*1 be considered for should not convictions reason, that he failed to car-
some a burden fact, ry. he offered no evidence whatever point. to this relevant
III. stated, judg- affirm the For the reasons ment of the trial court. KRAMER, Appellee,
Deborah SCHOOL DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY R-1, Stapleton Public NO. a/k/a
Schools, Appellant.
No. 97-3132. Appeals, Court of United States Eighth Circuit. 9, 1998. Submitted Feb. Decided Oct. Rehearing Suggestion Rehearing
En Banc Denied Nov. 1998.* *Judge of this order. Beam took no in the consideration or decision *2 Title arising VII
charge claim (“Title VII”), 42 of 1964 Act Rights Civil set seq. For the et § 2000e U.S.C. below, we affirm forth district court.3
I working for the began Kramer Deborah during teacher a substitute
school district certified year. school 1987-88 chemistry. work- While and in mathematics district, obtained Kramer ing for school mathe- school middle further certification general subjects, matics, all middle school natural science. science and school year, the school the 1990-91 During teacher science high school district’s and, ultimate- leave administrative placed on his re- named as Kramer was resigned. ly, teacher’s full-time a and awarded placement an- subsequently awarded She was contract. Nebraska, for the Lincoln, ar- contracts Perry, nual full-time teacher’s Gregory H. brief), for At all Gessford, years. (James school B. and 1992-93 gued probationary a times, remained Kramer appellant. by Nebraska law. defined teachеr as Nebraska, Omaha, ar- Fennell, V. Jerold brief), Howell, 1993, for district’s school (W. on Craig February, gued super- and Apple, Mike principal, high school Appellee. they Broadbent, decided intendent, John ARNOLD,1 Chief S. Richard Before Kramer’s recommend would HANSEN, Judge, following Circuit Judge, for the renewed not be contract Judge. LIMBAUGH,2 District approved the board school year. The school and, on non-renewal of recommendation LIMBAUGH, Judge District letter notice sent Kramer March requested R-l, effect.4 District County School Logan informal right to an (“the granted school Schools Public Stapleton a/k/a her the to allow board school before the en- jury verdict district”) following a appeals posi- explain to discuss opportunity employees, its former of one in favor of tered employment, regard to continued tion with discriminatory dis- Kramer, on Deborah District Ar School Education Board stepped down S. Arnold Hon. Richard 1. The (1988) nold, 417 N.W.2d Neb. Appeals Court States Judge the United Chief (Nebraska "repose[ ] in statutes business Eighth at the close Circuit for power to contract superintendent, by the been succeeded He has April 1998. administrators.”). The school teachers II. Bowman M. Hon. Pasco aof the contract renew may not to elect it deems reason for teacher probationary United States Limbaugh, Stephen N. Hon. 2. The constitutionally sufficient, it "is not long as so Mis- District of Eastern Judge for District souri, § 79- Neb.Rev.Stat. impermissible reasons.” by designation. sitting probation 828(4). it is determined Once renewed, the may not be Shanahan, ary contract teacher's United M. Thomas Honorable 3. The given written notice tois probationary teacher of Nebraska. Judge the District District States ... non- consider will “that the contract teacher's] [probationary of such may renewal law, only a Nebraska 4. Under 79- year." Neb.Rev.Stat. ensuing school probationary aof contract non-renew act to 828(3). 79-828; § Nuzum Neb.Rev.Stat. See teacher. her, in contraven- questions signed nor direct and to ask present information policy. tion of a written school behalf of the school dis- appearing on those 79-828(5) §§ trict. Neb.Rev.Stat. Additionally, (8). made material and Broadbent April misrepresentations was held and omissions *3 counsel, by called represented presenting Kramer was their recommen- school board the teaching and cross-examined re- several witnesses dation that her contract not be Although they her. she chal- presented witnesses evidence that newed. She regarding the lenged misrepresented performance the recommendation that her evalua- contract, average, of her Kram- five out of non-renewal tions were below when present any allegations or еvi- average er did not or six evaluations were better. She all, the specifically discrimination. in- dence maintains that Broadbent nearly five hours. the lasted the school board not to read structed evaluations before the approximately one hour of delibera- After opportunity board members did not have an tions, unanimously adopted hearing. during evaluations to read the employ- stating a resolution that Kramer’s Kramer adduced evidence that fifteen of the ment contract would not be renewed signed had a let- seventeen tenured teachers get along with the administra- she could her, support ter in but that Broadbent evaluations, tion, averаge received below give school board. failed to the letter player in failed to function as a team Finally, Apple presented she evidence that