St. Ambroise Azagoh-Kouadio v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, 2016-266

Background

Plaintiff St. Ambroise Azagoh-Kouadio, born in Ivory Coast and a U.S. citizen, taught French and coached soccer at Rice Memorial High School for ~25 years under a one-year 2013–14 employment contract.
In April 2014 Rice issued an employee disciplinary letter after a parent complaint that plaintiff made demeaning comments and said he sometimes wanted to "slap" a student; plaintiff admitted the slap remark but said it was a joke and refused to sign the letter.
Three weeks later plaintiff told a student in class to "go kill yourself;" he admitted the statement during Rice’s investigation and was placed on administrative leave; Rice relieved him of duties for the remainder of the year and did not renew his contract, paying him in full for 2013–14.
Plaintiff sued alleging employment discrimination under VFEPA (race/national origin), breach of express or implied contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Rice moved for summary judgment and for a protective order to block a second deposition of the assistant principal; the trial court granted the protective order (no transcript of hearing was produced) and later granted summary judgment to Rice on all counts.
The trial court found plaintiff made a prima facie discrimination showing but Rice offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (disciplinary statements to students); plaintiff failed to produce evidence of pretext, and contract/ covenant claims failed because the contract had no renewal right and plaintiff suffered no contract damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse discretion by granting Rice a protective order blocking a second deposition?	Protective order prevented needed discovery and impaired ability to oppose summary judgment.	Deposition was cumulative, duplicative, past discovery deadline; protective order proper.	Affirmed — appellant waived transcript, so review impossible; assume discretion was proper.
Did Rice unlawfully discriminate in nonrenewing plaintiff’s contract under VFEPA?	Nonrenewal was pretext for racial/national-origin discrimination; pointed to past firing/rehiring and alleged disparate treatment of white teachers.	Nonrenewal based on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: repeated inappropriate statements to students after warning.	Affirmed — plaintiff failed to rebut employer’s reasons or show pretext.
Did Rice breach an express or implied employment contract?	Claim is effectively wrongful dismissal, not mere nonrenewal; settlement in 2009 required just cause (argued still applicable).	2013–14 contract was for one year with no renewal right; plaintiff was paid in full and had no contract damages; 2009 settlement no longer applied.	Affirmed — no breach of contract: contract expired, no damages, and no overlapping implied contract.
Did Rice violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing?	(Argued below) Actions undermined plaintiff’s receipt of contractual benefits.	No evidence Rice acted to deprive plaintiff of benefits under agreement.	Affirmed — plaintiff did not raise arguments on appeal and produced no evidence of undermining conduct.

Key Cases Cited

Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 176 Vt. 356 (Vt. 2004) (framework for prima facie employment discrimination and burden-shifting)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (pretext and burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
Schmitt v. Lalancette, 175 Vt. 284 (Vt. 2003) (discretionary standard for discovery protective orders)
Ianelli v. U.S. Bank, 187 Vt. 644 (Vt. 2010) (breach of contract fails without proof of damages)
Havill v. Woodstock Soapstone Co., 177 Vt. 297 (Vt. 2004) (distinguishing implied contract terms where express contract exists)
Clayton v. Unsworth, 188 Vt. 432 (Vt. 2010) (summary judgment requires plaintiff identify specific record facts showing genuine issue)