IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF MARICOPA. ) ) ) ) ) Defendant s ) undersigned counsel, hereby alleges for her Complaint as follows:

Transcription

1 Marshall A. Martin, Esq. # LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL A. MARTIN 8930 East Raintree Drive, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ (480) Facsimile: (480) Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF MARICOPA Cicely D. Cobb, Ph.D., ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) Tempe Union High School District, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; Anna Battle, Ed.D.; Kevin Mendivil, Ed.D. ) ) ) ) ) Defendant s ) (Jury Trial Requested) Plaintiff, Cicely D. Cobb, Ph.D., (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby alleges for her Complaint as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an African-American female and at all times material hereto has been a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 2. That Defendant Tempe Union High School District (hereinafter "District) is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and operates within Maricopa County, Arizona. 1

2 3. Defendant Anna Battle, Ed.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Battle"), at all times material hereto has been a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, an employee of Tempe Union High School District, and all actions taken on her part as set forth within this Complaint were done in her capacity as an administrator for the District. 4. Kevin Mendivil, at all times material hereto, has been a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona and Associate Superintendent of Human Resources for Tempe Union High School District, and all actions taken on his part as set forth within this Complaint were done in his capacity as an administrator for the District. 5. This Court has proper venue and jurisdiction in this matter pursuant. Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby requests a jury trial for all claims set forth in this pleading. 6. Plaintiff began her employment with the District in July of 2012 in the position of a Probationary Teacher, teaching English courses at Desert Vista High School. 7. Plaintiff's immediate supervisor throughout her time of employment with the District has been Dr. Anna Battle. 2

3 8. On or about August 17, 2012, Dr. Battle met with the parent of one student upset about the workload in one of the courses taught by Plaintiff. This same parent is from Dr. Battle's hometown, Winslow, Arizona. 9. During a meeting on Sunday, August 19, 2012, Dr. Battle met with Plaintiff and had her adjust both her homework and exam schedules based upon this parent complaint. 10. The change in schedule for Plaintiff's class caused her not to be in sync with the schedule for homework and exams with the other teachers teaching the same course. 11. The English Department chair at that time, Deborah Benedict, was not told of these changes ordered by Dr. Battle and did not learn of them until November 21, Beginning in August of 2012, Plaintiff met weekly with Dr. Battle to review her agenda, including homework and exam schedule, which Dr. Battle was in direct control of. 13. At the end of the first academic quarter, Plaintiff was allowed to again follow the same schedule as the remainder of the team. 3

4 14. On November 21, 2012, Dr. Battle did a classroom observation of Plaintiff. As a result of this observation, an evaluation was done in which Plaintiff had areas which "did not meet" expectations. 15. Plaintiff learned at a later time, that prior to this evaluation, students had been using cell phones within her classroom to record her classes. 16. Cell phone use by students in the classroom is against school policy. 17. Individual students who used cell phones in Plaintiff's class were in no way disciplined or reprimanded for such use by Dr. Battle or anyone else within administration. 18. During the fall semester of 2012, the adult brother of a student in one of Plaintiff's classes threatened Plaintiff on Facebook should his sister not receive the "A" which he believed she should receive. 19. Plaintiff filed a police report and asked Dr. Battle that the female student be immediately removed from her class. This request was denied at the time. The student was moved at the onset of the Spring semester. 20. In December of 2012, Plaintiff was given a Professional Growth Plan and was told to be working with an academic coach, Margaret Fountain. 21. On November 12, 2012, Christine Barela, instructed Plaintiff to do what is referred to as "chunk" a video which means to not play the video all the 4

5 way through, but rather stop it at places to allow an opportunity to question students and have them provide answers and take notes regarding the portion of the video they had seen up to that point in order to have them more engaged. 22. In January of 2013, Plaintiff's Department Chair, Deborah Benedict, again reiterated the need to make sure that the students were writing notes during a video presentation. 23. In February of 2013, Dr. Battle admonished Plaintiff for chunking a video and walking around the room to make sure that the students were engaged and writing notes. 24. In an evaluation done in February of 2013 by Dr. Battle, Plaintiff was criticized again for chunking a video and having students write during the video. 25. During a conversation with her Department Chair on March 6, 2013, Plaintiff was once again told by Deborah Benedict how beneficial it was to chunk videos and to be sure that students are writing during the video. 26. On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff was informed by Dr. Battle that Dr. Battle wanted to meet with her on March 1, On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff informed Dr. Battle that she would have present with her at the meeting two representatives from the Arizona Education Association. 5