everyday working of the school environment position high had decided to leave his as the, district, and that school district would be principal and had informed Broadbent by seeking cooperative a better served more prior hearing, of his intentions but that teacher. they purposefully kept this from information challenge Kramer elected not to the school the school board. did, board’s decision state court. She The school district moved however, charge with file of discrimination a matter of at the end of Kramer’s ease Equal Opportunity Commis- the Nebraska and, again, at the close of all of the evidence. letter, Upon receiving right-to-sue sion. argued It that Kramer failed to introduce initiated the instant lawsuit in the Kramer finding evidence sufficient to for the District United States District Court gender discrimination. The dis- intentional Complaint alleges Her of Nebraska. trict court denied both motions. discriminatorily discharged she gender. of her conference, At the initial instruction presented sev- the district court counsel with May proceeded to trial on The case proposed jury enteen instructions. No ob- presented 1997. Kramer she made, jections though request- by disparately had treated been ed that Instruction No. be amended to high principal, Apple. Mike district’s “corporation” “polit- substitute the word with Specifically, presented testimony by accurately ical subdivision” to more describe others, including former co-workers and her- party-defendant. The school district did self, detailing Apple disciplined had how object agreed and the district court harshly severely more than male teach- amended, In- amend the instruction. As Likewise, other ers for similar misconduct. provides: No. 2 struction they testified that too had female teachers unfairly parties plain- inappropriately or be- The to this action are the been treated defendant, tiff, gender. of their Deborah Kramer and cause Throughout testimony inappropriate Stapleton Public Schools. of off-color and/or instructions, may plaintiff be re- by both and the school these remarks made by plaintiff to as the or her name. superintendent, John Broadbent. ferred district’s may by Apple The be referred to as the produced reprimands written defendant by defendant or its name. personnel from her file which were neither ques- this, court political posed subdivi- district answer such In eases Schools, stating “the by simply, school board.” sion, including Stapleton Public tion employees. through agents acts the second court аnswered political of a subdivi- agent employee An or instruction, by substituting a question new by may political bind the subdivision sion 10(a). In- Revised Instruction No. Revised agent or made acts and statements 10(a) provides: struction No. agent employee or employee while the you If find in favor of authority scope of acting [sic] you then must answer Instruction No. employee by the delegated agent or following question in form: the verdict Additionally, political subdivision. defendant, Stapleton Public Has may political agent bind the Schools, proved by preponderance and statements made subdivision acts would the evidence that the defendant *4 scope employee’s the duties the of within have made the same decision not to renew political an subdivision. for plaintiffs employment contract of the year plaintiffs of regardless another 22, 1997, jury May received On gender? deliberations, hours of case. After several following jury questions submitted the 23, 1997, May jury returned On court: the district plaintiff, in Deborah verdict favor of $110,000.00 jury Kramer. awarded her 10(a), No. does “Sta- Under Instruction $15,000.00 wages and for for lost and benefits Public stand for the school pleton Schools” pain suffering. The court emotional and or the school board administra- jury’s judgment entered verdict clerk tion? Thereafter, $125,000.00. in the amount of 10(a), phrase Instruction No. Under judg- filed a motion amend plaintiff’—doеs “actions include order of ment to reinstatement happened or all include pay prejudgment interest. front of period employment? during her attorneys’ for a motion filed 10(a) provides: Instruction and costs. fees you plaintiff If find in favor of granted part in and de- The district court you then answer Instruction must part motion to amend the nied in Kramer’s following question in the form: verdict request It for rein- judgment. denied defendant, Stapleton Public Has statement, years her three of front awarded Schools, preponderance proved by the $71, pay—reduced to its value the evidence that the defendant would request prejudg- and denied her 288.06 against the have taken the samе actions grant- interest. The district court also ment regardless plaintiffs gen- mo- part and Kramer’s ed in denied der? fees attorneys’ It awarded her tion for fees. $42, costs, counsel, Following a but amount conference with reduced final The district court entered question court the first 378.18. district answered 9,1997. supplemental July 20. drafting judgment Instruction No.
