Albert N. Collins, Jr., sued the Kansas City Missouri Public School District, alleging discrimination based on race and retaliation for engaging in protected activities after his employment was terminated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Collins appealed.
Factual Overview
Albert Collins was employed by the Kansas City Missouri Public School District for about a decade, most recently as an “attendance ambassador,” reporting directly to Samuel Johnson, a longtime friend. Johnson later reported to state education authorities that the school district had engaged in “attendance fraud,” using information provided by Collins. An investigation ensued, and Collins was fired. He admitted participating in the fraud by altering attendance records at Johnson’s request, regularly modifying records to meet certain targets. Despite his participation in these fraudulent activities, Collins raised claims against the school district related to his termination, focusing on allegations of race discrimination, retaliation under Title VII and § 1983, and violation of a state law protecting whistleblowers.
Legal Analysis
Race Discrimination Claim: Collins lacked direct evidence of racial discrimination and attempted to establish a prima facie case of discrimination through circumstantial evidence. The school district justified Collins’s termination due to his involvement in attendance fraud, a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason. Collins failed to show that this reason was pretextual for racial discrimination. He compared his treatment to that of a white employee, Rick Bishop, who was allegedly involved in the scheme but not terminated. Even so, the court found that Collins and Bishop were not similarly situated in all relevant respects, as they had different supervisors, worked in different departments, and it was unclear if Bishop engaged in the same conduct as Collins.
Retaliation Claim: Collins’s retaliation claim under Title VII and § 1983 also failed. He did not identify protected conduct linked to his termination. The investigation focused on attendance fraud, not race discrimination. Furthermore, Collins’s involvement as a witness in unrelated claims by Johnson against the school district did not constitute protected activity related to race discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or § 1983.
State-Law Whistleblower Claim: The Missouri whistleblower law protects employees who disclose violations of law or mismanagement but excludes disclosures related to the employee’s own violations. The district court held that this exclusion applied to Collins, as his disclosures related to his participation in the fraud. Collins did not effectively challenge this ruling on appeal.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the school district on all claims. Collins’s allegations of race discrimination and retaliation were not supported by sufficient evidence to suggest that his termination was motivated by racial discrimination or his engagement in protected activities. His state-law whistleblower claim was also untenable due to his own involvement in the misconduct he disclosed.
Schrag on Law 