Vashti Love, Dr. Claudine Moore, and Willie Edwards v. City of Chicago Board of Education and Milton Albritton, Individually and as Principal of the Wadsworth Elementary School
Docket: 00-2394
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; February 19, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves plaintiffs Vashti Love, Dr. Claudine Moore, and Willie Edwards, who filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against the City of Chicago Board of Education and Milton Albritton, principal of Wadsworth Elementary School, claiming retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights after publicly criticizing Albritton. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants. Albritton has been the principal since 1988 and has authority over staff reprimands, performance evaluations, and teacher assignments, while the Board supervises him. The Wadsworth Local School Council, which includes parents, teachers, and community representatives, oversees school programs and has renewed Albritton's contract multiple times.
The case arose during the 1994-95 school year when Wadsworth implemented an "inclusion" special education program aimed at integrating special education students into regular classes. This required creating Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for each student, detailing their needs and services. Vashti Love, a teacher since 1991, expressed dissatisfaction with the program's implementation, alleging that regular education teachers were neglecting special education students' needs as outlined in their IEPs. After failing to resolve her concerns with Albritton, Love escalated the matter by sending letters to higher authorities, accusing Albritton and several staff members of conspiring to undermine the inclusion program and alleging misconduct by numerous other staff members.
Beverly Kelley, the special education administrator for Region 5, met with Love on December 4, 1996, in response to her complaints. Kelley agreed to conduct unannounced visits to Wadsworth and referred Love to Andrea Kidd to investigate allegations of mishandling inclusion funds. Kidd found no evidence supporting Love's claims after reviewing financial records.
On February 5, 1997, Love attended a meeting with Albritton and Region 5 staff, bringing several student IEPs without permission, violating the Illinois School Student Records Act. Kelley informed Love of this violation, leading Cleggett to instruct Albritton to discipline her. Albritton subsequently wrote Love a letter confirming her breach of board policy regarding the IEPs.
Despite this, Love filed a complaint with the Department of Monitoring and Implementation regarding perceived violations of inclusion policies and IEPs. An attorney, Jay Kraning, was assigned to investigate her claims, during which Love accused Albritton and Wadsworth staff of sabotaging the inclusion program. After interviewing staff, Kraning doubted Love's perception of reality based on her inconsistent complaints dating back to 1994. Love responded by filing a complaint against Kraning and reiterated her concerns at a board meeting on June 25, 1997.
Love alleges retaliation from Albritton for her complaints. Following a performance evaluation on February 19, 1997, where Albritton rated her strengths but marked a weakness in compliance with school policies, Love's overall evaluation was downgraded from "superior" to "excellent" in June 1997. Love was the only teacher among five who had their ratings lowered to have raised concerns about inclusion.
The following school year, Albritton reassigned Love from upper division to a primary-through-intermediate position against her wishes. Albritton claimed the shift was necessary to fill a vacancy and regarded Love as an excellent teacher. Other teachers also experienced rotation from their preferred assignments, but the Board did not seek to suspend or discharge Love, who continues to teach at Wadsworth.
Claudine Moore, the second plaintiff, began her tenure at Wadsworth as a math facilitator in 1989, transitioned to a fourth-grade teacher in 1992, and then to preschool in 1993. She raised multiple complaints against principal Albritton, notably regarding his non-compliance with the School Reform Act by failing to establish a Professional Problems Advisory Council, prompting him to create one, which he also failed to renew in subsequent years. Moore's complaints extended from 1995 to 1998, addressing Albritton's management and the implementation of inclusion, leading to confrontations where Albritton reportedly reacted angrily towards her.
In 1995 and 1997, Moore publicly criticized Albritton's conduct during board meetings and alleged retaliation for her complaints. She cited various incidents of retaliation, including a performance evaluation downgrade in 1993, where Albritton claimed she left students unsupervised and exhibited insubordination. Her evaluations worsened over the years, with a 1994 assessment highlighting significant weaknesses.
Despite a Board warning in 1995 for tardiness and conduct issues, Albritton sought her termination in late 1994, but the Board opted for a warning instead. In 1996, following further disciplinary actions, including a five-day suspension for insubordination, Moore faced ongoing dissatisfaction from Albritton, who issued unsatisfactory evaluations annually thereafter. Each time Moore filed grievances against these evaluations, they were changed to "no rating" due to procedural failures on Albritton's part. Additionally, she was barred from summer school teaching in 1997 and faced significant student transfers from her class in 1998 due to parental complaints.
