Vaughan v. Bernice Ray Elem. School 05-CV-223-JD 9/12/07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jack Vaughan
v. Civil No. 05-CV-223-JD Opinion No. 2007 DNH 112
Bernice A. Rav Elementary School, et a l .
O R D E R
Jack Vaughan, proceeding pro se, brings a claim of gender
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against
the school where he was employed as a teacher's aide, the former
superintendent of schools, the principal, and the assistant
principal. Vaughan also brings a state law defamation claim.
The defendants move for summary judgment, contending that Vaughan
cannot prove either claim. Vaughan objects, contesting the
defendants' version of the circumstances that led to his
dismissal.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). The party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in the record.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party
opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment must
present competent evidence of record that shows a genuine issue
for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242,
256 (1986). All reasonable inferences and all credibility issues
are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. See id. at 255.
Background
Jack Vaughan was employed at the Bernice A. Ray Elementary
School ("the School") as a teacher's aide in a second grade
classroom for the 2002 to 2003 school year and from September of
2003 to March of 2004. Kenneth Greenbaum was superintendent of
schools; Bruce Williams was the principal, and Janice Lavoie was
assistant principal. During Vaughan's first year at the School,
he was a teacher's aide in a second grade classroom taught by
Judy Harvey. That year went by uneventfully.
In his second year, Vaughan worked half of the week in Judy
Harvey's classroom and the other half in Barbara MacNamee's
classroom. From the beginning of the second year, teachers
expressed concerns to Williams about Vaughan's interactions with
2 certain students. In particular, the teachers thought that
Vaughan spent too much time with certain girls on the playground
during recess.
On November 12, 2003, Williams called Vaughan to a meeting
in his office to discuss the concerns the teachers had raised.
Lois Roland, a school counselor, also attended the meeting.
Williams and Roland told Vaughan to change his behavior on the
playground. They told him to spend less time with a group of
about seven children, and that they were particularly concerned
with the amount of time he spent with two shy seven-year-old
girls who held his hand and clung to him during recess. They
told Vaughan that they were concerned about his physical
interactions with the two girls. Williams and Roland also told
Vaughan to stop tape-recording children during recess,
distributing questionnaires about the stories Vaughan had
written, and using his body to surround children which looked
like he was trapping them. He was told to spend more time with
boys on the playground. Superintendent Greenbaum was notified of
the meeting.
Vaughan acknowledges that he was told to set physical
boundaries in his interactions with the students who liked to
hold his hand. He contends, however, that the instructions were
vague. He also contends that the two girls were not shy because
3 they initiated contact with him, and "[s]hy girls do not do such
things." Obj. at 3. Vaughan felt he could not abruptly change
his contact with those students because they would feel rejected.
He states that Williams agreed with him. Vaughan asserts that he
tried to "subtly encourage two girls to play on their own,
without making them feel rejected . . . but they were persistent
and occasionally he gave in to their pleas to hold his hand."
Obj. at 2. Vaughan also states that Williams did not instruct
him to limit his contact with the two girls during school time,
other than recess, or after school.
No complaints were made in December. In January of 2004,
several teachers filed complaints about Vaughan's boundary issues
with students which were similar to the complaints made in
November. One teacher noted that Vaughan continued to hold hands
with the two girls on the playground and looked as if he were
holding them captive, that he had three girls standing in front
of him after school "looking like soldiers," and that a story
Vaughan had written used names of current students in the School
and described unusual touching between two sisters. Barbara
MacNamee, the teacher with whom Vaughan worked half of each week,
complained that Vaughan was engaging in flirtatious behavior with
two girls at an assembly, including allowing one girl to put her
leg in his lap while he read a story, and that he was still
4 holding hands with the same two girls and spending a
disproportionate amount of time with them in her classroom.
MacNamee reported that she had discussed her concerns with
Vaughan. Another second-grade teacher complained about Vaughan
flirting with the girls at the assembly.
