The memo summarizes a case from the 5th Circuit Court regarding a lawsuit filed by Adams against Groesbeck ISD for employment discrimination. The 5th Circuit found that although Adams' coaching position was eliminated, the new position filled was not technically "available" to him. However, the memo argues the athletic director told Adams' wife he would not be rehired because of his previous lawsuit, making it a valid retaliation claim for the jury to decide, regardless of technicalities. The memo concludes the appeals court should not second-guess the jury's finding and suggests other similar issues in the case support upholding the jury's verdict.

1. T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e
Brad Livingston
Executive Director
Groesbeck ISD vs. Adams
This memo is a follow up to Bert McManus’s brief of the 5th
Circuit opinion in
Cause # 05-50362 (5th
Cir. Jan. 9, 2007) in the above-styled cause. My quibble is
not with Bert’s briefing. He did a very fine job. My disagreement is with the
decision of the 5th
Circuit. As can be clearly observed, this was a jury trial in
federal district court on a Title VII claim for employment discrimination. The trial
court denied Groesbeck’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, which had
claimed that there was not a protected activity in which Adams could file a Title
VII retaliation claim. The jury held in favor of Adams. One does not have to wear
Wrangler jeans to figure out that this was a melodrama played out in many rural
schools where there is a teacher shortage, and spouses and other relatives teach and
coach side by side. Adams had coached for nearly 30 years, but his contract was
not renewed after the 2000-2001 school year. His wife, however, was hired in 1998
and was teaching when Adams was let go . After Adams departed, his wife and one
other teacher were the two remaining coaches in the middle school. Adams’
position was eliminated. In 2001, one of the coaches was placed on administrative
leave, which left Ms. Adams as the only middle school coach. The school district
temporarily decided to fill the second coach’s position. This position was filled by
one Milne, who was a substitute teacher and not a coach. When Adams learned
that Milne had been hired, as a substitute, not as a coach, he, Adams, applied
for the job. When Grimes, the other coach, resigned, the school board decided to
delay a decision on the job for a full school year. The school principal testified that
he was unaware of Adams having applied for the job. No interviews or job
postings were carried out. Allison Adams questioned the athletic director about
why her husband had not been considered. The director allegedly told her that no
qualified applicants had applied and that her husband could not be hired because he
had previously filed a lawsuit against the school. In April 2003, Adams sued
Our mission is to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender
behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime.
Office of the General Counsel
Melinda Hoyle Bozarth, General Counsel - melinda.bozarth@tdcj.state.tx.us
P.O. Box 13084 Capitol Station P.O. Box 4004
Austin, Texas 78711-3084 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004
Phone (512) 463-9899, FAX (512) 936-2159 Phone (936) 437-6698, FAX (936) 437-6994

2. Groesbeck School District under Title VII, claiming the respondent had retaliated
against him for filing a previous suit. Groesbeck’s motion for judgment as a matter
of law was denied and the jury held in favor of Adams.
The linchpin of its decision, as the 5th
Circuit puts it, is the creation of a distinction
between a “vacant” position and an “available” position. The circuit court held that
the reduction of the middle school girls coaching staff from two to one created a
vacant position, but the court opined that actually this position was not available,
because Groesbeck officials, for reasons allegedly having nothing to do with
Adams, chose not to hire a new coach to fill the vacancy during the remainder of
the school year.
While it is true that a motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo,
Int’l Ins. Co. v. RSR Corp, 426 F.3rd
281, 296 (5th
Cir. 2005), there must be a
showing that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to
have found for the nonmovant. RSR Corp., 426 F.3rd
296-297; Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)
(1).
If a jury is to be the primary factfinder in our judicial system, then they must be
allowed to decide contested issues. Even applying a de novo standard of measuring
the quantum of evidence in a lawsuit, courts must allow juries latitude in deciding
these issues.
In this case, the circuit court makes much of the fact that the athletic director had
no authority in deciding whether to hire or terminate employees such as coaches,
and therefore Adams, as a matter of law, had no viable Title VII action. But this
conclusion misses the point. The athletic director, whether he had the power or not,
told Ms. Adams that her husband had no chance of being hired again because he
filed the previous lawsuit. It is of no moment then whether he had the power to hire
and fire. The issue became one for the jury to decide, and it did just that.
There are several other issues of a similar nature that arose in this case, but it is not
necessary to dwell on them all because the same yardstick would be applied as that
applied above. Measuring a jury de novo is one thing; second-guessing them is
quite another.
Charles Campbell
Our mission is to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender
behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime.
Office of the General Counsel
Melinda Hoyle Bozarth, General Counsel - melinda.bozarth@tdcj.state.tx.us
P.O. Box 13084 Capitol Station P.O. Box 4004
Austin, Texas 78711-3084 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004
Phone (512) 463-9899, FAX (512) 936-2159 Phone (936) 437-6698, FAX (936) 437-6994