A Spring Independent School District math teacher sued the district claiming age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. He argued that the district’s actions, including placing him on performance improvement plans, reassigning him to a less central role, and placing him on administrative leave, were motivated by discrimination and retaliation. The teacher also asserted that these actions violated his rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as defamed him under Texas law.
Initially, the teacher was placed on a support plan due to performance concerns and later reassigned to a “push-in” role, which he felt was a demotion. After a series of reassignments and complaints, including being put on paid administrative leave for four months following student complaints, the man filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later a lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation.
The district court ruled in favor of Spring ISD, granting summary judgment. The court incorrectly used an outdated legal standard that required proving discrimination only if it involved significant employment decisions like hiring or firing. Despite this error, the court found that Spring ISD had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The teacher failed to prove that these reasons were pretextual or that the actions were motivated by discrimination.
On appeal, the court agreed that the district court erred in its use of the outdated standard but upheld the summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that even under the correct legal standard, Spring ISD’s explanations for its actions were valid and not a cover for discrimination. The teacher did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the district’s explanations, so the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Spring ISD. The case is Yats v. Spring ISD, No. 23-20441, 2024 WL 3928095 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024).
Don’t miss out on our blog posts! Subscribe to the ED311 newsletter.