6 28. Within an hour of Dr. Battle being told there would be two AEA representatives at the upcoming meeting, Dr. Battle was in Plaintiff's classroom observing her once more. Initially, Dr. Battle was watching Dr. Cobb's students as she went to the English workroom. Once Dr. Cobb returned, Dr. Battle conducted a Spring Focus evaluation. 29. In contrast to the evaluation done by the Academic Coach the day prior, Dr. Battle found on February 27, 2013, that Plaintiff was "ineffective" in multiple areas. 30. In a later conversation with the Academic Coach, Margaret Fountain, it was reiterated to Plaintiff that Ms. Fountain did not find anything during her observation that would fall into the "ineffective" category. 31. Ms. Fountain and Dr. Battle observed the same group of students during the same class period within twenty-four hours of each other. 32. In April of 2013, Plaintiff was observed once again, at which time the observation was videotaped. This observation created a much more favorable evaluation. 33. In the Spring of 2013, Plaintiff requested that a different evaluator be assigned to observe and evaluate her performance. This request was denied. 6

7 34. In May of 2013, Plaintiff completed her Professional Growth Plan that was given to her in December of At the time Plaintiff completed her Professional Growth Plan in May of 2013, Dr. Battle sought to put Plaintiff on a Corrective Action Plan. 36. Plaintiff successfully fought this action and no Corrective Action Plan was done. 37. Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to teach summer school in Plaintiff was asked to come to a meeting with Dr. Mendivil and Dr. Battle on August 22, 2013 ostensibly for the purpose of discussing reasonable accommodations required due to her eyesight. 39. At the meeting Plaintiff was instead asked about an article she had written for the Ahwatukee Foothills News over the summer. 40. It was stated to Plaintiff that writing the article must have been a strain on her vision, which is a disability that the District was accommodating. 41. Plaintiff was told at the meeting that she should reconsider writing for the paper "In your own backyard". 42. At the meeting on August 22, 2013, Dr. Battle asked Plaintiff "What did you hope to gain by publishing this article?" 7

8 43. The tone of the meeting on August 22, 2013, was hostile toward Plaintiff. 44. In 2013, there was no policy in the District regarding teachers writing articles. 45. DR. Battle asked Plaintiff to take over the English Department's Digital Literary Project. 46. The Digital Literary Project required a substantial amount of reading for Plaintiff. 47. A white male teacher currently employed at Mountain Pointe High School within the District has submitted articles and letters to the editor for the Ahwatukee Foothill News and has never been called into a meeting in the Principal's office or otherwise admonished as a result of doing so. 48. Dr. Battle herself has written articles for a local magazine. 49. Within the original article and subsequent ones thereto published by Plaintiff, there was nothing controversial, derogatory or negative about the District, its staff or students. 50. Plaintiff was singled out and treated differently by Defendants in regards to the publication of articles in the Ahwatukee Foothill News. 8

9 51. Immediately after the publication of Plaintiff's second article in the Ahwatukee Foothill News in September, 2013, a meeting was set for Plaintiff's next evaluation. 52. On or about September 19, 2013, there was an incident within Plaintiff's classroom where a Junior white male student within her class had just received his driver's license and took it out to show the class. 53. There was another male black student in the class who had also recently received his driver's license and was asked by the white student to show it to the class. 54. Plaintiff asked the black student to refrain from doing so. 55. The white student made the comment "You are probably so black in the picture we can only see your teeth." 56. Plaintiff admonished her class regarding such comments and such attitudes. 57. Shortly after this incident another male black student confided to Plaintiff that similar comments had been made of a racist nature to the same black student with the driver's license during a school bus ride while the movie Lion King was being shown. He also shared with Plaintiff about the inappropriate comments made about said student in the boy's locker room. The same white male 9