Supplemental provides: No. 20 Instruction II instructions, Stapleton
As used these defendant, Lo- means the appeal, Public Schools point first For its R-l, County gan School District No. erred argues the district court district governed political by the is a subdivision matter judgment as a denying its motion for Please refer to district’s board. of law.
Instruction 2. aof We de novo the denial review Please all the instructions reread law, as matter motion your continue deliberations. standards as the applying same Sieben, F.3d v. 108 objected to the court. Feltmann specifically The school district (8th Cir.1997). assume pro- “must to Instruction No. It also 974 We reference 624 con- her full-time teacher’s nonmoving party’s non-renewal of
proven all facts
gender discrimination.
show,
tract was intentional
give
the benefit
evidence tended
inferences, and assume that
of all reasonable
previously recognized
This
has
Court
were resolved
in the evidence
all conflicts
application
agency principles
this
Hathaway
Runyon, 132 F.3d
v.
her favor.”
Kientzy v. Mc Don
Title VII context. See
(8th Cir.1997).
Judgment as a
(8th
Douglas Corp.,
nell
if,
only
consider
appropriate
matter
Cir.1993)(“[a]
jury
reasonable
could have
manner,
in this
no reason
ing the evidence
[plaintiffs supervisor]
[a
used
found that
non-moving par
able
could find
disciplinary com
company investigator], the
Ryther KARE
108 F.3d
ty. See
v.
mittee,
resources]
of human
[the
director
—
denied,
Cir.) (en banc),
(8th
cert.
prejudice”);
his
Jiles v.
as the conduit of
U.S. -,
2510,
625 properly before us. Kostelec of ail of error is proven, giving her benefit reason- Co., inferences, Casualty 64 F.3d Farm Fire and resolving all conflicts State able (8th 1220, 1225 favor, say cannot that in her we the evidence jury to conclude unreasonable for it was jury the district court’s “We review of her full-time teach- that the non-renewal abuse of instructions for discretion was result of intentional contract er’s simply review must determine whether gender discrimination. instructions, taken as a whole and viewed law, light applicable fair the evidence III ly submitted adequately the issues point appeal, the For its second Co., jury.” Kim v. case Nash Finch argues Instruction (8th Cir.1997)(internal instruction, supported agency omitted). on in quotations We will reverse evidence. only if structional error we find that rights error the substantial “affected matter, note an initial we As parties.” Id. objection to Instruc school district made 2 at the conference or tion No. instruction Because we conclude Instruction Rules Rule 51 of the Federal of Civil trial. any properly given, we not find do provides party may as “[n]o Procedure Supplemental No. 20. error Instruction give failure sign giving error the or the If, however, emphasis upon placed undue objects party an instruction unless instruction, agency believe theretо before retires consider resulting was harmless. error verdict, stating distinctly objected the matter objection.” grounds Fed. to and the V 51; En Dupre see v. Fru-Con R.Civ.P. Inc., gineering, Cir. *6 point appeal, its final on For 1997)(“to argument concerning a preserve an court argues that the district district review, party appellate instruction a jurisdiction to was without award objected distinctly the matter to must state $71, pay it exceeds 288.06 front objection grounds for the and the compensatory damages statutory limit on record”). these, In such as circumstances pecuniary loss.” 42 U.S.C. for “future only if amounts to reverse the instruction will 1981a(b)(3). monetary § a award Whether 333; plain Dupre, Ryther, 112 at error. subject сompensatory pay of front is review, plain error F.3d at 847. Under 108 damages in Title VII is of first cap an issue grounds “only if is for reversal an instruction impression in this Court. rights of prejudices the substantial the error pay held front is The Sixth has Circuit miscarriage in a party a would result subject legal remedy cap. See Hud a Smith, justice v. if left uncorrected.” Rush (6th Reno, v. 130 F.3d son Cir.1995) (en banc). (8th 918, 922 56 F.3d Cir.1997); Township Hamlin v. Charter already agen- we have determined that As Flint, (E.D.Mich.1997). F.Supp. 987 965 apply in principles can and do the Title cy statutory Applying canons of con general context, 2 was er- Instruction No. VII struction, Circuit the Sixth determined plain ror—let alone error. common, ordinary the term meaning of pecuniary loss” is “an amount “future
IV money time.” which will be lost at a later Hudson, Accordingly, the at 1203. point appeal, the 130 F.3d For its third “ pay’, concluded ‘front argues Supplemental Instruction Sixth Circuit law, purpose is question a from both definition response to is a mone pecuniary ‘future loss’ because it emphasis on erro- a jury, placed undue salary tary award for agency instruction. As school dis- neous but for the discrimina objected express ref- would have received specifically trict trial, tion.” Id. to Instruction 2 at this claim erence
626 decision; Ms. Kramer Circuit, however, this make a non-renewal the Sixth
Unlike
law to
right under state
pay
did not exercise her
front
as
form
always viewed
has
Court
by a state
reviewed
v.
