[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
case number 22-7036.

[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
Kenneth Dickerson, appellant versus District of Columbia.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Mr. Temple for the appellant.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Brachanaru for the appellate.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Mr. Temple.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
Can I proceed?

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
My name is Donald Temple and I represent Mr. Dickerson and we are asking this court to reverse the remand

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
the trial court in a summary judgment ruling on a 1981 claim that Mr. Dickerson was not discriminated against based upon the government's presentation in a restructuring of a high school here in the District of Columbia based on the No Child Left Behind Act.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
The issue really is

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
In some respects, I'd like to narrow it to Mr. Dixon and Ms.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Waits and the process by which Ms.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
Waits was hired by the District of Columbia and the decision-making of the exclusive decision-making of the Superintendent of the Schools, Ms.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Reed, based on the sole factor of an LSRT committee report.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
And the... Can you help me with something?

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
I didn't see it in the briefs, but if I missed it, forgive me.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Is the LSRT a creature of statute, regulation, executive order, or is there a formal document that established the LSRT and establishes its composition and its authority?

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
what weight its recommendations have.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
The LSRT is a feature of policy and practice for every high school in the District of Columbia with no particular statutory designation as to its membership.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
It is composed of faculty and

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
administrators or its its weight.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
It is considered in the policy and practice of the restructuring generally.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
And is it purely a creature created because of No Child Left Behind Act or was LSRTs were they in existence before that?

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
Before that.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
Prior to that.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
Okay, that's what I thought because

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
kids went to DC public schools.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
I remember that that seeded no child left.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
So how are we to, I guess, cut to the chase.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
There were recommendations from the LSRT here and one of them related to new leadership.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
And it appears that that is what the district court relied on to, in part, find that there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
reason for Dr. Dickerson's determination?

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
In the context of some re-judgment, but as well aware that inferences on factual questions are to be made in favor of the non-moving party.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
In this particular case, there are several critical fact issues that come into play for the court's purposes, and I would like to focus the court's attention to the element in the interest of time of pretext.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
And one is the question of leadership and the way that the court below interpreted it.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
The court below in this decision interpreted the question of the LSRT making a recommendation that there would be a broad-based removal of the assistant principals as well as the principal.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
However, if the court directs its attention to the actual LSRT member, which is dated May 13th,

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
2008, that particular memorandum speaks about various recommendations.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
The first recommendation is directed to the principal.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
The second recommendation discusses a partial reconstitution option.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
the partial reconstitution option is underscored and reiterated by this court, the lower court, in fact.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
And the implication of a partial versus a whole reconstitution is that there would be discretion.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
That discretion would be in the context of the No Child Left Behind Act.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
And it's the plaintiff's view that that particular act says when you are making this structural decision, unlike a reorganization, a structural decision in the context of that act, that act attributes some

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
responsibility to ascertain whether or not the person that's being removed is relevant to the failure of that particular school.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
And in this particular situation, the trial court did not apply that reasoning and its assessment as to whether or not the school was, the school was qualified in its consideration of the removal and not just the removal, the non-reapplication of Mr. Dickerson.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
Let me ask the question a different way.

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the LSRT recommendation was remove the principal, keep all of the assistant principals, they are great, doing a perfect job.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
And the chancellor nonetheless terminated the whole leadership team.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
What difference would that really make where the LSRT recommendations you say are

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
There's no kind of statute or anything that gives them any weight.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
And you said earlier that the Chancellor ultimately has ultimate authority and discretion.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
So what difference would it make really if the LSRT had said something different?

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
chance did.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
It would make a difference to the extent that we're talking about the reason why Mr. Dickerson an African American male was not hired versus his Mrs. Miss Waits was hired and whether in that particular situation if the stated reason and the stated reason on this record according to his post-declared declaration in unqualified deposition answers was that the LSAT

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
recommended that there will be a removal and the court interprets that in its entirety of the assistant principals.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
That's not what the recommendation was.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
So to answer the court's question, the fact of the matter is that the superintendent of the schools under this particular scenario does not have absolute unfettered discretion to fire people if it is going to violate the equal protection rights of a protected class

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
employee.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
And can you give us your best evidence of racial animus?

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
Because it seems that they removed the entire leadership team for a school that had been failing to meet its goals for five years.

