 

the library. (Ex. 20, Yarbrough Depo. 10.)

163. If you are harassed, you report it to your supervisor. (Ex. 20, 

Yarbrough Depo. 14.)

164. No one else has ever said that Cottle made inappropriate comments. 

(Ex. 20, Yarbrough Depo. 14)

ARGUMENT

Summary judgment not only is proper, but “shall be rendered forthwith if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together 

with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 25 of 37
26

Civ. P. 56(c). The movant bears the initial burden of showing the court, by 

reference to materials on file, that no genuine issues of material fact exist to be 

decided at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Clark v. Coats & 

Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604 (11th Cir. 1991). The moving party discharges this 

burden by “showing” or “pointing out” to the court that there is an absence of 

evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, 

Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593 (11th Cir. 1995). If the moving party has discharged its 

burden, the non-movant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts 

showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

In deciding whether the moving party has met its burden, the court is 

obligated to draw all inferences from the evidence presented in the light most 

favorable to the non-movant and, also, to resolve all reasonable doubts in that 

party’s favor. Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256, 257 (11th Cir. 1989). 

However, inferences in favor of the non-movant are not unqualified. “Mere 

general allegations which do not reveal detailed and precise facts will not prevent 

the award of summary judgment.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 

F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Moreover, evidence that is 

merely colorable, see Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1537 (11th Cir. 

1988), conclusory, see Peppers v. Coates, 887 F.2d 1493, 1498 (11th Cir. 1989), or 

conjectural, does not create a genuine issue of material fact. 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 26 of 37
27

The Defendant respectfully submits that the Board of Education is entitled to 

summary judgment for the following reasons: 

A. The Plaintiff failed to show that the alleged misconduct was 

sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; and 

B. The Plaintiff cannot establish a basis for employer liability. 

A. Roanoke is due summary judgment as to Price’s claims of 

sexually hostile environment because Price cannot establish that Cottle’s 

alleged conduct was severe or pervasive. 

In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986), the Supreme 

Court recognized that the Title VII prohibition against sexual harassment in the 

workplace includes both conduct that has a tangible, adverse effect on the terms or 

conditions of employment and conduct that creates a hostile or threatening work 

environment. To prove a prima facie case of hostile work environment, Plaintiff 

must establish that (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was subjected to 

unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her sex; (4) the 

harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect a term, condition, or 

privilege of employment; and (5) a basis for holding Roanoke liable. Mendoza v. 

Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim fails because she cannot establish 

that Cottle’s alleged conduct rises to the severe or pervasive level necessary to 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 27 of 37
28

affect a term, condition or privilege of her employment. To satisfy this element of 

the prima facie case, she must prove that “the work place [was] permeated with 

discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insults that [was] sufficiently severe or 

pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive 

working environment. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S. Ct. 

367 (1993). 

In order to determine whether allegations of sexual harassment are 

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment, a 

court must decide that the resultant work environment is “both objectively and 

subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, 

and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Faragher v. City of Boca 

Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998). To perform this objective analysis, the Supreme 

Court instructed lower courts to examine the totality of the circumstances, 

including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity; whether it is 

physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it 

unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id. at 787-88. 

The Court cautioned that Title VII should not be used as “general civility code” 

and emphasized that misconduct “must be extreme to amount to a change in the 

terms and conditions of employment, . . . .” Id. at 788. 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 28 of 37
29

Assuming that Plaintiff subjectively viewed the conduct as offensive, she 

cannot show that that the conduct was objectively severe and pervasive. Plaintiff 

claims that the sexual harassment began in the Fall of 2003, persisted throughout 

the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years and ended in October 2005. Plaintiff 

alleges that during this time period, Cottle frequently complimented her general 

appearance and at times remarked specifically upon her “pretty” eyes or “pretty” 

legs. Cottle also on more than one occasion asked the Plaintiff to accompany him 

on trips or invited her out. Plaintiff alleged that Cottle at one point told her he 

wished he had found her before her husband. In an isolated incident, Cottle 

touched the Plaintiff when indicating he would like to kiss her on the shoulder, 

cheek and hand. Another isolated incident involved Cottle telling the Plaintiff that 

she looked good enough to eat. 

Typically, before a court even reaches the severe and pervasive 

determination, it must find that “the statements and conduct [are] of a sexual or 

gender related nature – ‘sexual advances, request for sexual favors, [or] conduct of 

a sexual nature.’” Gupta v. Florida Board of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 583 (11th Cir. 

2000). (Citations omitted.) Cottle never sought sexual favors nor made explicit 

sexual remarks toward the Plaintiff. Even construing the above-referenced isolated 

incidents as sexual in nature, the Supreme Court has nevertheless observed “the 

ordinary tribulations of the work place, such as sporadic use of abusive language 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 29 of 37
30

 . . . and occasional teasing” or infrequent or “isolated incidents (unless extremely 

serious)” are not enough to constitute a Title VII violation. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 

788. 