Willie Edwards, an instructional aide at Wadsworth since August 1996, experienced a deteriorating relationship with Albritton after witnessing a heated argument involving a colleague, Love, during a staff meeting. Edwards expressed his dissatisfaction with Albritton's demeanor during the incident via a memo and subsequently filed three complaints in early 1997: one to board members about mistreatment by Albritton and regular education teachers, another concerning a lack of respect for the inclusion program, and a third directly to Vallas about his treatment. He also supported Love at a June 1997 board meeting.
Edwards faced disciplinary actions from Albritton around the time of his complaints, receiving three written reprimands for tardiness between fall 1996 and spring 1997. Despite disputing the accuracy of these claims and citing his wife's illness as a mitigating factor, he was eventually suspended for excessive tardiness in the 1997-98 school year, with Albritton alleging he was late 35 times. Edwards also faced additional reprimands for other alleged infractions, including unauthorized student transportation and inappropriate classroom behavior, which he contested, arguing that other staff members committed similar acts without facing consequences.
The plaintiffs raised two main issues on appeal: insufficient evidence to support the verdict against them and a concern regarding the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to disband for the weekend without prior consultation. The appellate court found the first issue unconvincing, as evidence must be viewed favorably to the prevailing party, while expressing some concern over the second issue, though not enough to warrant a retrial. The court concluded that the plaintiffs faced significant challenges in their appeal, emphasizing that a verdict stands unless no rational jury could have reached it.
A plaintiff asserting a Section 1983 claim on First Amendment grounds must prove two elements: (1) that the conduct in question was constitutionally protected, and (2) that this protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant's actions. It is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant acted out of "unconstitutional wrath"; the plaintiff must show that the adverse action would not have occurred "but for" the protected conduct. Even if the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant can succeed by showing, through a preponderance of the evidence, that the same action would have been taken regardless of the plaintiff's protected conduct.
In this case, evidence supported the jury's finding that actions against the plaintiffs were unrelated to their protected conduct. Specifically, Love's performance evaluation was downgraded due to her violation of state law regarding student IEPs, a conclusion bolstered by the fact that the evaluation was later restored despite her continued dissent. Additionally, the lowering of evaluations for four other teachers, who had not made complaints, further indicated that the actions were not retaliatory. Love's claim that interim evaluations constituted retaliation was dismissed, as they were largely favorable and related to her misconduct. The jury also justified Albritton's decision to reassign Love based on legitimate staffing needs, as evidenced by the rotation of other teachers. Overall, the defendants provided ample evidence that any adverse actions taken against Love were not connected to her complaints.
Moore faced multiple disciplinary actions due to poor performance, including numerous tardiness incidents and insubordination, leading to a recommendation for termination in 1994. Although the Board opted for a warning rather than firing her, her behavior continued to be a concern, culminating in a suspension in 1996. The jury concluded that Moore's disciplinary actions were justified based on her insubordination and lack of teaching effectiveness, as indicated by a significant dropout rate of students from her classes. The legal precedent established that insubordination, even during protected activities, can warrant adverse employment actions.
Regarding Edwards, who complained about Albritton, the jury found no evidence of retaliation for his complaints despite his 1996 and 1997 disciplinary actions. Albritton's documentation of Edwards' tardiness and offenses provided a credible basis for the sanctions, supporting the assertion that they were not retaliatory but rather a response to performance issues.
The trial judge's handling of jury instructions raised procedural concerns. After cautioning jurors not to discuss the case before a break, he failed to repeat this instruction when dismissing the jury for the weekend, nor did he notify the parties of the jurors' request to resume deliberations on Monday. This lack of communication may have implications for the trial's integrity.
On Monday morning, the judge addressed concerns from the attorneys regarding a note received from the jury. Albritton's attorney expressed frustration over being unaware of the note, prompting a request to poll jurors about their discussions or exposure to potentially prejudicial materials over the weekend. The judge, however, opted against polling the jury after the plaintiffs' attorney argued that it would be improper, given there was no prior instruction to avoid media. The jury eventually returned a verdict for the defendants.
The handling of the matter in the district court was criticized, with fault attributed to both the judge and the attorneys. Nevertheless, the court concluded that there was no justification for a retrial, as the objections raised were made by the winning side, and no evidence of prejudice to the plaintiffs was presented.
It was noted that while juries often send notes to judges, important communications should be disclosed to all parties, with examples given of what constitutes significant versus trivial notes. The judge was blamed for not addressing procedural matters regarding jury deliberations in a timely manner and for failing to remind jurors not to discuss the case during the break. Ultimately, the appellate court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the district court's judgment, noting that all plaintiffs' complaints related to protected speech under the First Amendment, even if some were less likely to qualify for that protection.
