Brooks v. Denver Public Schools
1:17-cv-01968
D. Colo.Nov 16, 2017Background
- Brooks, an African-American DPS employee hired April 2016 as manager of training, attended a December 2016 DPS retreat where an evening "fun night" involved alcohol and playing "Cards Against Humanity." Brooks told an allegedly graphic "leprechaun joke."
- Several Carson Elementary employees reported being offended; Brooks was asked for a statement, placed on paid leave, given a draft termination letter and offered a settlement instead of termination; he refused the settlement and was terminated in January 2017 after a post-termination hearing upheld the termination.
- Brooks filed an EEOC charge and obtained a federal right-to-sue letter; he did not obtain a right-to-sue from the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD).
- Complaint asserted seven claims: Title VII race discrimination (against DPS), § 1981 race claim (against DPS), Title VII retaliation (DPS), CADA claim (DPS), First Amendment retaliation (DPS, Smith, Carson Defs.), Equal Protection (all defendants), and civil conspiracy (Smith and Carson Defs.).
- Defendants moved to dismiss most claims; Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended dismissing all claims except Title VII discrimination against DPS and Equal Protection claim against Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1981 municipal liability (policy/custom) | DPS maintained an informal custom (permitting alcohol/games) that caused discriminatory termination | Brooks fails to plead an official policy/custom or causation linking DPS policy to termination | Dismiss § 1981 claim against DPS for failure to plead policy/custom or causation; subordinates not final policymakers and no allegation superintendent acted with discriminatory motive |
| Title VII retaliation | Brooks complained of disparate treatment and was terminated for that opposition | No plausible causal connection; protected complaints occurred after termination decision was already contemplated or finalized | Dismiss Title VII retaliation claim for failure to plead causation/direct evidence; previously contemplated termination negates causation allegation |
| CADA (state law) exhaustion | EEOC charge and right-to-sue exhausted state remedies via worksharing | CADA requires CCRD exhaustion and a CCRD right-to-sue; EEOC letter is insufficient | Dismiss CADA claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust CCRD administrative remedies |
| First Amendment retaliation | Speech (the leprechaun joke) was protected public-concern speech | Speech was nonpublic, joking/offensive conduct not matter of public concern | Dismiss First Amendment claim: joke not speech on matter of public concern under Pickering analysis |
| Equal Protection (municipal and individual defendants) | Brooks was treated differently than similarly situated non-minority employees | No municipal policy/custom alleged; Carson Defs. entitled to qualified immunity because law not clearly established | Dismiss Equal Protection claim against DPS for lack of policy/custom; dismiss Carson Defs. as Brooks failed to overcome qualified immunity; claim against Smith remains |
| Civil conspiracy (Colorado law) | Smith and Carson Defs. agreed to unlawfully terminate Brooks | Allegations are conclusory; no meeting-of-the-minds pleaded | Dismiss conspiracy claim for failure to allege an agreement/meeting of the minds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must plead factual matter to state plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (municipal § 1981 liability requires § 1983 framework)
- City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (municipal liability requires causation between policy/custom and injury)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (employers need not suspend previously contemplated action after protected speech)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 U.S. 563 (test for public-employee First Amendment claims)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (elements for municipal liability)
- Rodriguez v. Wet Ink, LLC, 603 F.3d 810 (EEOC/CCRD worksharing does not substitute for CCRD right-to-sue)
- Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842 (ratification and municipal liability analysis)