Mitchell v. Kansas City Kansas School District
714 F. App'x 884
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mitchell, an African-American school bus driver, had multiple disciplinary incidents culminating in an October 30, 2015 incident where police removed him from district property after he allegedly interfered in an investigation.
- He met with district officials on November 5, 2015 and was informed he was on unauthorized leave without pay; he filed an EEOC charge on December 9, 2015 alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
- The district recommended termination on December 21, 2015 for a series of prior policy violations; the board approved termination January 26, 2016 and later upheld it. Mitchell filed a second EEOC charge and sued after receiving a right-to-sue letter.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, finding Mitchell failed to identify specific record evidence creating genuine disputes and failed to make prima facie showings on discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court also noted Mitchell offered no pretext argument; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing Mitchell’s burden under Rule 56 and forfeiture of new theories on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by not searching the record / failing to consider affidavits, unemployment decision, and audio/video | Mitchell contended the court overlooked submitted affidavits, a Labor Dept. finding favoring unemployment benefits, and audio/video evidence | District argued Mitchell failed to identify particular record citations or frame specific disputes as required by Rule 56(c) | Court: No error—responding party must point to particular record material; court was not required to comb the record for him |
| Whether Mitchell established a prima facie Title VII race-discrimination claim | Mitchell argued disciplinary/termination created inference of discrimination (pointing to timing and his membership in protected class) | District showed legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (multiple policy violations) and that Mitchell had no evidence of disparate treatment | Court: Mitchell met membership and adverse-action elements but failed to show similarly situated comparators or other evidence to create an inference of discrimination; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Mitchell preserved and proved pretext | Mitchell now suggests employer motives were pretextual (argued in appeal) | District maintained it provided legitimate reasons and noted Mitchell never argued pretext below | Court: Pretext was not argued in district court and is forfeited on appeal; Mitchell did not seek plain-error review, so issue not considered |
| Whether Mitchell established retaliation (causation) | Mitchell relied on temporal proximity between EEOC charge and termination to show causal nexus | District showed disciplinary process began before EEOC charge (November meeting, leave without pay), so decision was along previously contemplated lines | Court: No causation — adverse action preceded protected activity; temporal proximity insufficient given preexisting discipline; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Bennett v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (discusses elements of prima facie case and pretext standards)
- Jones v. Denver Post Corp., 203 F.3d 748 (10th Cir. 2000) (similarly situated comparator analysis for prima facie case)
- Ward v. Jewell, 772 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and temporal-proximity discussion)
- Cross v. Home Depot, 390 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (requiring parties to identify particular record evidence opposing summary judgment)
- Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2000) (nonmoving party must present specific facts supporting a genuine dispute)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity insufficient where employer was already proceeding along contemplated lines)