In response to these complaints, Williams called a meeting
with Vaughan on January 13, 2004. Williams told Vaughan that he
had not changed his behavior as he had been instructed to do. As
a result, he was given the option of resigning his position or
being terminated. Vaughan declined to resign and was placed on
administrative leave with pay as of January 14, 2004. Judy
Harvey, Vaughan's original supervising teacher, filed a complaint
on January 26, 2004, stating that Vaughan had been over-friendly
with students, that he wrapped his arms around them trapping
them, that the messages in his stories were inappropriate, and
that a framed picture taken from a Reader's Digest magazine,
which Vaughan kept on his desk, made her uncomfortable.
A hearing was held on January 27, 2004, which included
Greenbaum, Williams, Lavoie, and Vaughan, who was represented by
counsel. The hearing was continued at Vaughan's request and
resumed on February 25, 2004. The final day of the hearing was
March 4, 2004. Vaughan contends that the hearing was not
conducted properly because several teachers and the principal
5 left, and he was not permitted to present his defense as he
intended to do.
Because he disapproved of the hearing procedure, Vaughan did
not attend the final day, although his counsel did attend.
Vaughan submitted a written defense, that is dated February 5,
2004, in which he contended that female teachers were allowed to
engage in conduct that he was excluded from doing, including
hugging children, holding hands, and holding a classroom sleep
over.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vaughan v. Bernice Ray Elem. School 05-CV-223-JD 9/12/07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jack Vaughan
v. Civil No. 05-CV-223-JD Opinion No. 2007 DNH 112
Bernice A. Rav Elementary School, et a l .
O R D E R
Jack Vaughan, proceeding pro se, brings a claim of gender
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against
the school where he was employed as a teacher's aide, the former
superintendent of schools, the principal, and the assistant
principal. Vaughan also brings a state law defamation claim.
The defendants move for summary judgment, contending that Vaughan
cannot prove either claim. Vaughan objects, contesting the
defendants' version of the circumstances that led to his
dismissal.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). The party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in the record.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party
opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment must
present competent evidence of record that shows a genuine issue
for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242,
256 (1986). All reasonable inferences and all credibility issues
are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. See id. at 255.
Background
Jack Vaughan was employed at the Bernice A. Ray Elementary
School ("the School") as a teacher's aide in a second grade
classroom for the 2002 to 2003 school year and from September of
2003 to March of 2004. Kenneth Greenbaum was superintendent of
schools; Bruce Williams was the principal, and Janice Lavoie was
assistant principal. During Vaughan's first year at the School,
he was a teacher's aide in a second grade classroom taught by
Judy Harvey. That year went by uneventfully.
In his second year, Vaughan worked half of the week in Judy
Harvey's classroom and the other half in Barbara MacNamee's
classroom. From the beginning of the second year, teachers
expressed concerns to Williams about Vaughan's interactions with
2 certain students. In particular, the teachers thought that
Vaughan spent too much time with certain girls on the playground
during recess.
On November 12, 2003, Williams called Vaughan to a meeting
in his office to discuss the concerns the teachers had raised.
Lois Roland, a school counselor, also attended the meeting.
Williams and Roland told Vaughan to change his behavior on the
playground. They told him to spend less time with a group of
about seven children, and that they were particularly concerned
with the amount of time he spent with two shy seven-year-old
girls who held his hand and clung to him during recess. They
told Vaughan that they were concerned about his physical
interactions with the two girls. Williams and Roland also told
Vaughan to stop tape-recording children during recess,
distributing questionnaires about the stories Vaughan had
written, and using his body to surround children which looked
like he was trapping them. He was told to spend more time with
boys on the playground. Superintendent Greenbaum was notified of
the meeting.
Vaughan acknowledges that he was told to set physical
boundaries in his interactions with the students who liked to
hold his hand. He contends, however, that the instructions were
vague. He also contends that the two girls were not shy because
3 they initiated contact with him, and "[s]hy girls do not do such
things." Obj. at 3. Vaughan felt he could not abruptly change
his contact with those students because they would feel rejected.
