Court Opinion

ID: 9915544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 18:00:59.97976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:32.504880
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11599    Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 1 of 12

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-11599
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        ORVIE MIZZELL-BULLOCK,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-01348-PGB-LHP
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 2 of 12

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11599

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LAGOA, Cir-
        cuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Dr. Orvie Mizzell-Bullock appeals the summary judgment in
        favor of her former employer, Seminole County Public Schools,
        and against her complaint of race discrimination and retaliation.
        42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. The district court ruled that Mizzell-Bull-
        ock failed to establish that the decisionmaker who recommended
        her termination possessed the final policymaking authority neces-
        sary to establish municipal liability against the school district. The
        district court also ruled that she failed to establish a causal connec-
        tion between her alleged protected activity and adverse employ-
        ment actions. We affirm.
               From 2014 to 2019, Mizzell-Bullock, an African-American fe-
        male, worked in the school district as an assistant principal of Sem-
        inole High School. In the summer of 2016, Mizzell-Bullock and her
        supervisor, senior principal Dr. Connie Collins, collaborated with
        Seminole State College to offer a new dual-enrollment course to
        high school students. Mizzell-Bullock asked the college dual-enroll-
        ment program coordinator, Dr. Angela Adame-Smith, whether
        Dr. Carolyn Taylor, a teacher at the high school, could teach the
        course. But Adame-Smith advised that Dr. Baboucar Jobe, Dean of
        Social Sciences, reviewed Taylor’s credentials and determined that
        she lacked the proper degree to teach the course. Three days later,
        Mizzell-Bullock emailed Adame-Smith her résumé and asked
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 3 of 12

        23-11599               Opinion of the Court                         3

        whether she had the credentials to co-teach with Taylor.
        Adame-Smith responded that Jobe “will not approve the co-teach
        for this class even though you have the credentials” and that “the
        co-teacher would have to be a faculty member from [the college].”
        Adame-Smith explained that no full-time faculty were available to
        co-teach with Taylor, as the faculty in this subject area were all ad-
        junct professors. After Mizzell-Bullock stated that she did not un-
        derstand why she could not teach the course if she had the proper
        credentials, Adame-Smith clarified that although the college would
        not approve Mizzell-Bullock co-teaching with non-college faculty,
        Mizzell-Bullock’s résumé and transcripts appeared to meet the cri-
        teria to teach the course on her own. Mizzell-Bullock then submit-
        ted her employment and direct deposit information and became an
        adjunct professor with the college.
               Despite Adame-Smith’s instructions, Mizzell-Bullock pro-
        ceeded to co-teach the course with Taylor. For the 2016, 2017, and
        2018 school years, in addition to summer sessions, Mizzell-Bullock
        was the teacher of record for the course while Taylor taught the
        course. Mizzell-Bullock attested that she was responsible for the
        administrative functions and that Taylor taught and might have
        performed some administrative tasks. But Taylor understood Miz-
        zell-Bullock’s role to be the instructor of record, while her own role
        was to be “responsible for everything from A to Z,” including
        teaching and grading the students, which required her to use Miz-
        zell-Bullock’s college log-in credentials. Taylor was not compen-
        sated, nor did she know that Mizzell-Bullock had received
        $15,336.31 for teaching the course.
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 4 of 12

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11599

                On May 11, 2018, Mizzell-Bullock emailed Dr. Michael
        Gaudreau, the Executive Director of Secondary Education, and
        complained of unfair treatment. She stated that she wanted to com-
        bat false information about her, including that Collins gave her
        preferential treatment and allowed her “to do whatever [she]
        want[ed] to do.” She stated that she stopped attending scheduling
        meetings because each time she attended “something is said that
        [she] ha[d] done,” so she instead “quietly figure[d] things out on
        [her] own.” She complained that she was not chosen for a lateral
        position at the Ninth Grade Center and that she had heard rumors
        of false statements that Gaudreau relied on in not selecting her for
        the lateral position. And she complained that she did not apply for
        a principalship because she knew she would not be selected. She
        stated that she felt the need to be alone and to limit what she said
        because “everything I do becomes a problem or concern.”
                Later that day, Gaudreau and Collins met with Mizzell-Bull-
        ock about her letter. Mizzell-Bullock testified that Gaudreau, who
        is white, yelled at her in the meeting, and that Collins, who is black,
        told her to never send a letter like that without her approval. She
        also testified that race was not mentioned in the meeting or the
        letter. After the meeting, Mizzell-Bullock emailed Gaudreau and
        told him that she felt better about all her complaints and would
        implement his suggestions to work on building better relationships
        and growing professionally.
             Over a year later, on June 30, 2019, Mizzell-Bullock emailed
        Gaudreau about a meeting they had a week earlier about her
USCA11 Case: 23-11599       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 5 of 12