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
And so where's the racial animus when they've

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
remove the entire leadership team, all of whom are relevant to the performance of the school.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Judge Penn, if I may, the evidence in the employment situation is circumstantial and created by inference by virtue of the fact that there is no legitimate basis for that.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
And we examine that to answer your question to the pretext.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
First and foremost, the question of the removing the entire team

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
Is part one issue, they have that right to remove obviously.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
However, in the context of no child left behind and the test and we cited in our briefs and in our arguments is the extent to which that person, those persons are relevant to least failure.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
You're looking at a situation where in high school, Wilson High School, in a five-year history, and you're looking at the question of whether, for five years, why that condition is, you have to look at it, and we argue that you have to look at it in a particular context.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
In the instance of Kenny Dickerson, not only was Kenny, there is not a single sentence in this record where Kenny Dickerson, an assistant principal, PhD candidate, open dissertation, has a negative blemish whatsoever.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
In fact, to the contrary.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
And so there was not a factual finding.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
Mr. Temple, isn't the blemish that the school has been failing for five years and they removed the whole leadership team and to the extent that he had performance evaluations, they were by the people who were failing the school.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, Dr. Moronic to some extent, because to the court's question, if you have an assistant principal who's performing at the highest level of merit, exceeding expectations with supportive letters for a six-year period of time, then the fact that the school is failing may have something to do with something other than one individual who's making a contribution.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
The reason why that point is so significant is because in the process,

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
of making that decision, they totally minimized and did not consider Mr. Dickerson while simultaneously in a pre-selection process hiring a white woman to take his position.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
So the point is that it creates an inference if that's not true that he didn't and the judge's question is it leads to another point.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
Our problem is that the school system did not make an assessment as to whether or not Mr. Dickerson contributed, rather in a stereotypical manner given the backdrop that it by all the African-American

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
principals and all the African-American principals and assistant principals, all the principals and assistant principals were African-American.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
It then brought Mr. Dickerson into a stereotype that because the school was failing, that because he was part of the leadership without examining more, that he was contributing to the failure.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
This record shows, and I'll stop real quick, this record shows that at Wilson High School, there are a lot of problems

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
with that school in terms of the background, the reading, the gang fighting, the other types of disciplinary issues that contributed to the failure beyond Mr. Dickerson.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
Mr. Teppel, it seems important to make the argument that, so the school has said that restructuring is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
And you're arguing now that the restructuring is not a legitimate

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
non-discriminatory reason, but was that argument preserved below?

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
I don't see where it was preserved before the district court.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
We did make that argument, Your Honor, that this restructuring as a broad-based absolute right was protectual.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
and that it could not absent given the context of the no child left behind.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
And that's what we're really talking about, the no child left behind statute, an extent that it has a provision that says that there has to be some relevancy to the disconnect of an individual and to implicate a particular individual in that process.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't go to step two of the MacDonald Douglas test, rebutting whether it was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
But actually at step three, in terms of the, once the district established a legitimate business.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
Do you concede that it was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason?

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
No, we rebutted that as a, in the pretext, and I want to make that fine line distinction, the restructuring is legitimate for the district to restructure it.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
There's no question about that.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
As it's applied, and as it eliminates a particular position in the application,

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
We rebut that by way of pretext.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
The city, for example, says they talk about quality school review.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
They talk about the LSRT.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
Our argument is that there is an inconsistency

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
And the 36 witnesses mis-posed testimony in this regard in the pretext context and her declaration, in addition to the evidence that the district relies on when it speaks about quality school review.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Court would note that the district says inconsistently that it relies upon a quality school review process and report.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
However, no such report, notwithstanding that the lower court suggested and even relied on it, no such report exists or was offered.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
What we have is multiple inconsistent testimony by the district in support of his removal of Mr. Dickerson.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
In addition to that, it's an absolutism.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
The district is saying that it has the absolute right, no matter what, if we allow that,

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
In every school district in the country, if we were concerned about our children, which is what the No Child Left Behind statute does, then we could, a school district could come in and predominantly Black communities like the District of Columbia with the wave of a wand say, we're going to restructure and remove employees like Kenneth Dickerson who committed his life to the education of children without any recourse

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
and minimize him, basically put him in a place where he's essentially invisible.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
At no point did they consider his personnel record, at no point did they look at his personnel file, at no point did they evaluate him, his evaluations were missing, it was irrelevant to them.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
I would also underscore that the question that Judge Pan asked about the absolutism, the notion of the hiring, and in that report, in that May 13th document,

