Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free School District

Facts

P was hired as a school psychologist at the Hillside Elementary School on a three-year tenure track. P counseled and conducted psychological evaluations of students, prepared reports for the Committee on Special Education, assisted teachers in dealing with students who acted out in class, worked with parents on issues related to their children, and chaired the 'Learning Team,' a group made up of specialists and teachers which conducted intensive discussions about individual students. Marilyn Wishnie (D), the Principal of Hillside, and Ann Brennan (D), the Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the District, were P's supervisors. In P's first two years, Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) consistently gave P excellent evaluations. In her second year, P took three months of maternity leave. When she returned, she garnered another 'outstanding' evaluation from Brennan (D). Things changed dramatically as her tenure review approached. P claims that Brennan (D), (a) inquired about how she was 'planning on spacing [her] offspring,' (b) said ''Please do not get pregnant until I retire,'' and (c) suggested that P 'wait until [her son] was in kindergarten to have another child.' On December 14, 2000, Brennan (D) allegedly told P that she was expected to work until 4:30 p.m. every day, and asked ''What's the big deal? You have a nanny. This is what you [have] to do to get tenure.'' P replied that she did work these hours. Brennan (D) also indicated to Wishnie (P) that Back should 'maybe . . . reconsider whether P could be a mother and do this job which [Brennan (D)] characterized as administrative in nature,' and that Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) were 'concerned that, if [P] received tenure, [she] would work only until 3:15 p.m. and did not know how [she] could possibly do this job with children.' On January 8, 2001, Brennan (D) allegedly told P for the first time that she might not support P's tenure because of what P characterizes as minor errors that she made in a report. According to P, shortly thereafter Principal Wishnie (D) accused her of working only from 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and never working during lunch. A week later, both Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) reportedly told P that this was perhaps not the job or the school district for her if she had 'little ones,' and that it was 'not possible for [her] to be a good mother and have this job.' The two also allegedly remarked that it would be harder to fire P if she had tenure, and wondered 'whether my apparent commitment to my job was an act. They stated that once I obtained tenure, I would not show the same level of commitment I had shown because I had little ones at home. They expressed concerns about my child care arrangements, though these had never caused me conflict with school assignments.' They did not discuss with P any concerns with her performance at that time. In March, Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) reiterated that her job was 'not for a mother,' that they were worried her performance was 'just an 'act' until I got tenure,' and that 'because I was a young mother, I would not continue my commitment to the workplace.' On April 30, 2001, Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) repeated the same concerns about her ability to balance work and family and told P that they would recommend that she not be granted tenure and that Superintendent Russell would follow their recommendation. They reportedly also 'stated they wanted another year to assess the childcare situation.' Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) both denied the alleged statements. They contended, instead, that P was told at these meetings that both had concerns about her performance and that she would need to make progress in certain areas in order to receive tenure. Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) sent a formal memo to Russell (D) informing him that they could not recommend P for tenure. Their reasons included (a) that although their formal reports had been positive, their informal interactions with her had been less positive, (b) that there were 'far too many' parents and teachers who had 'serious issues' with P and did not wish to work with her, and (c) that she had persistent difficulties with the planning and organization of her work, and with inaccuracies in her reports, and that she had not shown improvement in this area, despite warnings. P's counsel informed Russell (D) that P believed that Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) were retaliating against her, in that Brennan (D) was 'openly hostile' towards P, that she falsely accused P of mishandling cases and giving false information, that she increased P's workload, and that positive letters were removed from P's file. On June 13, 2001, Wishnie (D) and Brennan (D) filed the first negative evaluation of P, which gave her several 'below average' marks and charged her with being inconsistent, defensive, difficult to supervise, the source of parental complaints, and inaccurate in her reports. Their evaluation, which was submitted to Russell (P), concluded that P should not be granted tenure. Around the same time, several parents who had apparently complained about P were encouraged by Russell (D) to put their concerns in writing. Several parents submitted letters, reporting a range of complaints about P's work, including that she was defensive, immature, unprofessional, and had misdiagnosed children. On June 18, 2001, Russell (D) informed P by letter that he had received Wishnie (D) and Brennan's (D) annual evaluation and was recommending to the Board of Education that her probationary appointment be terminated. The union filed a grievance on P's behalf. A panel, consisting of two teachers in the district and an administrator, was convened by the Board of Education. The group examined P’s file, interviewed P, Brennan (D), and Wishnie (D), and reported to Russell (D) in July that it agreed with his recommendation not to grant P tenure. P was terminated. P sued Ds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging gender discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Ds, on the grounds (a) that this Circuit had not held that a 'sex plus' claim can be brought under § 1983, (b) that Ds' comments were 'stray remarks' which did not show sex discrimination, (c) that P had failed to prove that the reasons given for not granting her tenure were pretextual, (d) that there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting § 1983 liability against Russell (D) and the School District, and (e) that qualified immunity justified summary judgment in favor of the three individual defendants, on the grounds that Brennan (D) and Wishnie (D) had objective cause to deny P tenure and that Russell (D) had relied upon their evaluations and had conducted an impartial review. P appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.