        23-11599                Opinion of the Court                           5

        interest in a principalship. She stated that she disagreed with his
        feedback that “some people find [her] difficult to get along with,”
        but she was resolved to change it and provided a list of areas for
        improvement. She asked him to consider her for committees and
        positions at other schools in the district. She later testified that they
        discussed a principalship at Hagerty High School, a school with a
        majority-white student population, and that Gaudreau asked her
        during her the panel interview how she would feel being the “face
        of Hagerty,” which she felt was discriminatory because Hagerty
        had never had a black principal. She did not know if Gaudreau
        asked other candidates that question. Mizzell-Bullock applied for
        the position but did not receive it.
               In July 2019, newly-hired assistant principal Cindy Nelson
        was creating a master schedule when she noticed a discrepancy be-
        tween records listing Mizzell-Bullock as the instructor for the
        dual-enrollment course and others listing Taylor as the instructor.
        Nelson told Dr. Jordan Rodriguez, who replaced Collins as princi-
        pal after she retired in June 2019, and he contacted the college and
        discovered that Mizzell-Bullock had received payments for teach-
        ing the course. Rodriguez also determined that Taylor had been
        teaching the course and that Taylor was unaware that Mizell-Bull-
        ock was being paid to teach the course. Rodriguez then contacted
        human resources for the school district. Based on concerns about
        misrepresentation and misallocation of funds, the school district’s
        Office of Professional Standards decided to investigate.
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 6 of 12

        6                      Opinion of the Court                23-11599

                On August 23, 2019, Mizzell-Bullock was placed on admin-
        istrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. Four days
        later, she emailed the school district’s Equal Employment Oppor-
        tunity and Equity Officer and complained of retaliation and dis-
        crimination based on her race and sex. She stated that her May 2018
        letter to Gaudreau “stated that [she] felt discriminated against
        based on being an African American female,” and that during a
        June 2019 meeting, after she requested feedback on why she did
        not receive a principalship, he told her to keep interviewing until
        she found the right “fit.” She stated that one month after that meet-
        ing, a professional standards investigator asked to meet with her
        about an issue with the dual enrollment course, and three weeks
        later she was placed on paid administrative leave.
               Between July and September 2019, the investigator inter-
        viewed Mizzell-Bullock, Rodriguez, Collins, Taylor, and Nelson.
        When interviewed, Mizzell-Bullock insisted that the college knew
        that she and Taylor were co-teaching the course. Collins told the
        investigator that she knew about the course but was not involved
        with communications with the college because Mizzell-Bullock
        had the designated contact. Collins mistakenly believed that the
        college approved the co-teaching arrangement based on Miz-
        zell-Bullock’s representations to her. Collins denied knowing that
        Mizzell-Bullock was paid for teaching the course and would have
        told her not to accept payment. Collins knew about co-teaching
        arrangements involving a college professor overseeing a teacher,
        but not a teacher overseeing another teacher.
USCA11 Case: 23-11599       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 7 of 12