He states that Williams agreed with him. Vaughan asserts that he
tried to "subtly encourage two girls to play on their own,
without making them feel rejected . . . but they were persistent
and occasionally he gave in to their pleas to hold his hand."
Obj. at 2. Vaughan also states that Williams did not instruct
him to limit his contact with the two girls during school time,
other than recess, or after school.
No complaints were made in December. In January of 2004,
several teachers filed complaints about Vaughan's boundary issues
with students which were similar to the complaints made in
November. One teacher noted that Vaughan continued to hold hands
with the two girls on the playground and looked as if he were
holding them captive, that he had three girls standing in front
of him after school "looking like soldiers," and that a story
Vaughan had written used names of current students in the School
and described unusual touching between two sisters. Barbara
MacNamee, the teacher with whom Vaughan worked half of each week,
complained that Vaughan was engaging in flirtatious behavior with
two girls at an assembly, including allowing one girl to put her
leg in his lap while he read a story, and that he was still
4 holding hands with the same two girls and spending a
disproportionate amount of time with them in her classroom.
MacNamee reported that she had discussed her concerns with
Vaughan. Another second-grade teacher complained about Vaughan
flirting with the girls at the assembly.
In response to these complaints, Williams called a meeting
with Vaughan on January 13, 2004. Williams told Vaughan that he
had not changed his behavior as he had been instructed to do. As
a result, he was given the option of resigning his position or
being terminated. Vaughan declined to resign and was placed on
administrative leave with pay as of January 14, 2004. Judy
Harvey, Vaughan's original supervising teacher, filed a complaint
on January 26, 2004, stating that Vaughan had been over-friendly
with students, that he wrapped his arms around them trapping
them, that the messages in his stories were inappropriate, and
that a framed picture taken from a Reader's Digest magazine,
which Vaughan kept on his desk, made her uncomfortable.
A hearing was held on January 27, 2004, which included
Greenbaum, Williams, Lavoie, and Vaughan, who was represented by
counsel. The hearing was continued at Vaughan's request and
resumed on February 25, 2004. The final day of the hearing was
March 4, 2004. Vaughan contends that the hearing was not
conducted properly because several teachers and the principal
5 left, and he was not permitted to present his defense as he
intended to do.
Because he disapproved of the hearing procedure, Vaughan did
not attend the final day, although his counsel did attend.
Vaughan submitted a written defense, that is dated February 5,
2004, in which he contended that female teachers were allowed to
engage in conduct that he was excluded from doing, including
hugging children, holding hands, and holding a classroom sleep
over. His defense included a piece he had written titled "Adults
for Compassionate Touching" with a part dedicated to Andrea, one
of the two "shy" seven-year-old girls he had spent time with on
the playground, along with other materials.
"Andrea's Manifesto" begins with the following statement:
"We appeal for the appropriate touching of children. We believe
all decent adults should feel free to enjoy children, rather than
afraid to do so. Children need to be touched, held, hugged, and
caressed. We want to feel free to fill that need." Vaughan then
provides some autobiographical information interspersed with
references to other materials. The piece concludes with: "And
not being able to hold Andrea, laugh with her, and see the
excitement she has for me, simply because I am, will hurt, will
hurt the most. I WANT TO KEEP WORKING HERE! I WANT TO KEEP
WORKING HERE!" Id.
6 Also on March 4, the final day of the hearing, Vaughan gave
a tape of love songs to Andrea's parents to give to her if they
wanted her to have the tape. The songs on the tape included
"Love You," "Every Breath You Take," "Ghost in Love," "Friday I'm
in Love," "Love Stinks," "I Want to Grow Old with You,"
"Breakfast in Bed," and others. Andrea's parents were upset by
the tape and reported it to school officials.
