Julian v. City of Knoxville

458 F. Supp. 16, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17743, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1460
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedMay 16, 1978
DocketCiv. No. 3-78-19
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 F. Supp. 16 (Julian v. City of Knoxville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Julian v. City of Knoxville, 458 F. Supp. 16, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17743, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1460 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

This action was instituted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging failure to promote or consider plaintiff for promotion because of her sex. She seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, back pay, reimbursement for lost pension benefits and all fringe benefits that she claims accrued by defendants’ alleged discrimination. All of the claims were abandoned before trial date, except those under Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, commonly referred to as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972.

Plaintiff claims that she was not promoted to Assistant Principal at Rule, Fulton or Park High Schools, or to any other administrative job. During the trial she substituted Austin-East for the Park High School. Until the time of the trial, she was claiming discrimination in failing to be accepted in various and numerous positions of the Knoxville school system. Considerable proof was heard relating to the three high schools named. She received her right to sue notice from the Department of Justice on or about November 22, 1977 and her complaint was filed on February 2, 1978.

It was and is the contention of plaintiff that she did not receive the applied for jobs because she was a woman and that she was thus discriminated against because of her sex.

It is the contention of the defendants that they did not discriminate against plaintiff and that her failure to receive the positions to which she applied was based on merit rather than sex.

The issues, as formulated in the pre-trial order, are:

(1) Did the City of Knoxville, as employer, deny plaintiff promotion from the positions which she held to that of Assistant Principal in either the Rule, Fulton or Austin-East High Schools on the basis of sex?

(2) If plaintiff is entitled to recover, what is her remedy?

The Court heard evidence from plaintiff Barbara Julian, James Newman, Superintendent of Schools, Mrs. Littrell, Robert Beam, Professor Ubben, Dr. Wallace, Sarah Green, Earl Armstrong, Assistant Principal of Austin-East High School, Gerald Scott, Principal of Fulton High School, Ruth Benn, Winston Davis, Assistant Principal of Fulton High School, David Sexton, Assistant Principal of Rule High School, Imogene Huddleston, and Dr. Werner, Principal of Knoxville Adaptive Education Center.

The testimony of Mrs. Julian shows that she received a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and was certified in 1969. She was employed on a regular basis after that date. During 1970 she was granted tenure. She received a Master’s Degree in Educational Administration and Supervision in 1971. By July 1975, plaintiff had an additional forty-five (45) credit hours in Educational Administration beyond the Masters program.

Plaintiff majored in administrative supervision with grades on the level of 3.8 average. She was certified in principalship of grades from seven to twelve. She was [18]*18placed on a month-to-month basis for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 at the schools where she taught during those years. She was transferred to Lonsdale on the same basis and reassigned to the Bearden School and has been there since that time. She was sent to Bearden to set up a special education program. She is now teaching English, with students whose ages range from 13 to 16. The ages at Bearden Junior High ranged from 11 to 13. At the Moses School, where she taught, the children could be classified “off the street” students. The caliber of students at Lonsdale was a little higher and substantially higher at Bearden. She was a lecturer at UT to prospective teachers. Plaintiff has no experience in the senior high level (grades 10, 11 and 12) in her teaching career, except for a brief period prior to 1963 of not more than thirty days as a substitute at Young High School and a period less than thirty days as a substitute at Rule High School in 1965. She has no other senior high grade level teaching experience. All of the schools, Rule, Fulton and Austin-East, where plaintiff claims to have been discriminated against, are senior high schools.

Plaintiff applied for administrative positions, both general and special. Her first application was in 1971. She talked to Superintendent Newman in 1976 about an administrative position and also spoke to Dr. Bedelle and Dr. Paul Kelly about an administrative position. Her name at that time was not on the administrative list. Plaintiff was interviewed by Dr. Scott at Fulton. In 1977, plaintiff was interviewed by Beam, Newman and Kelly and was asked whether she was interested in having a position at the Beardsley School. Plaintiff replied in the negative. Plaintiff had numerous conversations with Dr. Bedelle and Superintendent Newman, but had none with Dr. Wallace.

Plaintiff made $14,525.00 during the teaching year 1976-77 at Bearden High School. She is now earning $15,771.00 teaching at the same place.

Plaintiff stated that she was interested in an administrative position either in the Rule, Fulton or Park High Schools, but later dropped Park High School and substituted Austin-East High School. Plaintiff was of the opinion that she was better qualified than Mr. Sexton, who was Assistant Principal of Rule High School, Mr. Armstrong, who was Assistant Principal at Austin-East High School and Mr. Davis, who was Assistant Principal at Fulton. She believed she was better qualified than Sexton, Armstrong and Davis because of her superior academic credentials.

Superintendent Newman stated that he usually accepted the recommendation of the Board of Education in designating people to administrative positions. He has not recommended a woman for assistant principal in any of the high schools, as plaintiff was the only woman applicant for assistant principal in any of these schools. Plaintiff was considered for Assistant Principal at Rule, Fulton and Austin-East.

Miss Littrell is a friend of Dr. Scott, who is the Principal at the Fulton High School. She stated that she had friendly conversations with Dr. Scott and on many occasions that they joked with each other. She further stated that Dr. Scott told her in one of these conversations that he did not want a woman Assistant Principal at Fulton because of disciplinary problems in that school. This conversation took place in the summer of 1977, but Miss Littrell could not say whether or not Dr. Scott was joking or teasing at the time of this conversation.

Mr. Beam is Director of Personnel for the Knoxville City Schools. He does not always provide notification when an administrative position is open in the Knoxville Schools. He interviewed plaintiff in the summer of 1977. There is no written job description for the job of Assistant Principal in the schools of Fulton, Rule or Austin-East. Mr. Beam stated that in filling the positions in the schools, there is no discrimination against women. On July 5,1977, there was only one administrative position open. This position was in the Beardsley School.

Professor Ubben teaches educational administration at the University of Tennessee. Professor Ubben stated that job description [19]*19is a part of the functions of a supervisor. In selecting assistant principals, the recommendation of the principal is usually accepted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stebbins v. Doe
N.D. California, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
458 F. Supp. 16, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17743, 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julian-v-city-of-knoxville-tned-1978.