Although tactless, bothersome and inappropriate in a work environment, the 

behavior engaged in by Cottle is true as alleged nevertheless falls short of the 

severe and pervasive standard contemplated under Title VII. The Plaintiff never 

alleged that Cottle’s conduct interfered with her ability to perform her crossing 

guard duties nor did she indicate that she felt physically threatened or humiliated 

by his behavior. In fact up until December 2004, the Plaintiff voluntarily 

interacted with Cottle by walking over to his crossing guard post to speak with 

him. Other than two somewhat egregious incidents over an approximately twoyear period, the alleged sexual harassment consisted predominantly of Cottle 

commenting on the Plaintiff’s appearance and occasionally asking her out. 

Although she consistently discouraged his advances, the Plaintiff never explicitly 

told Cottle to stop speaking to her and only on one occasion did she ask him to 

refrain from making such comments. In short, the conduct alleged by Plaintiff 

simply does not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness to create an 

objectively abusive work environment. 

Moreover, courts have entered summary judgment in favor of the employer 

in cases involving conduct sufficiently more egregious than that Plaintiff has 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 30 of 37
31

alleged. See, e.g., Gupta, 212 F.3d at 578-79 (finding no harassment in a case in 

which plaintiff alleged that over a six-month period, her superior repeatedly called 

her at home several times a week asking personal questions; stared at her legs; 

touched the inside of her thigh; unbuckled his pants and pulled down his zipper to 

tuck in his shirt in front of her; lifted the hem of her dress; and suggested that he 

should spend the night with her); Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1247 

(11th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment 

in a case which plaintiff claimed the alleged harasser rubbed his hip against her 

hip, repeatedly made sniffing noises while looking at her groin, and constantly 

followed and stared at her). 

Because Plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie case on the element of severe 

and pervasive sexual harassment, Roanoke City Board of Education’s motion for 

summary judgment is due to be granted. 

B. Roanoke is not liable for Price’s alleged sexual harassment 

because Price failed to provide Roanoke with adequate notice.

Assuming that Plaintiff satisfies the prima facie severe and pervasive 

requirements, Plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment still fails because she cannot 

establish that Roanoke is liable for Cottle’s alleged conduct. In order to hold an 

employer legally responsible for sexual harassment inflicted by a co-worker, an 

employee must prove that the employer “knew or should have known of the 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 31 of 37
32

harassing conduct but failed to take prompt remedial action.” Baldwin v. Blue 

Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 480 F.3d 1287, 1302 (11th Cir. 2007). 

In the instant case, the Plaintiff made essentially no efforts to notify the 

school of the sexual harassment that allegedly persisted for a two-year period. 

Although she encountered both the principal and vice principal at school on a 

regular basis, the Plaintiff never directly complained to either administrator about 

Cottle’s behavior. Plaintiff further admitted that neither the principal nor the vice 

principal had reason to know of the harassment. The Plaintiff shared her concerns 

about Cottle’s conduct only in the most casual manner, if at all, with the school 

secretary, school receptionist, a guidance counselor and various teachers. 

However, Plaintiff typically complained only of isolated incidents or told these 

individuals in passing that she felt uncomfortable around Cottle and that she tried 

to avoid him. The informal context and tone of the Plaintiff’s complaints would 

hardly raise an inference of pervasive sexual harassment nor would it compel these 

individuals to take action or recount the Plaintiff’s concerns to a superior. The 

Plaintiff never approached a supervisor, superior or fellow employee with the 

specific purpose to report the alleged harassment and to seek advice as to how to 

address the situation. 

Plaintiff maintains that she consistently informed the school secretary, 

Rosemarie Marshall, about particular incidents of harassment though Marshall 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 32 of 37
33

never offered feedback nor suggested a course of action. Plaintiff also relied on 

Marshall as a confidant when she previously suffered workplace harassment in her 

janitorial position. Despite her complaints to Marshall, the harassment continued, 

but when the Plaintiff complained to the maintenance supervisor, the harassment 

promptly stopped. Given her past experience, Plaintiff should have known that 

complaints to a superior or supervisor effectively corrected a hostile or 

uncomfortable work environment whereas complaints to the school secretary 

proved futile. 

As demonstrated above, the Plaintiff failed to put the Roanoke City School 

System on notice of the harassing behavior, and thus, the school system never 

enjoyed the opportunity to take swift and effective remedial measures. The effort 

to curtail sexual harassment in the workplace depends on an individual’s 

willingness to promptly and candidly report occurrences of inappropriate conduct. 