the board’s decision
Newhouse McCor
have
equitable relief. See
(8th
court,
court; and,
Co.,
gone to a state
Cir.
if she had
110 F.3d
mick &
1997)(“Front
remedy,
have been limited to
equitable
an
review would
pay is
may
the school board
before
court
its discretion
record of the
the district
by a deferen-
governed
rights statutes]
and would have been
the [civil
award under
view,
my
none of these
injured party whole.”)(quoting
tial standard.
make the
Co.,
Kramer’s action
points
38 F.3d
is fatal to Ms.
Insurance
Smith World
(8th Cir.1994)).
view,
requirement
pay
In our
front
law. There is
federal
remedies,
those be-
other than
monetary award for the
administrative
much a
is not so
agen-
counterpart
employee would have received
or a state
salary that the
fore
EEOC
discrimination,
precedent to
rather
as a condition
cy,
but
be exhausted
but for the
reinstatement,
That
under Title VII.
in a federal court
monetary equivalent
suit
is
did not claim sex discrimination
reinstatement
given in situations where
e.g.,
may
New
lessen the credi-
impossible. See
impracticable or
before
assertions,
house,
641;
Philipp
but that was
bility
v. ANR
her later
110 F.3d at
Inc.,
Limbaugh
jury,
Judge
System,
question
Freight
ante,
Ms. Kramer
rightly says,
is more
at 624-625.
This subtle distinction
1981a(b)(2)
any
pursue
state-
obligation
section
under no
than semantics because
that,
damages
independently
an
cre-
“[cjompensatory
remedy. She has
provides
VII,
under Title
right
this section shall not include
to sue
awarded under
ated federal
are
backpay,
motives
other
in that forum the defendant’s
backpay, interest
novo,
706(g)
per-
though
under section
the burden of
type of relief authorized
reviewed de
always
Rights Act of 1964.”
U.S.C.
of course remains
suasion
Civil
added).
And, finally,
against
is
1981a(b)(2)(emphasis
plaintiff.
§
We there
the action
unit,
district,
fore,
governmental
disagree with the Sixth the school
respectfully,
pay,
of the school board or
that front
the members
Circuit and conclude
Certainly
entity.
remedy
from
statuto
the board as an
equitable
excluded
relevant,
motives,
here,
provided
compensatory damages
good
uncontested
are
ry limit on
1981a(b)(3).
invariаbly dispositive,
orn-
they are not
but
section
ante,
624-625,
eases,
clearly
state.
see
Accordingly, we affirm.
*7
that
present
the
ease is evidence
Crucial to
ARNOLD,
Judge,
S.
Circuit
RICHARD
district,
of the
top
the two
administrators
concurring.
Broadbent, were motivat-
Mr.
and Mr.
thorough opinion
join Judge Limbaugh’s
I
recommending
non-re-
by gender the
ed
fully,
separately to
but write
for the Court
plaintiffs
contract. Without this
newal
dissenting
thoughts
our
a few
about
offer
recommendation,
hearing
the school-board
observations, especially
invo
his
colleague’s
Some of the
would never have occurred.
opinion in Lacks v. Fer
cation of our recent
re-
supporting these conclusions are
fаcts
R-2, 147
Reorganized School Dist.
guson
opinion.
