Federal Way School District, V. Paula Steven
82042-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- In 2016–2018 Paula Steven (on behalf of herself and her son Donte Maxie) alleged Lakeland Elementary staff in Federal Way treated them differently because they are Black, primarily by recording attendance in a way that generated truancy notices and mandatory attendance conferences.
- Steven sued the Federal Way School District in 2019 asserting claims for discrimination (under the Washington Law Against Discrimination), negligence, retaliation, and loss of consortium; Donte’s claims were later settled.
- The District moved for summary judgment on Steven’s individual claims; the trial court granted summary judgment after considering the parties’ briefs, Steven’s declaration and exhibits, a praecipe, and oral argument.
- The trial court found Steven had not submitted definitive evidence that she or Donte were treated differently than similarly situated non-Black students or parents and characterized much of her material as letters, assertions, or documents not before the court.
- On appeal Steven argued she had produced comparator evidence, showed negligent investigation/response, proved retaliation, and supported loss of consortium; the Court of Appeals evaluated whether she had raised genuine issues of material fact based on the record presented to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (WLAD) — disparate treatment | Steven: provided comparator evidence showing non-Black students/parents were treated better on attendance issues | District: no admissible evidence showing disparate treatment or causal link to race | Affirmed: Steven relied on vague letters/speculation and documents not before the trial court; no specific facts to create a prima facie case |
| Negligence (including negligent investigation) | Steven: District failed to exercise ordinary care and did not promptly end ongoing harassment | District: no evidence of breach or causation; trial court noted Steven disavowed a negligent-investigation theory | Affirmed: no specific record evidence of breach or causation; bare assertions insufficient |
| Retaliation | Steven: District retaliated in response to her complaints | District: no record facts showing adverse treatment of Steven; any facts about Donte were settled | Affirmed: no facts in the record supporting retaliation against Steven |
| Loss of consortium | Steven: emotional injury from the District’s conduct caused loss of consortium | District: no tangible evidence or expert proof of injury/causation | Affirmed: unsupported by evidence or expert opinion |
| Motion for reconsideration | Steven: trial court erred in denying reconsideration | District: denial proper; issues not preserved or inadequately briefed | Affirmed: Steven’s one-sentence appellate argument was inadequately briefed and insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Normandy Park, 137 Wn. App. 665 (2007) (trial-court summary-judgment order must designate the evidence reviewed; appellate review limited to that evidence)
- Sisley v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 171 Wn. App. 227 (2012) (standard of review for summary judgment and nonmoving party’s burden)
- Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812 (2005) (de novo review of summary judgment issues)
- Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 Wn.2d 1 (1986) (summary-judgment affidavits cannot be accepted at face value; party may not rely on speculation)
- SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 181 Wn.2d 127 (2014) (CR 56(e) requirements and that bare assertions will not defeat summary judgment)
- Seiber v. Poulsbo Marine Ctr., Inc., 136 Wn. App. 731 (2007) (elements required to establish negligence)
- Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn. App. 454 (2004) (elements and proof required for WLAD disparate-treatment claims)
- Newton Ins. Agency & Brokerage, Inc. v. Caledonian Ins. Grp., Inc., 114 Wn. App. 151 (2002) (summary-judgment procedural standards and requiring specific facts to show genuine issues)