Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 12, 2024 3 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 RANDEY THOMPSON, No. 2:21-CV-00252-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL 13 DISTRICT NO. 365; BEN SMALL, 14 individually as Superintendent of the ORDER DENYING MOTION 15 Central Valley School District; CENTRAL FOR RECONSIDERATION 16 VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 365 17 BOARD OF EDUCATION and in their 18 individual capacity BOARD OF 19 EDUCATION MEMBERS and 20 DIRECTORS DEBRA LONG, MYSTI 21 RENEAU, KEITH CLARK, TOM 22 DINGUS, and CYNTHIA MCMULLEN, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 79. 26 The motion was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is represented by Michael 27 Love, Megan Clark, Samir Dizdarevic-Miller, and Robert Greer. Defendants are 28 represented by Michael McFarland, Jr., Christopher Kerley, and Rachel Platin. 1 Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its ruling excluding Dr. Barry’s 2 opinions. 3 Generally, motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Kona Enterprises, 4 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). As such, “a motion for 5 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 6 the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 7 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 389 Orange Street 8 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 9 Defendants assert the Court committed clear error because Dr. Barry cited to 10 CVSD Policies when making her conclusions. Dr. Barry provided the following 11 opinions: 12 1. Plaintiff was not honest in his representations to CVSD supervisors 13 about this matter. He is unlikely to experience the full trust of supervisors or 14 board members in his continued employment at the CVSD. 15 2. Plaintiff’s protected speech is not at issue in this case and his political 16 views were not the basis of administrative concern, investigation or adverse 17 action. 18 3. The question of Plaintiff’s ability to advance a culture of inclusivity was 19 not a matter of marginal importance because was based on principles set by 20 the CVSD board and administration as high, clear priorities. As an 21 administrator, Plaintiff had a higher obligation to act upon and lead by those 22 values than he demonstrated, both in the workplace and in his personal use of 23 social media. 24 4. Plaintiff’s judgment in his use of social media as well as “name-calling 25 and shaming” at work fall below the standard his CVSD supervisors have a 26 right to expect and do expect from their building leaders. 27 5. The role of a school administrator is broader in authority, public reach, 28 visibility and scrutiny than the role of classroom teacher. 1 6. CVSD properly executed the transfer of Plaintiff to a subordinate certified position in keeping with the authority of the superintendent set forth 3 in policy and statute. 7. Based on the totality of Plaintiff's conduct revealed through the 5|| District’s investigation, CVSD’s decision to transfer him to a position of less authority, visibility, and influence was proper and justified by the reasons stated in the Notice of Transfer. 8 In granting the motion to exclude, the Court was concerned that in stating 9)| her conclusions, Dr. Barry was to be simply restating the evidence and placing her own spin on it. This still remains true. On a case such as this, Dr. Barry’s opinion 11||1s not necessary to validate the decisions made by CVSD. While Dr. Barry may consulted CVSD’s practices and procedures in forming her conclusions, her 13|| opinion continues to neither be appropriate nor helpful to the jury. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 79, is DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 17|| and forward copies to counsel. 18 DATED this 12th day of June 2024. 19 20 21 22 23 Sue £ 74 fe ai, 24 Stanley A. Bastian 5 Chief United States District Judge 26 27 28