Judge Limbaugh’s
counted
rehearing en banc
suggestion
evidence,
ap-
Among
things, there was
other
Cir.1998) (9
denied,
F.3d 904
— 2
jury,
two
parently persuasive to the
vote).
women teachers
top administrators treated
men,
coarsely
favorably than
and that
indicating
points
less
begin by
the
on
Let me
remarks,
disparaging
the details of which
All of the
agree
I
with the dissent.
which
recounted,
made about
need not be
presented
Kramer
no
following is true: Ms.
evidence,
There was
at the
women teachers.
evidence of sex discrimination
defendant,
by
that men and
board;
full
the
was
the school
the
before
up
It was
equal treatment.
fair;
any mem- women received
that
there is no evidence
biased;
to believe.
jury to decide which side
the
to the
personally
of the board
ber
was
addition,
jury
a chance
In
authority empowered to
is the sole
any subsequent board
poisoned
school board
have been
would
Kramer
Ms.
whether
decide
termi-
action,
decision to
event,
gen-
so that
regardless of
terminated
ad-
“rubber-stamped” the
simply
not have.
would
nate her
der,
that she
it found
recommendation,
gender-based
ministrators’
dissenting colleague,
my
deference
With
Kientzy,
stand. See
jury’s verdict could
reasoning, in
any of this
that
not think
I do
prevail
allowing her to
But
F.2d at 1057.
case, is
in this
the record
the context
great
present case is a
the facts of
(As
in Lacks.
opinion
our
inconsistent with
Staple-
precedents. The
departure from our
I were
Judge
happens, both
Hansen
it
not, by
of exercis-
virtue
board did
ton school
As I read
panel.)
Lacks
of the
members
fire
authority to hire and
statutory
ing its
It
very fact-specific.
it is
opinion,
Lacks
teachers,
paw, “one used
a cat’s
thus become
a fair
rule that
any general
does not erect
purposes.”
accomplish his
by
another
board immunizes
impartial
hearing before
(3d
Dictionary, 354
International
Webster’s
consequences of
from the
a school
ed.1986).
opinion
Unfortunately, the court’s
the district’s
part
discrimination
into a
pаw” cases
our “cat’s
today
administration,
transforms
if that discrimination
ac-
be
employment
tails that wiE
used
cat o’ nine
of adverse
proximate cause
part
provides
every
of bias
school district whose
tion. The evidence
weak,
mandated,
very
statutorily
independent,
in Lacks was
thorough,
administrators
(or
teacher
acting
adjudicatory
the misconduct
review before
fuE-blown
misconduct) was
regarded
the board
what
recommendations.
on termination
circumstances,
it was
those
egregious.
In
claim,
paw”
“cat’s
present a submissible
To
wholly
verdict
view that
our
tending to
evidence
proffer
must
Ms. Kramer
authority com-
Lacks is not
unreasonable.
influ-
school bоard
“that the
demonstrate
in the
jury verdict
us to overturn
peEing
administrators, and
by
bias of
enced
circumstances
quite different
consequently served
that
the board
case.
the ... animus
conduit,
paw,’ of
or ‘cat’s
Lacks, 147 F.3d
administration.”
the school
dissenting.
HANSEN,
Judge,
Circuit
no
“produced
Ms.
at 725. Since
view, Ms.
my
dissent.
respectfuUy
I
deferred
evidence
can
has
produced
[the
administra-
opinion or
of discrimina
inference
reasonable
id.,
determination,”
making its
tors] in
Stapleton school
part of the
tion on
“influ-
the board was
shown
has not
favor therefore
in her
and a verdict
any gender bias on
enced”
conclusion,
reaching
“In
stand.
cannot
administrators,
except to the extеnt
must
the evidence
mindful
[I am]
dispute raised
resolved
school board
light most favorable
viewed
which, of
the termination recommendation —
infer
verdict,
all reasonable
jury’s
the board
course,
requires
Nebraska law
al
must be
of the verdict
in support
ences
ac-
school board
Stapleton
The elected
do.
*8
Reorganized
Ferguson
Lacks
lowed.”
statutory hearing at
Kramer her
Ms.
corded
R-2,
Cir.