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
In that report, they talk about partial, not absolute removal.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
But the idea was that partial was open, and if it was open, then it would be a reapplication process.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
Part of our argument is that that reapplication process did not exist.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
When Mr. Dickerson, by definition, was removed, there was nothing in that document that says that he could reapply.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
Yet, the government will argue that he could reapply.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
I thought that he said he did reapply.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
He tried to check a box or a list or something.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
I thought there was a dispute about this.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
Well, there's a disputed fact.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
And again, the point there is that he did not reapply.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
He was told that he could not reapply.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
It was not in the letter.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
Then they told him that the city argued that he could reapply.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
And then he went to the HR and they told him he could not reply.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
There's another dynamic in the record.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
given that the court did an overview.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
Simultaneously, Dickerson finds out that he's been charged with misconduct at the unemployment authority.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
So he's dealing with that as well.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
And so there is nothing in this record that says that Dickson could be applied.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
There was a posting that said, if you're interested.

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
And he said, I stood on this posting and responded.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
He had a five-minute interview, but it was not specific to a formal reapplication.

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
for the assistant principal position.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
My time is, I think, elapsed.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
All right, we'll give you some time on rebuttal.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Ms.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
Rishinoryu.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
Rishinoryu.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the court, Leah Rishinoryu, on behalf of the District of Columbia.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
But the only claim at issue in this case is Dr. Dickerson's claim for intentional discrimination under Section 1980.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
And as this court has previously stated, proof of an illicit motive is essential for a plaintiff to prevail on such a case.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
After 10 years of litigation and an opportunity to conduct discovery, Dr. Dickerson has simply not introduced any evidence of racial discrimination.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
And as your honor's pointed out, the record is fairly clear here.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
So the local school restructuring committee, sorry, team.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
So this is the team of parents, staff, administrators at the school, and also collective bargaining representatives.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
And they're appointed to provide recommendations, but as your honor pointed out, those recommendations are not binding.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
They recommended an appointment of a new principal, a restructuring of school functions.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
So changing the structure of the school from the way that it operated previously to now having individualized grade level academies.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
And I specifically said that the restructuring of these school functions would be made to allow the new principal to establish a new leadership team for the school.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
Do you, just housekeeping, do you agree with the characterization

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
by your friend on the other side.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
The LSRTs are a creature of statute, regulation, executive order, policy.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
And did they proceed, no child left behind?

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
What do we do with the fact that I believe it's undisputed that all of the principles and assistant principles that were terminated in this round were

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
So there's a one principle in this at Wilson, and she was an interim principle.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
So her position was always a one-year position.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
And then all of the four assistant principals were African-American.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
And so when the entire leadership team was removed.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
What about all the other ones that were removed?

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
19 or 20 or however many.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
So there's no evidence in the record about racial disparity in the removal of other principals or administrators.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
What do you mean there's no evidence in the record?

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
Are you disputing that there were the numbers escaping me?

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
I think it was like 19 or 22 principals and assistant principals lost their positions and they were all African-American.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
Are you saying that's not in the record?

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
So I think it is in the record that a number of principals and assistant principals lost their positions.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
I don't think the race of each of those principals is in the record.

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
So, um, that was not presented as a undisputed fact summary judgment.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
Um, so what of the, if at summary judgment, if we're supposed to take all the inferences, um, in favor of the non movement, um, what of the argument that

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
You could read the LSRT recommendations to really only specifically say, remove the principle.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
And just because it says that principle could establish a new leadership team, be up to that principle to decide to retain someone like Dr. Pearson.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
But it wouldn't have to necessarily mean that

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
He had to clean house and get rid of all of the assistant principals too.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
Why isn't that a reasonable?

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
And the school restructuring plan itself specifically said that the assistant principals would not be reappointed and then they would be able to reapply or apply just like anyone else.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Dickerson has conceded that after his non-reappointment, he did not apply for an assistant principal position at Wilson.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
Well, he also says that he was told that he couldn't.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
So his evidence for that, Your Honor, is a conversation he had with an HR administrator.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
And if you look at JA 116, and this is his response to Interrogatory 24, which asked whether he reapplied or not, he said, the DCPS Assistant Director of HR, Jasmine Jose, informed me in person and on the phone in July 2008 that DCPS would not offer me an administrative-level retreat rights position.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
It is not the same thing as stating that he was prevented from reapplying.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
What does that mean?

