Job Discrimination: Heaphy v. Webster Central School District

Listen to this article

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

Job Discrimination

Pregnancy

Heaphy v. Webster Central School District
08-CV-6166
Judge Larimer

Background: Plaintiff Jennifer Heaphy brings this action against her employer, the Webster Central School District alleging a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k), and hostile work environment and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York’s Human Rights Law.  The district has moved for summary judgment.
Heaphy is a tenured teacher who has been continuously employed by the district since September 1992. She worked as an enrichment specialist as well as an elementary level teacher, with a variety of different subject and grade level assignments. Heaphy alleges that on Sept. 28, 2006, Principal Carmen Gumina, who had heard that Heaphy was pregnant, asked her about her maternity leave plans, and specifically the need for long-term substitutes during Heaphy’s absence. Heaphy characterized Gumina’s question as “inappropriate” and refused to discuss the matter.  She claims that after the Sept. 28, 2006 discussion — which Heaphy describes as a threatening confrontation — Gumina discriminated and retaliated against her by placing her on a performance improvement plan in November 2006. She further alleges that Gumina was rude to her and refused to speak with her, and that someone took personal items from her classroom.

Ruling: The court finds that, even assuming that Heaphy’s negative performance evaluations are sufficient to meet Heaphy’s burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, it is insufficient to rebut the district’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.  “The evaluations were part of a performance improvement plan, crafted to resolve performance issues that had been identified prior to Heaphy’s engagement in protected activity. Heaphy’s belief that the evaluations and performance improvement plan were precipitated by her refusal to discuss maternity leave plans with Gumina on Sept. 28, 2006 — or even that Gumina’s perceived frustration with that refusal related to Heaphy’s pregnancy rather than Heaphy’s ‘disrespectful’ attitude in declining to answer his questions — are wholly speculative,” concludes the court.  Heaphy produced no evidence that the performance improvement plan or the evaluations were retaliatory, and her retaliation claim is therefore dismissed.

Christina A. Agola for the plaintiff; Michael P. McClaren, of Webster Szanyi LLP for the defendant