        23-11599                Opinion of the Court                            7

                The investigator also interviewed several college employ-
        ees, including Adame-Smith and Jobe. Jobe stated that he was
        shocked to learn about the co-teaching arrangement with Taylor
        because Mizzell-Bullock was explicitly told it could not be done.
        He explained that although co-teaching arrangements had been ap-
        proved where the oversight instructor was a college professor, the
        college had never permitted a co-teaching agreement where the
        oversight instructor was a school district employee. The investiga-
        tor concluded that, based on the “overwhelming documentation,”
        including Mizzell-Bullock’s own statements, “there is sufficient
        substantiation to legally support that [] Mizzell-Bullock misle[]d
        and miscommunicated her direct involvement with the dual-en-
        rollment class . . . and subsequent financial compensation received
        for ‘teaching’ the course as believed by [the college].” The investi-
        gator also concluded that her actions “appear to rise to the level of
        fraudulent activity, and in direct violation of district policies . . . .”
               On October 22, 2019, Dr. Walter Griffin, the superinten-
        dent, informed Mizzell-Bullock that he had reviewed the investiga-
        tive report and determined that her actions constituted misconduct
        and met the criteria for suspension and dismissal. Griffin stated that
        he intended to recommend that she be suspended without pay at
        the November 19, 2019, school board meeting, and he intended to
        recommend her termination at the December 18, 2019, school
        board meeting. He advised that she had the right to appear at these
        public meetings and to present any relevant information “prior to
        a decision being made by the School Board.” He further advised
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 8 of 12

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11599

        that she was entitled to file a written request for a formal adminis-
        trative hearing, Fla. Stat. § 120.57.
               On October 28, 2019, Mizzell-Bullock’s attorney requested a
        formal hearing. But four days later, Mizzell-Bullock resigned in lieu
        of termination. After the school district notified the Florida Depart-
        ment of Education about the investigation, the Department deter-
        mined that probable cause existed to sanction her. In 2021, Miz-
        zell-Bullock entered into a settlement agreement with the Depart-
        ment and accepted a letter of reprimand, two years of probation,
        and a $750 fine.
               Mizzell-Bullock sued the school district for race discrimina-
        tion and retaliation. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. She alleged that the
        school district terminated her based on false allegations of fraud
        and that other “non-African American Administrators also
        co-taught in the same manner” but were not accused of fraud or
        terminated. She alleged that she was retaliated against for engaging
        in protected activity because she was terminated after she com-
        plained about discriminatory treatment.
               The school district moved for summary judgment, which
        the district court granted. The district court ruled that Mizzell-Bull-
        ock’s claim of race discrimination failed because the decisionmak-
        ers involved in the events leading to her resignation lacked the pol-
        icymaking authority necessary to subject the school district to mu-
        nicipal liability. The district court also ruled that Mizzell-Bullock
        failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not pursuing a
        hearing. And the district court ruled that her retaliation claim failed
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 9 of 12

        23-11599               Opinion of the Court                          9

        because, regardless of whether her May 2018 letter to Gaudreau
        was protected activity because it did not reference race, the letter
        was too temporally attenuated from the investigation and termina-
        tion recommendation over a year later. And it determined that the
        June 2019 meeting was not protected activity because her general
        inquiry for feedback, without more, failed to put the school district
        on notice of potential discrimination.
                We review a summary judgment de novo and view the evi-
        dence in Mizzell-Bullock’s favor. Tonkyro v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans
        Affs., 995 F.3d 828, 832 (11th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is ap-
        propriate, and constitutional in civil rights cases, when “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); see Jefferson
        v. Sewon Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 919–20 (11th Cir. 2018).
                Section 1981 is enforceable against a municipality through
        section 1983 and prohibits “intentional race discrimination in the
        making and enforcement of public and private contracts, including
        employment contracts.” Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1249 (11th
        Cir. 2022); Webster v. Fulton Cnty., Ga., 283 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th
        Cir. 2022); 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Claims of race discrimination and re-
        taliation under section 1981 in the employment context are gov-
        erned by the same framework as claims under Title VII of the Civil
        Rights Act of 1964. See Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d
        1121, 1134 (11th Cir. 2020); Jenkins, 26 F.4th at 1249. The Equal Pro-
        tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits race
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2024       Page: 10 of 12