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
If he didn't reapply, then he doesn't have any claim for discrimination on that basis.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor, they don't raise a failure to hire claim.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
And in order for them to have raised a failure to hire claim, they would have had to compare to have any sort of evidence of the qualifications of his replacement.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
And so they argued that, you know, Ms.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Waits was his replacement.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
And that's, you know, not clear from the record, but they have absolutely, and he has conducted no discovery on Ms.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
Waits' qualifications.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
What does it mean with respect to, or what do you think that the, you said it was JA 116?

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
1116.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
What do you think that the HR person was saying

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
So the code section 520, which gives the chancellor the rights to reappoint or not reappoint.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
So that in the event of a non-reappointment, that administrator has the right to retreat to the last permanent position that they have.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
Um, and so I can't just speculate to what that conversation was about, but this would to me read that say, uh, you know, he did not have a permanent administrative level position that he could retreat to, or perhaps that there was none open that he could retreat to.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
Uh, but that was not developed in the record.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
Um, so I do want to address, uh, I guess one, um,

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
One point that was raised in the briefs and this is an argument that was not made below, but I do think it merits a little bit of.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
Discussion and this is this argument that chance that we were somehow required to pick the least invasive option or the option that.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
created the least amount of change.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
And there's just nothing in the No Child Left Behind Act that requires that.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
In fact, if you look at the options presented, all of them are fundamental reforms to the school structure.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
So having the school be converted into a charter school or taken over by the state.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
This is because the goal of restructuring is to turn the school around and have it meet the goals.

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
And this is a school that, notwithstanding any of the other qualifications of its leadership, has failed to meet those goals and failed to students for five years.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
What role does the local law about, essentially, doesn't the local law obligate to hire the most qualified person for any position?

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
So yes, there is a requirement that decisions on hiring should be based on merit.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence in this case that Dr. Dickerson was the most qualified applicant.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:33] Speaker 04:
I thought there were two different regulations.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
One is when you hire the person, you have to hire the best qualified one.

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
But then once you're already hired, as Dr. Dickerson was, then retention and reappointment shall be at the discretion of the superintendent.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Yes, you're on and I'm sorry, I was conflating two things.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
So the actual decision, whether to reappoint or not reappoint is at the discretion of the chancellor and there's nothing in the regulations there about the process for doing so.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
But if he had reapplied, then.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
You know, then that decision making would have been done on the basis of qualification.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
So can I ask you, because you said that there's no claim here about selection.

[00:24:13] Speaker 04:
So is are we looking just at the fact that he was let go?

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
Is that the.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
the action that we're looking at because it becomes confused because it appears there's also an allegation about his replacement he was replaced by a white woman and so I'm just trying to stand analytically are we looking is the discriminatory act.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
the actual firing of Dr. Dickerson, or do we also consider what happened next, which was then they hired later a white woman?

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
This is a better question for the plaintiff, but my reading of the record is that he'd alleged the entire time that the non-reappointment is a discriminatory action and that the hiring of Dr. Weiss is evidence of pretext, not that that in and of itself was a separate discriminatory action.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
But you're saying the non-reappointment

[00:25:05] Speaker 04:
He fails because he didn't reapply.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
So he wasn't competing against her.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
Or I'm trying to understand what your argument was about this is not a reapply.

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
So if we were splitting these into two separate analyses, Your Honor, which I don't think that we should, because as you pointed out, I think the non-reappointment is the kind that's really at issue in this case.

[00:25:24] Speaker 00:
Then if or if we were

[00:25:29] Speaker 00:
So if he had actually reapplied, then we would do analysis of whether whatever reasons the district gave for him not hiring him again, or were legitimate or pre-textual.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
But there's no case here that he was not rehired because he concedes that he didn't apply.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
He's never submitted another application to the assistant principal positions.

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
Once he was not reappointed, he was as free as anyone else.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
to submit an application and he can see that he did not.

[00:26:06] Speaker 04:
And my understanding is there were four assistant principal positions and two of the people who were

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
hired after the restructuring were African-American, how do we know that Ms.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
Waits is the one that replaced Dr. Dickerson?

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
We don't, Your Honor.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
That's completely speculative.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
So if you look at the record and you see the emails from Principal Cahill, who was the principal that was appointed, Charlotte Butler, who was an African-American woman who was actually the first assistant principal hired

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
And that was the emails from June 26.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
So that's the information that we have in the record about what that hiring process was like.

[00:26:45] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, if you have no further questions.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Mr. Temple will give you three minutes.

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
First of all, to the restructuring question, Judge.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
The restructuring is, it happens.