10 student made a racially insensitive comment about the use of slaves and wagons, while in a class with teacher Victor Silva. Victor Silva admonished the student for his comments. 58. Plaintiff informed Dr. Battle of this incident with the driver's license, specifically repeating to her the comment that the white student had made, as well as Plaintiff's own request that the black student not get his driver's license out for fear that a statement of just that sort would be made. 59. In a September 24, 2013 meeting between Plaintiff and her coteacher, Victor Silva, along with their respective Department Chairs, there was a discussion about Plaintiff raising her voice to her students. 60. During this meeting on September 24, 2013, it was acknowledged that a white male teacher, "Mr. B", did in fact raise his voice to the students and that this was not a problem. 61. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff met with Dr. Battle, Dr. Mendivil and Christine Barela. During this meeting, Dr. Battle and Mrs. Barela seemed to find humor in the discussion about the black student who had been likened to the monkey character in the Lion King as well as asked to see his driver's license as set forth above, Plaintiff's account of her September 2013 conversation with Dr. 10

11 Battle and Mr. T.J. Snyder regarding how the black male student in her class had been treated. 62. Plaintiff objected to their reaction and demeanor during the meeting and Dr. Mendivil did nothing in the meeting to correct them. 63. During the meeting on October 4, 2013, Plaintiff again asked to have Dr. Battle removed as her evaluator or to be transferred out of the school. 64. During the meeting on October 4, 2013, Plaintiff was told not to "brag about" her own education. Plaintiff has a Ph.D. for Purdue University and has as part of her own personal address "doctorofenglish". 65. Such address has never been utilized for any communications with parents, students or staff at the District other than with her original employment application before she actually became employed and had a District address to utilize. 66. Only one of Plaintiff's colleagues within the English Department has a Ph.D. Neither Dr. Battle, nor Dr. Mendivil have a Ph.D. 67. Following the October 4, 2013 meeting and Plaintiff's complaint regarding the conduct of Dr. Battle and Mrs. Barela during the same, Dr. Mendivil denied that anyone laughed during the meeting and instead said that there were 11

12 "smiling" expressions on the faces of the administrators which were not exactly appropriate, but not intended to be disrespectful. 68. In that same dated October 20, 2013, Dr. Mendivil stated "As I mentioned also, from my seated vantage point, I did not see any of this." 69. During the actual meeting on October 4, 2013, one of the two administrators stated, "What? I can't laugh?" when Plaintiff objected. 70. In Dr. Mendivil's of October 20, 2013, he denied Plaintiff's request to have Dr. Battle removed as her primary evaluator but stated that he would assign an "independent evaluator". 71. Following Dr. Mendivil's promise of an independent evaluator, Plaintiff was again immediately evaluated on October 24, 2013 with no notice to her. 72. Due to the objection regarding the manner in which the valuation was scheduled with no notice on October 24, 2013, Plaintiff was re-evaluated on October 30, The outcome of the observation on October 30, 2013 was presented to Plaintiff on November 13, There was no independent evaluator which participated in the evaluation process conducted by Dr. Battle on October 30,

13 75. As part of Plaintiff's next evaluation, the observation for which was done on January 28, 2014, and the post-observation evaluation presented on January 31, 2014, the only additional evaluator was Darcy Boggs, an individual identified in Plaintiff's first charge of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 19, 2013, and the English Department Chair who reports directly to Dr. Anna Battle. 76. On the morning of November 14, 2013, prior to a departmental meeting at the end of the school day, Plaintiff had ed Dr. Mendivil to inform him that she was not signing her Fall Formal Evaluation which had been presented to her the day prior. 77. On November 14, 2013 at the English Department meeting attended by approximately 30 teachers, Dr. Battle came in while the meeting was in progress. 78. Dr. Battle approached Plaintiff and touched her upper arm or shoulder. 79. Dr. Battle stated to Plaintiff "Are you a part of this?" relative to her physical location within in the room. 13