        10                      Opinion of the Court                    23-11599

        discrimination in public employment. Hornsby-Culpepper v. Ware,
        906 F.3d 1302, 1312 (11th Cir. 2018).
                A school district is not subject to vicarious liability under sec-
        tion 1983 for violations of federal civil rights by its employees. See
        Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733–36 (1989). Instead,
        its liability must be based on a policy or custom. See Monell v. New
        York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). A plaintiff
        can establish Monell liability by identifying an official policy, an un-
        official custom or widespread practice that is so permanent and
        well settled as to constitute a custom and usage with the force of
        law, or a municipal official with final policymaking authority
        whose decision violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Cha-
        bad Chayil, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 48 F.4th 1222,
        1229 (11th Cir. 2022). Municipal liability for the actions of a deci-
        sionmaker “attaches only where the decisionmaker possesses final
        authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action
        ordered.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S 469, 497 (1986).
               The district court did not err in granting summary judgment
        against Mizzell-Bullock’s claim of racial discrimination. She offers
        no argument that purported-decisionmakers Griffin or Gaudreau
        had final policymaking authority for the school district, nor could
        she. Florida law does not provide local school superintendents final
        policymaking authority regarding employment decisions because,
        “[b]y statute, the school board is the policy-making body for the
        school district, while the superintendent is the chief executive of-
        ficer of the school board and the chief administrator of the school
USCA11 Case: 23-11599      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 11 of 12

        23-11599               Opinion of the Court                         11

        district.” Chabad Chayil, 48 F.4th at 1230 (quoting Greene v. Sch. Bd.
        of Hamilton Cnty., 444 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)).
                Instead, Mizzell-Bullock argues that the district court failed
        to consider her evidence that supported the inference that the
        school district had a widespread, longstanding practice of discrimi-
        nating against black individuals. She cites a consent decree between
        the school district and the United States entered in 1970 for operat-
        ing an unlawfully segregated school system, but in 2006, the super-
        vising court declared the district unitary and released it from fur-
        ther oversight. And Mizzell-Bullock’s own failure to be promoted
        is insufficient to establish an “unofficial custom or widespread prac-
        tice that is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom
        and usage with the force of law,” see id. at 1229, especially in the
        light of her admitting that she knew of several black principals
        within the school district, including Collins. Mizzell-Bullock failed
        to establish the school district’s liability under Monell.
                The district court also did not err in granting summary judg-
        ment against Mizzell-Bullock’s claim of retaliation because she
        failed to establish that “the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause
        of the challenged employment action.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr.
        v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013). To establish a claim of retalia-
        tion, Mizzell-Bullock “must prove that she engaged in statutorily
        protected activity, that she suffered an adverse action, and that the
        adverse action was causally related to the protected activity.” Jeffer-
        son, 891 F.3d at 924. As to causation, Mizzell-Bullock must prove
USCA11 Case: 23-11599     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2024     Page: 12 of 12

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 23-11599

        that had she not complained to Gaudreau, she would not have
        been investigated or recommended for termination. See id.
                Mizzell-Bullock failed to present evidence sufficient to cre-
        ate a genuine issue of material fact about whether her complaint to
        and request for feedback from Gaudreau caused her to be investi-
        gated for fraud and recommended for termination. Even assuming
        her 2018 letter and 2019 meeting with Gaudreau addressing her in-
        terest in principalships and belief that she was unfairly passed over
        for other positions constituted protected activity, she did not allege
        or argue that Gaudreau caused or influenced Nelson to discover
        and report the record discrepancies to Rodriguez or that Gaudreau
        influenced the school district to open an investigation into her con-
        duct with the dual-enrollment course. Nor is there any allegation
        that Griffin knew about Mizzell-Bullock’s letter or meeting with
        Gaudreau before deciding to recommend her termination based on
        the findings of misconduct in the investigative report. Although
        Mizzell-Bullock formally complained about discrimination and re-
        taliation to the equal employment opportunity officer after the in-
        vestigation began, she did not argue that this formal complaint was
        causally linked to her recommended termination. See Nassar, 570
        U.S. at 352.
                We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the school
        district.