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
However, this particular restructuring was governed by a particular federal statute, No Child Left Behind, but it was distinguished from general restructuring.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
That meant the federal law actually applied, and that federal law had the provision selected by the superintendent that the persons that would be removed would have some relevancy to the school's failure.

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
That was a fact question.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
Our argument was that that decision was not made relative to the removal of Dr. Dickerson.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
The second point, though, was that the argument that Dr. Dickerson could have reapplied is pretextual.

[00:27:49] Speaker 01:
If he's told, and the district's position is exactly that, in its policies and its defenses and its arguments, but yet it never told Dr. Dirkerson that he could reapply.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
In fact, it didn't tell him in writing, it didn't tell him when he went to HR, and it didn't post it.

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
If you're interested, not in an assistant principal position, then you can sign up.

[00:28:10] Speaker 01:
So he was formally

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
not told and now they're saying that he should have been told and it is our position is that he should have been told they could have reapplied it was not the absolute right to say we're going to remove him and then to hold him to a standard that was different than it held to the comparator as to miss waste the reason why she's deemed to compare

[00:28:33] Speaker 01:
Comparator is that Dr. Dickerson was the senior assistant principal in the absence of the then existing principal for five years.

[00:28:43] Speaker 01:
If that principal was not there, Dr. Dickerson would be assumed the responsibility for managing the school.

[00:28:49] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what the hiring process

[00:28:53] Speaker 01:
which we also contend was a preselection.

[00:28:56] Speaker 01:
What you know is that Ms.

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
Waits was hired before the end date for Dr. Dickerson's termination, June 30th.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
But the record shows that she was hired at the recommendation of the new principal.

[00:29:12] Speaker 02:
That the new principal emailed Chancellor Reeve and suggested her for a position in Chancellor Reeve's

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
But the problem with that, Your Honor, is that that circumvented the existing hiring practices which are in the record in this post deposition.

[00:29:35] Speaker 01:
It was a process by which candidates for assistant principals would be hired and that same correspondence that the court refers to, there were 12 interviews.

[00:29:46] Speaker 02:
That may be the case, but I guess that's a separate issue from your arguing pretext in that

[00:29:52] Speaker 02:
like the fix was in, so to speak, she was preselected.

[00:29:58] Speaker 02:
But the preselection for your theory to work would have had to been by Chancellor Reed.

[00:30:03] Speaker 02:
Chancellor Reed terminated Dickerson because she already had in mind that she was going to replace him with a white woman.

[00:30:15] Speaker 02:
But that theory doesn't work if the idea to hire the white woman came from

[00:30:22] Speaker 02:
from the new principle.

[00:30:24] Speaker 01:
But the decision came from Chancellor Reed.

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
The decision that Chancellor Reed made, knowing that that particular candidate's selection process circumvented the process for hiring, it was a subjective process.

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
And as a result, there was a double standard in play.

[00:30:41] Speaker 02:
The standard by which the... Pre-selection, I guess all I'm saying is pre-selection suggests that temporarily

[00:30:49] Speaker 02:
when you made the decision to fire someone, you've already have in mind who you're going to replace them with.

[00:30:59] Speaker 01:
But this is a slightly variation of that, Judge, because the preselection, actually, the determination decision was made on June 16th.

[00:31:08] Speaker 01:
The preselection decision was made on June 26th, 27th, and Mr. Dickerson's end date was June 30th.

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
That's also, that shows at that particular point in time, the subjectivity in the process.

[00:31:23] Speaker 01:
Mr. Dickerson is told that he can't apply.

[00:31:26] Speaker 01:
There's a decision to have someone apply whose decision is made outside of the established process and the violation of the statute.

[00:31:34] Speaker 01:
One final point is that the lower court's substantial,

[00:31:40] Speaker 01:
Larry, similarly situated comparison, is not applicable here.

[00:31:46] Speaker 01:
And it's erroneous from a factual point of view.

[00:31:50] Speaker 01:
First of all, it's a jury question, generally, by case law.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
But secondly, the similarly situation dynamic here is generally, as is argued by the city in its briefing, is in the hiring process.

[00:32:02] Speaker 01:
In a situation where you're hiring someone outside the process, it is as similarly situated as it can be, but it is not required to be similarly situated in terms of the traditional similarity situation case law.

[00:32:18] Speaker 01:
With that, Your Honor, thank you so much for your time.

[00:32:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:32:23] Speaker 02:
I'll take the case under advice.