Download Regular Type or Download Large Type or read after the jump.
Essay # 1 (Section B)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALAN )
RODEMAKER, )
Plaintiff )
v. )
??? )
COMPLAINT (draft)
4. Plaintiff Alan Rodemaker (“Rodemaker”) was, until January 2024, the head football coach at Valdosta (Ga.) High School and a physical-education teacher at the school. In both roles, he was an employee of the Valdosta Board of Education. Rodemaker is a white man.
5. Defendant Warren Lee (“Lee”) is a member of the nine-person Valdosta Board of Education. Lee is an African American man.
6. Defendant Liz Shumphard (“Shumphard”) is a member of the nine-person Valdosta Board of Education. Shumphard is an African American woman.
7. Defendant Tyra Howard (“Howard”) is a member of the nine-person Valdosta Board of Education. Howard is an African American woman.
8. Defendant Debra Bell (“Bell”) is a member of the nine-person Valdosta Board of Education. Bell is an African American woman.
9. Defendant Kelisa Brown (“Brown”) is a member of the nine-person Valdosta Board of Education. Brown is an African American woman.
10. The Valdosta Board of Education (“Board”) is a local governmental body, part of the State of Georgia and charged with operating Valdosta public schools, including Valdosta High School. It is the employer for all Valdosta school employees, including Rodemaker prior to the non-renewal of his contract. It consists of nine members; all Board actions, including employment and contracting decisions, are dictated and controlled by the votes of a majority of its members.
* * *
17. Rodemaker was the head football coach at Valdosta (Ga.) High School beginning in fall 2014. In that role, he led the team to one State 6A Championship and to two berths in the State 6A quarterfinals. Rodemaker also worked as a physical-education teacher at the school. As both a football coach and teacher, Rodemaker’s reviews were exemplary; no complaints or evidence of misconduct appear in his personnel file.
18. Rodemaker’s contract was up for renewal by the Board on a yearly basis.
19. From 2015 through 2023, the Board renewed Rodemaker’s contract without incident.
20. Beginning in fall 2023, the racial make-up of the Board changed with the election of five African American members—Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown. They formed a working majority of the nine-member Board. Their combined votes control and dictate any decisions and actions of the Board.
21. In January 2024 the contracts of 151 contracts came up for renewal at a Board hearing.
22. Lee moved to consider Rodemaker’s contract separately from the other 150; that motion passed by a 5-4 vote, with Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown voting for the motion.
23. The Board voted unanimously to renew the remaining 150 contracts.
24. On the separate vote on Rodemaker’s contract, the Board voted 5-4 against renewal, with Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown voting against renewal.
* * *
29. The Board held a second vote on Rodemaker’s contract at its February 2024 meeting.
30. The Board again voted 5-4 against renewal, with Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown again voting against renewal.
31. As a result of the two votes, Rodemaker’s contract was not renewed and his employment as football coach and teacher at Valdosta High School ended at the close of that school year, in June 2024.
32. Upon information and belief, Rodemaker’s contract was not renewed because he is white and the five African American Board members wanted to hire a Black football coach.
Count I: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(v. Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown)
Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Violation of Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Consttitution
(v. Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown)
Count III: Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964
(v. Valdosta Board of Education)
You are counsel for Rodemaker. You have drafted the above portions of a Complaint for a civil action you plan to file. From any defendants, you will seek damages, back pay (wages you would have earned between the firing and the end of litigation), front pay (wages you would have earned in the future), and other monetary relief.
The substantive law at issue is the following:
• Count I: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . .
(b) For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
• Count II: U.S. Const. amend XIV provides, in pertinent part:
No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
• Count III: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000e-2) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
All three claims require that the plaintiff prove that race was a but-for cause for the adverse treatment—that he would not have been fired but-for his race. Mt. Healthy Sch. v. Doyle (1972).
You know that the complaint will include Counts I and II against Lee, Shumphard, Howard, Bell, and Brown. But you must decide what to do about Count III against the Board. You have two options:
1) Include the Title VII claim against the Board in this action alongside the § 1981 and constitutional claims against the five individuals. (You know you can sue the five individuals together; the only question is whether you can add the Board as a defendant alongside them).
Or
2) Pursue the § 1981 and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the five individuals in this action and litigate to a final resolution (through all levels of appeal). Then bring a subsequent civil action against the Board on the Title VII claim if you are unhappy with the final resolution as to the individuals.
As Rodemaker’s counsel, discuss whether you can pursue either option and why. Cite to particular paragraphs in the draft Complaint when discussing information in that document.
