Summary judgment reversed in retaliation case after trial court weighs the evidence against plaintiff

This case is remanded for trial after the district court said the plaintiff had no retaliation claim under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court of Appeals emphasizes the dangers of resolving credibility disputes and weighing evidence in discrimination cases where the employer's intent is at issue.

The case is Pistello v. Board of Education of the Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., issued on April 10. The issue is whether plaintiff, a school teacher, suffered an adverse action after filing a harassment report and accusing the district of failing to comply with individualized educational plans for certain disabled students. The district court said the district's actions postdating the protected activity were not adverse actions under federal law, defined as actions that would deter a reasonably employee from  speaking out again. This is often a factual issue for the jury, but if the employer's actions are too trivial, the courts will find that a reasonable employee would speak up again. Not this case.

In a period of six months after the plaintiff spoke out, she (1) received multiple disciplinary reprimands over actions that arguably involved no real misconduct; (2) received a counseling memorandum and four professional conduct memoranda in six weeks; and (3) was called to participate in four professional misconduct meetings, even though three of the meeting notices were expunged after the plaintiff's lawyer got involved. In addition, an in-class observation of the plaintiff contained inaccuracies (some of the observations were later removed thanks to plaintiff's lawyer), and plaintiff was reassigned to a different building.

Would these personnel actions deter someone from speaking out against discrimination in the workplace? The Court of Appeals answers that question in the affirmative. While it dismissed the case, the district court did note that some of the reprimands against plaintiff "could be described as criticism." That view actually favors plaintiffs position. The district court also said that plaintiff's testimony "seems dubious when considered alongside" contrary evidence in the record. District courts cannot analyze the evidence that way on summary judgment motions. In addition, in rejecting plaintiff's pretext arguments, the district court overlooked the fact that plaintiff was the only teacher who was reassigned to a different academic level and subject area, and it discredited plaintiffs testimony that reassignment could be deemed a "negative" job action.

What do we learn from this? District courts cannot weigh the evidence on summary judgment motions. Nor can they reject plaintiff's reasonable inferences in determining whether there is enough evidence to win at trial. Who knows what a jury will do with this evidence? But a jury will have to hear it out.