Cassandra Kincaid appealed the Kansas District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Unified School District No. 500, Kansas City, Kansas. Kincaid appealed the district court’s summary judgment order on her claims of retaliatory harassment under Title VII and Title IX. The appeal follows the district court’s decision, which found that Kincaid did not satisfy the burden of creating a genuine dispute of material fact about the pretextual nature of the alleged adverse actions against her.
Factual Overview
Kincaid, serving as an assistant principal at Central Middle School within the District, reported two incidents in early 2019 concerning inappropriate behavior and sexual assault by a male special-education student against female students. Her supervisor, Principal Fred Skretta, later took actions that Kincaid perceived as retaliatory, including changing protocols for handling special education student discipline and issuing a formal letter of concern over Kincaid’s reporting processes and her handling of student discipline. Kincaid alleges that Skretta’s behavior towards her transformed after her reports, claiming that his actions constituted retaliatory harassment for her reporting the sexual assault.
Legal Analysis
Title IX Claim: The Tenth Circuit Court reviewed the district court’s decision under a de novo standard, focusing on whether Kincaid’s reporting of the student-on-student sexual assault constituted protected activity under Title IX. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that Kincaid failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact about the pretextual reasons for the adverse actions she faced. The court also highlighted that even the actions deemed materially adverse by the district court (e.g., emails about 911 calls and fire alarms, a request for Kincaid’s transfer, and the letter of concern) were not sufficient to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, thus failing to meet the standard for retaliatory harassment under Title IX.
Title VII Claim: Kincaid’s Title VII claim was dismissed by the district court on the grounds that her reporting of the sexual assault did not challenge an employment practice of the District, thus not constituting protected activity under Title VII. On appeal, Kincaid did not contest this finding but argued procedural issues related to the pretrial order. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII claim as well, reasoning that, similar to the Title IX claim, Kincaid did not adequately demonstrate that the District’s reasons for the adverse actions were pretextual.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Schrag on Law 