Dist
Sch.
by counsel
represented
which she
states,
correctly
1998).
opinion
The instant
her own
evidence on
witnesses and
presented
the evidence
suggest that
not
“Kramer does
who
witnesses
behalf, and cross-examined
board
individual
that the
indicates
presented
a hint
Thеre
not
against her.
appeared
her
to renew
not
members elected
full and
hearing
was other than
itself
Supra at
gender.”
of her
contract because
for
hearing continued
trial-type
fair. The
to recover
Kramer sued
Ms.
Since
retired,
the board
nearly
hours before
five
by discriminatory discharge
damages for
consider
session to
jury, into executive
Eke a
this failure
board,
might suspect
one
had been
which
arguments
the evidence
However, if she
to her ease.
be
should
fatal
Lacks,
Here,
“no members
inas
presented.
discrimina
gender
unlawful
show that
could
during
present
were
of the administration
who
of the
administrators
part
tion
Id.
dehberations.”
to the
thе board’s
separation
her
initiaUy recommended
differently
she. See
than
Ward
in- were treated
that bias
claimed at trial
Ms. Kramer
Co., 111
Paper Products
the administra-
v. Procter & Gamble
hearing,
fected
560-61(8th
She
misrepresentations and F.3d
material
tors “made
dispa
alleged
their recommenda-
presenting
probationary
but
omissions
board,” supra at
male
of tenured
teachers.
tion to the
rate treatment
decision.
not
poisoned
say,
teachers are
these errors
tenured
Needless
Principal Apple and Su-
probationary
contends that
similarly
teachers.
situated to
misrepresented to
79-828(4),
perintendent Broadbent
§§
See Neb.Rev.Stat.
perfor-
hеr
the contents of
(1996). Further,
allega
the school
many
specific
her
testimony to
which
mance evaluations.
re
unequivocally
completely and
tions were
that, when Mr.
in fact indicates
she refers
administrators,
trial,
at
where
futed
Broadbent
recommended
members,
themselves all
and the teachers
Ms. Kram-
letter to
a nonrenewal
board send
in fact
teachers had
that the male
testified
er,
that the board members not
requested
he
disciplined
misconduct
over
been
hearing
until a
evaluations
review her
they had not.
Ms. Kramer claimed
,
presented at
held,
were
and the evaluations
that Mr. Broad-
Kramer also claims
Ms.
(Tri-
presence.
hearing in Ms. Kramer’s
letter,
sup-
in her
possessed a
written
bent
996-97.)
Ms. Kramer does not
al Tr. at
by many of the
signed
tenured
port and
hearing
any
at the
made
effort
claim that she
pres-
did not
Stapleton,
which he
teachers
misrepresentations
any alleged
to correct
initially
Broadbent
the board. Mr.
ent to
board,
any
expose
or to
made to the school
passing
recall
that he could not
testified
unfair,
treatment.
She most
gender-based
(Trial
655); but then testified
letter on
Tr. at
to the school board
certainly did not indicate
(Id. at
to the board.
that he did submit it
had inten-
that either
administrators
888-89.)
testified that
Mr.
her record
tionally
about
misled
(Id.
presented to the board.
at
letter was
It strains
of a bias
women.
869.)
if nеither of the administrators
Even
that,
credulity
breaking point to believe
to its
had
the letter
Ms.
submitted
long
course
adversarial
over the
rep-
Kramer was
counsel,
represented by
Ms. Kram-
and while
called as witnesses
by counsel. She
resented
not
what she believed
challenge
er would
many of the teachers who
on her behalf
supervisor,
false statements made
letter,
herself
signed
and she
had
charge
the statements
or make
have
copy
If the board did not
of it.
any
gender bias.
in fact bottomed on
part of all the
consider as
evidence
letter to
case,
not
themselves do
indi-
the evaluations
employment when it
regarding Ms. Kramer’s
bias,
legitimate, non-
gender
cate
but contain
deliberate,
the reason is
Ms.
retired
renewing Ms.
discriminatory
for not
reasons
proffer of
negligence. Her
Kramer’s own
very
prof-
Kramer’s contract —the
support letter
regarding the
does
considered these
fered at trial. The board
gender
discrimina-
permit
an inference
This evi-
making
its decision.