Superintendent Greenbaum decided to terminate Vaughan's
employment and sent him a letter dated March 8, 2004, in which he
explained that the termination decision was based on Vaughan's
belief that his behavior was appropriate and did not need
modification. On March 10, Williams sent a notice to parents of
second and third grade students who had been in class with
Vaughan to advise them that he was no longer employed at the
School. The letter stated that "the administration has made it
clear to him that he has no further business on Ray School
property. We have also told him that he is not to contact Ray
School parents or students. We think it would be appropriate for
you to have a conversation with your child about this matter and
to let your child know that he/she should have no further contact
with this former employee." The School also notified the Vermont
and New Hampshire Departments of Education of Vaughan's
7 Vaughan contends that Williams overstated the situation
because he was asked, not directed, to stay away from students
and their families. He argues that Williams's letter made him
sound dangerous and threatening. Vaughan cites responses to the
school from some parents to support his interpretation.
Vaughan filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Human
Rights Commission, alleging that he was dismissed from his
teacher's aide position at the School because of his gender. He
alleged that complaints against him were concocted and that
female staff members were treated differently with respect to
their interactions with female students. The Commission
concluded that Vaughan had not shown that he was dismissed
because of his gender, rather than because he refused to set and
abide by appropriate limits in his interactions with students, or
that female teachers were similarly situated to him and were
treated more favorably. Therefore, the Commission found no
probable cause and closed its file.
Discussion
Vaughan asserts in this action that the School discriminated
against him because of his gender. He also alleges a state law
defamation claim. The defendants move for summary judgment,
asserting that Vaughan cannot prove discrimination based on gender and ask the court not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the defamation claim. Alternatively, the
defendants seek summary judgment on the defamation claim.
A. Discrimination
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, a
plaintiff must "raise an inference of discrimination through the
familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework." Fontanez-
Nunez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, 447 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2006). To
withstand summary judgment on a claim of employment
discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he is a member of a
protected class, his job performance met his employer's
legitimate expectations, he was discharged, and he was replaced
by someone with similar skills or qualifications. See Straughn
v. Delta Airlines. Inc.. 250 F.3d 23, 33 (1st Cir. 2001). If a
prima facie case is made, "the burden shifts to the employer to
establish a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse
employment action." Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co.. Inc.. 474 F.3d
10, 14 (1st Cir. 2007). The burden then shifts back to the
plaintiff "to show that the proffered reason was mere pretext,
and that the true reason was prohibited discrimination." Id.
Even if it were assumed that Vaughan could establish a prima
facie case, which is highly doubtful, he cannot show that the
9 School's reason for terminating him was a pretext for unlawful
discrimination. Vaughan's interactions with female students
caused a great deal of concern, understandably so, and provided a
legitimate basis for the School to consider terminating his
employment. Vaughan's defense, however, provided the sine qua
non for discharge, establishing that he did not understand or
accept the appropriate limits the School set for his behavior
with female students. His decision to give a tape of love songs
to one of the students confirmed the improper motivation that the
teachers and the School had suspected.
Vaughan's examples of female teachers interacting in
physical ways with students do not show that he was singled out
for reprimand because he is male. Instead, his examples and
arguments bolster the School's concern that he does not
understand or refuses to accept appropriate roles for teachers in
their interactions with students. Vaughan has not shown that he
was treated differently, because of his gender, from others who
were similarly situated. See Kosereis v. Rhode Island. 331 F.3d
207, 213-14 (1st Cir. 2003).
There being no material factual dispute, summary judgment in
favor of the defendants is appropriate on the Title VII claim.
10 B. Defamation
Vaughan also brings a claim of defamation under New
Hampshire law. When, as here, a district court has dismissed the
claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may
exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction as
to a remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Marrero-
Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). As that is
appropriate in this case, the defamation claim is dismissed,
without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants* motion for
summary judgment (document no. 45) is granted. The clerk of
court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
V^^JJoseph JJoseph A. DrClerico, JrV United States District Judge
September 12, 2007
cc: Nancy Ellen Boudreau, Esquire Debra Weiss Ford, Esquire Jack Vaughan, pro se