Malcolm v. Vicksburg Warren School District Board of Trustees
709 F. App'x 243
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bernice Malcolm, a 54-year-old African-American employee, had a 2012–2013 employment contract with Vicksburg Warren School District; supervisor Eddie Spann made an inappropriate comment in Oct. 2012 and Malcolm complained.
- Malcolm was placed on paid administrative leave in Jan. 2013, reassigned supervisors, and notified on Feb. 4, 2013 that her contract would not be renewed; superintendent memo said no board hearing was required.
- District cited Malcolm’s failure to provide required documentation for 12 absences and issues taking instruction from management as non-renewal reasons; her position was later filled by a younger white woman.
- Malcolm filed two EEOC complaints (EEOC issued "insufficient evidence" right-to-sue letters), then sued in federal court alleging Title VII (race, sex), ADEA (age), retaliation, breach of contract, constructive discharge, and violation of Mississippi Education Employment Procedures Law.
- District moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it, Malcolm moved for reconsideration (submitted extensive new affidavit/evidence), which the court treated as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and denied as untimely and presenting evidence available earlier.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed: it refused to consider new evidence presented only in the Rule 60(b) filing, held individuals not liable under Title VII/ADEA, and found no genuine dispute that the District’s articulated reasons were pretextual nor that statutory hearing rights applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII / ADEA discrimination and retaliation | Malcolm contends non-renewal was discriminatory/retaliatory after she complained about Spann | District asserts legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: failure to comply with leave policy and insubordination / management issues | Affirmed for District — Malcolm failed to raise a genuine dispute that reasons were pretextual; summary judgment proper |
| Individual liability under Title VII / ADEA | Seeks relief from individual supervisors and board members | Defendants argue individuals are not liable under Title VII or ADEA | Affirmed — individual defendants not liable under Title VII or ADEA |
| Consideration of new evidence / Rule 60(b) motion | Malcolm submitted extensive affidavit and exhibits with reconsideration to show disputes of fact | District court treated as Rule 60(b)(6); evidence was available earlier and motion was untimely/separately unappealed | Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review denial of Rule 60(b) and declined to consider new evidence on appeal |
| Breach of contract / constructive discharge / Mississippi hearing rights | Malcolm alleges constructive discharge (including a "staged" car accident) and claims statutory right to a hearing under Mississippi law | District argues no intolerable conditions shown, evidence not presented below, and Malcolm had not completed the required employment period for statutory hearing rights | Affirmed — insufficient admissible evidence of constructive discharge or pretext; Mississippi statute did not entitle Malcolm to a hearing based on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in circumstantial employment discrimination cases)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (defendant need only articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination; courts may infer discrimination when employer’s reason is disbelieved)
- Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (individuals not liable under Title VII)
- Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enters., Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (summary judgment standard; nonmovant must produce competent evidence to create a genuine issue)