As the Eleventh Circuit noted, 

federal law has now attempted to correct the problem of 

workplace discrimination, but it cannot be done without the 

cooperation of the victims, notwithstanding that it may be difficult for 

them to make such efforts. 

When an employer has taken steps, such as promulgating a 

considered sexual harassment policy, to prevent sexual harassment in 

the workplace, an employee must provide adequate notice that the 

employer’s directives have been breached so that the employer has the 

opportunity to correct the problem. 

Coates v. Sundor Brands, Inc., 164 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 33 of 37
34

The attempts the Plaintiff did make to voice her concerns and inform the 

school of the harassment simply do not, as a matter of law, constitute sufficient 

notice. See Coates, 164 at 1365 (finding inadequate notice of sexual harassment 

when employee presented supervisor with an inappropriate note from a co-worker 

but failed to explain that “the note represented a problem about which she was 

concerned or that required . . . immediate attention,” or “that the note was only the 

latest in an on-going pattern of sexually harassing behavior,’ or that “the primary 

purpose for seeking out [the supervisor] was to discuss . . . the harassment.”); 

Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 208 F.3d 1290, 1300-1301 (11th Cir. 2000) 

(telling a supervisor about an isolated incident of harassment does not provide 

employer with ample notice to take action). 

The Roanoke City School System has adopted a policy against workplace 

sexual harassment and in 1998 sponsored a workshop intended to supplement this 

policy and explain its grievance procedures. Although the Plaintiff claims she does 

not recall attending this seminar, her signature appears on a document verifying 

that she participated in the sexual harassment question and answer workshop. The 

sexual harassment policy and explanatory workshop demonstrate that the school 

board “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually 

harassing behavior.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807-808. Moreover, once 

administrators at Hadley Middle School received Plaintiff’s EEO complaint and 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 34 of 37
35

consequently learned of the harassment, the principal, vice principal and 

superintendent confronted Cottle to ensure that no such future incidents would 

occur. (Ex. 3, Marcum Depo. 14.) These administrators also met with Plaintiff to 

discuss the allegations within the complaint. Plaintiff admits that following this 

meeting the harassment stopped. 

The Plaintiff, however, failed to adequately avail herself of the grievance 

procedures communicated to her by the school and consequently failed to mitigate 

the harassment. Plaintiff maintains that she did not report the harassment because 

she did not know the proper chain of command and felt uncomfortable speaking 

with male superiors about her situation. However, Plaintiff admitted that she felt 

comfortable speaking with a number of school officials, including the viceprincipal. Nevertheless, Plaintiff allowed the alleged harassment to persist for 

approximately two years as she unsuccessfully sought a copy the school board 

policy. Had the Plaintiff promptly and openly informed any superior at the first 

instance of what she felt constituted sexual harassment, she could have prevented 

many future offensive encounters with Cottle. See Nurse BE v. Columbia Palms 

W. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, No. 06-12159, 2007 WL 1953580, at *7 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(noting that “had the plaintiff reported the harassing incidents immediately after 

they occurred, most of the harassment would have been avoided” and that “the 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 35 of 37
36

victim of the alleged harassment has an obligation to use reasonable care to avoid 

harm where possible”) (citations omitted). 

As demonstrated above, the Plaintiff never adequately notified the Roanoke 

School system of the sexual harassment she suffered. Instead of reporting Cottle’s 

misconduct after it first emerged, Plaintiff allowed it to continue and even began 

recording certain incidents as if in contemplation of a lawsuit. Because Plaintiff 

failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid harm and because she failed to take full 

advantage of the preventative measures offered by the school, the Roanoke School 

Board is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

CONCLUSION

Roanoke City Board of Education, one of the state’s smallest school 

systems, utilized its administrative resources in good faith to address Plaintiff’s 

complaint. Although she has not specified an amount, Price is seeking monetary 

damages from the Roanoke School System for the pain and mental distress she 

experienced as a result of the alleged harassment. (Ex. 2, Price Depo. 61.) 

Roanoke Board respectfully asks the Court to find that (1) the complaint 

does not amount to severe and pervasive sexual harassment; (2) that Plaintiff failed 

to adequately notify the Defendant of the alleged harassment; and (3) that 

Defendant acted in reasonable fashion once the allegations were brought to their 

attention. 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 36 of 37
37

 s/Donald B. Sweeney, Jr. 

DONALD B. SWEENEY, JR. 

(SWE002) 

OF COUNSEL

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

One Federal Place 

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2119 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 6, 2007, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: 

Adam M. Porter, Esq. 

2301 Morris Avenue, Suite 102 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the 

document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: 

NONE 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Donald B. Sweeney, Jr. 

Donald B. Sweeney, Jr. (ASB-3803-

W77D) 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 18 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 37 of 37