Frogley v. Meridian Joint School District No. 2
2013 WL 6190994, 155 Idaho 558, 314 P.3d 613 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case can survive a motion for summary judgment by presenting specific and substantial indirect evidence that casts doubt on the credibility of the employer's proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for an adverse employment action, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the reasons are pretextual.
Facts:
- Wade Frogley was hired as an Assistant Principal at Mountain View High School under a one-year contract for the 2008-2009 school year.
- Shortly after starting his job, Frogley alleges his principal, Aaron Maybon, and other administrators subjected him to continuous sexual harassment, including distributing a fake wedding announcement depicting Frogley with a 'scantily clad bride' and making near-daily comments about him exchanging sexual favors for food.
- The alleged harassment also included frequent comments about Frogley's dating life, number of sexual partners, and sexual orientation.
- On November 5, 2008, Frogley met with Maybon and made an 'emphatic demand' that the sexual comments stop.
- The day after Frogley's complaint to Maybon, Maybon began formally investigating Frogley’s job performance.
- In the days and weeks immediately following Frogley’s complaint, Maybon issued multiple letters of reprimand, gave Frogley a negative performance evaluation noting deficiencies in six areas, and placed him on a formal Improvement Plan.
- The school district ultimately placed Frogley on administrative leave and recommended that the Board of Trustees not renew his contract for the following school year.
Procedural Posture:
- Wade Frogley filed a complaint against Meridian Joint School District No. 2, Aaron Maybon, and Linda Clark in an Idaho district court (trial court).
- The defendants (Respondents) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss Frogley's claims before trial.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondents on all claims, including retaliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Frogley (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his retaliation and emotional distress claims to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext sufficient to survive summary judgment by presenting specific, indirect evidence that the employer's proffered reasons for an adverse employment action are inconsistent, objectively false, or otherwise not believable?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Jones, Justice.
Yes. A plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext by providing sufficient indirect evidence that the employer's proffered reasons for the adverse action are unworthy of credence. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. While Frogley presented no direct evidence of retaliatory motive—as the supervisor's instruction to 'begin disciplinary action' required an inference to connect it to the complaint—he provided substantial and specific indirect evidence of pretext. This indirect evidence included: 1) the extremely close temporal proximity between his complaint and the start of disciplinary actions; 2) evidence that the employer's reason regarding untimely teacher evaluations was objectively false, as Frogley had completed more than his peers and was told to delay; 3) evidence that the employer's reason regarding a student harassment complaint was not credible because the administration never investigated it or even questioned Frogley about it until after litigation began. This cumulative evidence, which undermined the credibility of the employer's stated motives, was sufficient to create a triable issue for a jury and defeat summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that plaintiffs in retaliation cases can overcome summary judgment without direct, 'smoking gun' evidence of retaliatory animus. It highlights the significance of temporal proximity when coupled with other evidence that systematically undermines the credibility of an employer's proffered non-retaliatory reasons. The ruling shows that a plaintiff can create a triable issue of fact by presenting specific evidence that each of the employer's justifications is 'unworthy of credence,' thereby allowing a jury to infer that the true motive was retaliatory. This approach is critical for plaintiffs, as employers rarely admit to unlawful motives, forcing reliance on circumstantial evidence to prove pretext.
Unlock the full brief for Frogley v. Meridian Joint School District No. 2