Moore v. Forrest City Sch. Dist., No. 07-2206 (8th Cir. May 7, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) has ruled that an Arkansas school district and its superintendent did not racially discriminate against a teacher when they repeatedly declined to promote her to an assistant principal position. Christine Moore, who was employed by Forest City School District (FCSD) as a teacher, first applied for an assistant principal position in 1991. She applied again in 2000 and filed an EEOC complaint when the position was given to a white woman with 20 fewer years of teaching experience. Ms. Moore submitted a late application for a position in March 2005, and again filed an EEOC complaint, which was dismissed. In August 2005, the school district filled another administrative position without notifying Ms. Moore of an opening. FCSD contended the position was a lead teacher and was created to preserve another teacher’s position due to a surplus of science teachers. Ms. Moore filed another grievance with the EEOC, which also was dismissed. Finally, she applied in August 2006 and November 2006 for an assistant principal position, but neither position was filled. Ms. Moore filed suit under Title VII, alleging the decisions not to promote her in March 2005 and November 2006 were racially motivated. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. She also alleged that FCSD’s characterization of the August 2005 position as a lead teacher was pre-textual and that the lack of notification was retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. The district court ruled in favor of the school district.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regarding the March 2005 position, Ms. Moore claimed FCSD argument that she was the less qualified candidate was pretextual, because if experience were the only criterion she would have been hired in 2000. However, the court noted that in the June 2000 decision, both candidates lacked administrative experience, while in the March 2005 decision, the selected applicant did have administrative experience. As for the August 2005 position, the appeals court found that the district court’s conclusion that the position was a lead teacher, not an assistant principal, was not clearly erroneous. While Ms. Moore presented evidence that FCSD identified the selected candidate as an assistant principal through meetings, letterhead, and her signature stamp, FCSD presented evidence that the selected candidate did not receive a pay increase or the responsibilities of an assistant principal. The Eighth Circuit agreed with Ms. Moore that the district court erred in considering her June 2000 EEOC complaint as the motivation for a retaliatory lack of notice related to the August 2005 position. Nonetheless, it concluded that the claim failed because there was no position available for her in August 2005 because the lead teacher position was created specifically for another person. As a result, not promoting Moore could not be considered adverse action.
Moore v. Forrest City Sch. Dist., No. 07-2206 (8th Cir. May 7, 2008)