14 80. Dr. Battle made no similar comment to the white teacher immediately next to Plaintiff or to any other teachers who were even further away from the actual conference table being utilized. 81. The conference table itself was not large enough to accommodate even half of those in attendance. 82. Dr. Battle does not routinely attend such department meetings. 83. On November 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed her first charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charge No Defendant District would have received a copy of this Charge no later than Monday, December 2, On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff was contacted and informed that she needed to attend a meeting on December 9, 2013, in which she was to be given a Professional Growth Plan. 86. Within the Professional Growth Plan given to her on December 9, 2013, it is stated that "Teacher will attend all English Department meetings and engage in close proximity to the rest of the teachers and leader." 14

15 87. No other teacher has been given a specific written directive within a Professional Growth Plan by Dr. Battle as to where they sit during department meetings. 88. On December 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed her second charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charge No In the evaluation referred to above delivered to Plaintiff on November 13, 2013, Plaintiff was admonished for not regularly utilizing the AC Lab. 90. Plaintiff's fellow departmental members have not been similarly admonished despite not regularly referring students to the AC Lab. 91. On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff was hit on the head with a bathroom pass by a white male student who then left the classroom briefly. 92. Upon the return of the white male student, he again hit Plaintiff on the head with the bathroom pass. 93. Plaintiff immediately gave the student a 30 minute detention and referred him to Mr. Marrero for further action. 94. Plaintiff also informed the Athletic Director, T.J. Snyder of the incident in her classroom with the white male student and the bathroom pass. 15

16 95. The white male student in question was not given any additional discipline by the administrators at Desert Vista High School. 96. There was no investigation by administration to determine who encouraged the white male student to hit Plaintiff with the bathroom pass or to discipline such students. 97. January 22, 2014, when a black female student screamed within Plaintiff's classroom, she was immediately removed from the classroom by administration and was moved to another teacher's class over a week after the incident. 98. In January of 2014, probationary teachers to be reviewed by Dr. Battle were asked when they would like to have their observation for their second semester evaluation. 99. Probationary teachers to be evaluated by Dr. Battle were offered the opportunity to have a pre-observation conference, but none of the teachers attended such a conference Plaintiff was assigned an observation date of January 28, 2014, and was told, despite her request to defer to after February 1, 2014, that it could not be changed. 16

17 101. Other similarly situated teachers were given flexibility as to when their observations were scheduled for their second semester evaluation Plaintiff's observation was not rescheduled because Plaintiff had filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC Defendant prejudged Plaintiff's evaluation before she was ever observed, and had made plans to issue to Plaintiff a Performance Improvement Plan and Preliminary Notice of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance. above. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 USC 1981) 104. Plaintiff realleges all allegations contained in Paragraphs As is set forth above, Plaintiff was denied due to her race (Black) the same right to enjoy the benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of her contractual relationship with the District as other teachers, including but not limited to, the manner and method of evaluation and the ability to work in an environment free of racially motivated harassment by students, parents and administration On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff was presented with a Performance Improvement Plan and Preliminary Notice of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance-Probationary Teacher. 17

18 107. Plaintiff has been retaliated against for having complained about such discrimination and harassment in numerous ways, including but not limited to, the manner and method of her evaluations, discipline of students within the classroom, placement on a Performance Improvement Plan and the issuance of a Preliminary Notice of Inadequacy of Classroom Performance Such discrimination and retaliation as outlined above is in violation of 42 USC As a result of such discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered a substantial amount of severe emotional distress over the past two academic years, causing multiple effects upon her, including anxiety, issues with fibromyalgia flare-ups, and loss of sleep and appetite Plaintiff additionally has suffered the loss of the ability to teach summer school within the District, and has had her reputation as a classroom teacher irreparably damaged by the above stated actions of Defendants In addition to all of the relief which Plaintiff may be entitled, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in this matter pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) and requests that the Court award the same. 18

19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief: a. An award of compensatory damages pursuant to 42 USC 1981; b. An award of economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including lost wages and benefits; c. For an award of attorney's fees and costs; and d. For such further relief as this Court deems appropriate. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of February, LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL A. MARTIN Marshall A. Martin, Esquire 8930 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ Attorney for Plaintiff 19