evaluations
Stapleton
school board.
tion
require
to make a credibili-
does not
us
dence
importantly, it does
ty
More
determination.
testified at
board members
trial
The school
board was
raise an
inference
no indication
that Ms.
hidden, undisclosed,
by any
influenced
them,
their consideration
gender
bias
underlying
bias
uncomplained about
record. Mem-
reviewing
employment
superinten-
principal
testified,
noth-
“There was
David Jones
ber
dent.
up
innuendo or
ing brought
sexual
*9
April.”
discrimination
that her evaluations
Ms. Kramer asserts
683.)
asked,
(Trial
you
“Did
Tr. at
When
they
supervisor’s
her
bias
reflected
[gender
at that hear-
anything
bias]
like
hear
criticisms for misconduct
contained
1993?” member Linda
ing
April 28th of
teachers did not re-
similarly situated male
(Trial
“No, none of it.”
Licking responded,
dispa-
However,
through
to show bias
ceive.
978.) Still,
Kramer insists that
Tr. at
Ms.
treatment,
demon-
Kramer must
rate
Ms.
(which
joined
keep-
she
hidden bias
similarly
male teachers
some
situated
strate that
jury’s
to
very
that used
review
similar to
bringing it to the board’s
by not
ing hidden
Dist.,
County
v. York
Sch.
attention)
would verdict. See Cox
board. She
infected the
138,
(1997);
142-43
that,
hearing, and
560 N.W.2d
despite the
252 Neb.
have us believe
wit-
School Dist.
of her own
Boss
Fillmore
despite
presentation
(1997).
board,
Neb.
559 N.W.2d
nesses to
lim-
appeal would have been
stamped” the
Her state court
recommenda-
simply “rubber
record made before the school
All evidence
ited to the
her contract.
tion not to renew
id.,
course,
which,
this,
jury’s
because she com-
inference
presented belies
it,
complain
to
about
contained
pletely failed
contrary is unreasonable.
play.
discrimination at
not a whiff
sex
evidence, the board
taking hours of
After
pro-
with two
into executive session
retired
rеcord, I
thorough review of the
After a
them,
to
Ms.
one
retain
posed
before
motions
that the board’s review was
find no evidence
her,
Kramer;
six rea-
with
one to terminate
it
perfunctory
proforma,
but rather
either
deci-
of the termination
sons listed
review,
thorough
conducted
inde
was a
sion,
retiring
not unlike a
a situation
con
pendently
school board members
elected
consider and
special verdict forms to
with
statutory duty
scientiously discharging their
evidence, the
Upon review of the
complete.
them,
adjudicate
issue set before
They
unanimously
voted
terminate.
view,
my
In
no taint of
bias.
simply adopt
proposed
termi-
did not
adjudicatory hearing
admittеdly
and fair
full
motion,
however. Their review of
nation
possessed
by independent fact-finders who
pro-
two of the
evidence led them strike
one)
(let alone a sex-based
personal
bias
Kram-
Ms.
posed
for termination.
opportunity
to hear all
and who had
sides
very
pointed out the
evi-
er’s trial counsel
issues, served to break
of the termination
did not
demonstrates the board
dence which
alleged
any causal
between
connection
He
“rubber-stamp” the recommendation.
top
of the two
underlying
bias
sex-based
member Jones
cross-exami-
asked board
Here,
final decision.
and the
administrators
nation,
[sic]
lines were stricken
“And those
no evidence of “rubber
because there was
resolution, lis-
after the board discussed
pawing.”
can be no “cat’s
stamping” there
and decided how
to the evidence
tened
unequivocally
in this case
“The evidence
'
matter,
correct?” Answer:
this
decide
independent
board made an
shows that the
694.)
(Trial
this
Tr. at
“On
“That’s correct.”
should
[Kramer]
as to whether
determination
record,
inference that
merely as a
did not serve
terminated and
gender] wholly
[plaintiffs
acted
administra
desires of school
conduit for the
Lacks,
mendation sex, proceeded to then based on by filing this Title VII blindside believe Lest the reader in federal court. suit comparing the my analogy, role hearing to that at Ms. Kramer’s school board stretched, under jury, is Nebraska of a have decision would termination a deferential standard reviewed under been