Plaintiff Oscar Brownfield sued defendants Independent School District No. 35 of Cherokee County (Tahlequah Public Schools or “TPS”), Leon Ashlock, Mat Cloud, DeAnn Mashburn, Natalie Cloud, and Kimberly Williams in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma raising claims of retaliation under Title IX, violations of his First Amendment and Equal Protection rights under § 1983, conspiracy to violate his First Amendment rights under § 1983, violations of due process, and violations of Title VII. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claims, Due Process claim, and conspiracy claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Plaintiff Brownfield had been a substitute teacher and volunteer wrestling coach with TPS. He alleged that all Defendants retaliated against him in various ways for making Title IX complaints regarding the behavior of another coach. According to Plaintiff, Defendants refused to employ him further as a substitute teacher and volunteer wrestling coach and “blacklisted” him from being a wrestling coach at TPS and elsewhere.
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on October 28, 2022, which contained seven claims: (1) retaliation under Title IX against TPS; (2) § 1983 claims against TPS, Ashlock, Mashburn, and Mr. Cloud alleging violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and Equal Protection rights; (3) § 1983 claims against Ms. Cloud, Mashburn, and Williams alleging conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; (4) Due Process violations against TPS; (5) violation of Title VII against TPS; (6) § 1983 claim against Mr. Cloud alleging violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; and (7) § 1983 claim against TPS for violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
Defendants sought partial dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, TPS, Ashlock, Mashburn, and Mat Cloud challenged Plaintiff’s § 1983 Equal Protection claims in his Second Claim; TPS moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim alleging Due Process violations; and Defendants Natalie Cloud, Mashburn, and Williams moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Claim alleging conspiracy. Magistrate Judge Jackson issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted and that Plaintiff should not be given leave to further amend his Second Amended Complaint.
Legal Analysis
Equal Protection Claims:
The Court found that Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claims failed as a matter of law. Plaintiff attempted to assert a “class-of-one” Equal Protection theory, seeking redress for alleged discrimination relating to his employment. However, the Supreme Court in Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric. expressly held that the class-of-one theory is not applicable in public employment cases. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that his claim should be construed as unrelated to employment, noting that the gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint related to alleged workplace discrimination Plaintiff suffered due to his Title IX complaint.
The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s alternative argument that his claim related solely to his status as a Title IX complainant, finding that even under this construction, Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege differential treatment. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s comparisons to the Defendants themselves were not valid as they were not similarly situated to Plaintiff with respect to his Title IX complaint.
Furthermore, the Court identified another fundamental problem with Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claims: allegations of retaliatory acts do not implicate Equal Protection rights. The Tenth Circuit has consistently held that retaliation claims simply do not implicate the Equal Protection Clause, as the alleged harmful actions were taken based on Plaintiff’s speech and/or conduct, rather than on the basis of any illicit classification.
As to the individual defendants, the Court found they were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under § 1983 for Equal Protection violations.
Conspiracy Claims:
Regarding Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the elements of a conspiracy. The claim was fatally flawed because Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that Defendant Mashburn, the only state actor allegedly involved in the conspiracy, took part in any conspiracy against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged only that Ms. Mashburn forwarded an email from Ms. Cloud and a memorandum from Mr. Cloud to TPS’ attorney and Superintendent, which did not indicate or permit a reasonable inference that she was participating in a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
The Court noted that even if Plaintiff had plausibly alleged that Ms. Cloud and Williams agreed to submit false reports about his behavior in retaliation for his Title IX complaints, neither Ms. Cloud nor Williams was a state actor capable of violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or susceptible to liability under § 1983.
Leave to Amend:
The Court agreed with Magistrate Judge Jackson’s recommendation that Plaintiff should not be given further opportunity to amend his Second Amended Complaint. The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to comply with local rules requiring a separate motion to amend with a proposed amended pleading attached. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiff’s request was an attempt “to make the complaint a moving target” given that the matter had been pending for approximately 15 months, Plaintiff had already amended his Complaint twice, the deadline for amendments had passed, and Plaintiff only sought to amend when facing potential dismissal.
The Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s third claim, fourth claim, and that portion of Plaintiff’s Second claim alleging § 1983 Equal Protection claims against TPS, Ashlock, Mashburn, and Mat Cloud.
Schrag on Law 