NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0682n.06 No. 08-4635 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
KA TH L EEN M . SH ARP Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. WORTHI NGTON CI TY SCHOOL DI STRI CT BOA RD OF ED UCATI ON, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : DAUGHT REY, SUTTON and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Kathlee n Sharp appeals the district cour t’s dismiss al of one fede ral claim (Title VI I ) and three r elated state-lawclaims ag ainst the Worthington City School District B oa rd of Ed uc a tio n. We a ff

ir m.
I. Sharp taug ht in the Worth ington sc hool district from 1992 until the school board fire d her in 2008. At some point near the end of her tenur e, she f iled discrimination char g es ag ainst the board with the EEOC and the O hio Civi l Rights Commi ssion.
Be fore the ag encie s took action on t h e ch ar ges, Sharp a nd the school boar d enter ed a settlement ag ree ment. Sha rp a g re e d to reque st that the EEOC and O CRC dismiss her c harg es andNo. 08-4635

Sharp v. W

orthington C ity School District Board of Education

- 2 - wa ive d h e r f

e de ra l and

state c la ims . I n exch ang e , the bo ard a g re e d to pa

y Sha rp he r f ull sa lary un til October 2008, provided that, if a sked, she would take on pe riodic work a ssignments. Shortly afte r the ag ree ment’s execution date, the boa rd g ave Shar

p an assig nment she found objec tionable. She sto pp e d r e po rt ingfo r t

he a ssi g nme nt , and th e bo ard sto pp e d p ayinghe r s a lary . Sh arp fi le d th is lawsuit ag ainst the board, r ai s ing a Title VI Iclaim and thre e state-law claims (employ

ment discrimination, brea ch of the settlement ag ree ment and intentional i nfliction of emotional distress).
The board m oved to di smiss t he complaint, ar g uing that Sharp rele ased he r discrimination claims in t h e settlement ag ree ment, and that, without a ling eringfede ral que stion, the remaining contra ct and tort claims belong ed in state, not fe dera l, court. Sharp did not dispute that she wa ived the Title VI Iclaim in the settlement agreement. She a rg ued instead that the board br eac hed the settlement ag ree ment in “ bad faith,” and that this ba d-fa ith br eac h allowed her to pur sue the re lease d Title VI Iclaim. The district c ourt disag ree d and dismissed the ca se.
II. Sharp pre sses the same a

rg ument on appea l: that the board bre ache d the ag ree ment in “bad faith” and that the brea ch revive s her fede ral claim. Her argument contains at lea st two flaws. To start, Sharp’s c omplaint does not alleg e that the boa rd bre ache d the settlement in bad fa ith, only that the bo ar d “ h a s n o t g iv e nD r . Sh ar

p an y [s u b s e qu e n t] a s s ig n me n ts ” an d “ h a s n o t c o n ti nu e d

[h e r] salary .” See Comp. ¶ 19. In the abse nce of an alleg ation th at t h e b o ar d acte d in bad fa ith, SharpNo. 08-4635

Sharp v. W

orthington C ity School District Board of Education

- 3 - cannot pr evail, eve n if there wer e something to her lega l position. One cannot s idestep a dismissal based on a

n alleg ation that has not bee n made.
Her leg al position, a t an y ra t e, co m es up short as well. We have neve r held that a mere alleg ation that a def

endant br eac hed a settlement ag ree ment in “bad faith” by itself cre ates a

fede ral question based on the f

eder al nature of one of the rele ased alleg ations. The Six th Circuit decision on which Sharp r elies assumed “ for the sa ke of ar gu m en t ” that a ba d-fa ith breac h could void a settlement ag ree ment, but it found no evidence of bad f aith. Jones v. PPG Indus., I nc. , No. 90-3401, 1991 WL 122364, at *1 (6th Cir. J uly 9, 1991) (per curiam). The cited district court de cisions offer no more he lp: Neither plaintiff a lleg ed a bad-f aith brea ch, and neither court rec og nized a bad-faithbrea ch exception. Folley v . Hende rson , 17 5 F
. Sup p. 2d 10 07 , 10 12 n. 8 ( S.D . O hio 20 01 ); Hinton
v . La za ro ff , No. 2:03-CV-878, 2006 WL2077039, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Jul y 21, 2006). B eca use Sharp offe rs no support for he r argument and does not other wise conte st the validity

of the settlement ag ree ment, Sharp’s ag ree ment to rele ase her Tit le VI I claim—her only fede ral c laim—prec ludes the district court fr om hear ing it.
That leaves her

state-law claims, fede ral jurisdiction over which depends on their attac hment to her Title VI Iclaim. B r. 14. The district c ourt permissibly dismiss ed them as w ell. Although the exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a matter of discre tion, when a c ourt proper ly dismiss es a f

eder al claim bef

ore tria l, it customarily

will dism iss th e s t at e- l aw claims as well—thoug h without prejudice to their r efiling in state court. Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc

. , 392 F.3d 195, 210 ( 6th Cir. 2004). No abuse of discretion occ urre d.No. 08-4635

Sharp v. W

orthington C ity School District Board of Education

- 4 - III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.