The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
ROBERT A. BRADFORD CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-01585
VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
BOARD, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before this Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] filed by Defendants
Morehouse Parish School Board (“MPSB”) and David Gray (“Gray”). An Opposition [Doc. No.
33] was filed by Plaintiff Robert A. Bradford (“Bradford”) on May 31, 2022. A Reply [Doc. No.
34] was filed by MPSB and Gray on June 7, 2022.
For the reasons set forth herein, MPSB and Gray’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2020, Bradford filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] against MPSB alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.,
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.1
Bradford was employed by MPSB on September 20, 2017, working at Bastrop High
School, teaching “Life Skills” and “Job Skills.”2 Bradford worked as a physical education
(“PE”) teacher at H.V. Adams Elementary School in the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year,
but prior to the school year ending, he was transferred to Delta Junior High School (“Delta”) as
an elementary PE teacher.3
1 Louisiana State Law claims have been dismissed [Doc. No. 7].
2 Bradford had previously been employed by MPSB in 1992-1995, and again in 2000-2006.
3 Bradford Deposition [Doc. No. 30-4, pp 38-50].
Bradford was terminated on April 12, 2019. MPSB and Gray maintain Bradford’s
termination was due to an incident which occurred on March 13, 2019, in which Bradford
allegedly used unnecessary physical force toward two second-grade students. Bradford was
alleged to have grabbed one second-grade student, C.M, by the arm, shook him, and then threw
him down, causing him to hit his head on the bleachers. Bradford was also alleged to have
grabbed another second-grade student, J.N., by the shoulder, picked him up by his shirt, and
brought him to a standing position on his toes.4
On March 13, 2019, MPSB Superintendent Gray received an oral report from Ralph
Davenport (“Davenport”), MPSB Supervisor of Child Welfare & Attendance, who reported that
while at Delta on the morning of March 13, 2019, Davenport observed several parents in the
principal’s office complaining to the principal about the physical abuse by Bradford to their
children. Gray directed Davenport to further investigate the allegations. Davenport returned to
Delta and provided Gray with a written report on March 18, 2019, which confirmed the
allegations.5
The principal of Delta, Karmen Murry (“Murry”) interviewed students in the class
individually and in small groups. MPSB and Gray maintain Murry’s notes6 confirm the
incidents. Bradford argues the notes of interviews are inconsistent.
After the investigation, Bradford was discharged. MPSB and Gray maintain Bradford’s
race or age had nothing to do with his termination, and Bradford was terminated based upon his
action toward the two students.7 MPSB and Gray maintain that Bradford was not treated
4 [Doc. No. 30-2, p. 2].
5 Affidavit of David Gray, [Doc. No. 30-10, pp.4-5].
6 [Doc. No. 33-9, and 33-10].
7 Affidavit of David Gray, [Doc. No. 30-1, ¶12].
differently from similarly situated white employees and was replaced by a person of the same
race.
Although Bradford initially listed seven comparators, he argues only two, Emily Fulmer
(“Fulmer”) and Rose Clayton (“Clayton”), as comparators in his brief.8 Bradford alleges the
incident involving the second-grade students is untrue and that he was fired because he was
black and fifty-six years old.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before a court shows “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would
affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). “The
moving party may meet its burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact
by pointing out that the record contains no support for the non-moving party’s claim.” Stahl v.
Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002). Thereafter, if the non-movant is
8 [Doc. No. 33-1, p.1].
unable to identify anything in the record to support its claim, summary judgment is appropriate.
Id. “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, courts “may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence” and “must resolve all ambiguities and draw all
permissible inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Total E & P USA Inc. v. Kerr–McGee
Oil and Gas Corp., 719 F.3d 424, 434 (5th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). While courts will
“resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party,” an actual controversy exists only
“when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Little v. Liquid Air. Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). To rebut a properly supported motion for summary
judgment, the opposing party must show, with “significant probative evidence,” that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. Hamilton v. Segue Software, Inc., 232 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2000)
(emphasis added). “‘If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative,’
summary judgment is appropriate.” Cutting Underwater Tech. USA, Inc. v. Eni U.S. Operating
Co., 671 F.3d 512, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
Relatedly, there can be no genuine dispute as to a material fact when a party fails “to
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-
23. This is true “since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323.
B. Title VII Race Discrimination
The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally
discriminated against plaintiff remains at all times with plaintiff.9 Whereas here, plaintiff relies
solely on circumstantial evidence of discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973) burden-shifting framework applies. This framework consists of three prongs:
1) the plaintiff must establish a “prima facie case” of discrimination; 2) if the plaintiff establishes
a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate reason for the
adverse employment action; and 3) if the employer satisfies its burden, the burden then shifts
back to plaintiff to show the reason is a pretext.10
A. Prima facie case of discrimination
To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under the McDonnel Douglas
framework, the plaintiff must show that he was 1) a member of a protected class; 2) qualified for
his employment position; 3) terminated by the employer; and 4) replaced by someone outside of
the protected class or treated otherwise less favorably than others who were similarly situated but
outside the protected class.11
Defendants do not dispute the first three elements12 but maintain Bradford is unable to
establish the fourth element – that Bradford was replaced by someone outside of the protected
class or treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside of the protected
group. Because the evidence demonstrates Bradford was replaced by someone within his
protected group,13 the issue is whether Bradford can show that he was treated differently than
similarly situated employees outside of his protected group. “Similarly situated” is construed
narrowly, requiring the employee’s situations to be nearly identical.14
9 Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affs. V. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
10 Jones v. Gulf Coast Rest. Group, Inc., 8 F.4d 363, 368 (5th Cir. 2021).
11 Ross v. Judson Independent School District, 993 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2021).
12 [Doc. No. 30-2, p. 13].
13 Affidavit of David Gray [Doc. N. 30-10, ¶ 9-10].
14 Zeng v. Texas Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr. At El Paso, 836 F. Appx. 203, 209 (5th Cir. 2020).
An employee may be “similarly situated” when the employee being compared held the
same job or responsibilities, shared the same supervisor, or had their employment status
determined by the same person, and have essentially comparable violation histories. The
comparator’s violation history must also be of “comparative seriousness” which refers to the
employee’s misconduct, not the punishment which may be available under the employee’s
policies.15
In Bradford’s Amended Complaint, he lists seven comparators,16 however, in his
opposition,17 Bradford only argues Comparator One (Fulmer) and Comparator Three (Clayton)
as comparators.18 Because Bradford did not argue in his brief that the other five were
comparators, and because the uncontested evidence shows the remaining five are not proper
comparators,19 only Fulmer and Clayton will be discussed as comparators.
Emily Fulmer
Bradford maintains Fulmer is a white, female teacher that choked a student, that the
incident was investigated, and that Fulmer was not disciplined.20 In Bradford’s Opposition, he
argues Fulmer allegedly choked one of her students on February 28, 2019. The incident was
witnessed by another teacher, Marisa Bible (“Bible”). The student (“O.R.”), wrote a statement in
which he said “Mrs. Fulmer tried to grab me, but she hit my neck. I got mad and told her Ima
punch you in the face if you touch me again.”21 Fulmer’s statement stated “I asked O.R. to look
at me and he refused. I reached for the front of his shirt to pull him to me, and he starts yelling
15 Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253, 260-70 (5th Cir. 2009).
16 [Doc. No. 7, ¶¶81-92].
17 [Doc. No. 33].
18 [Doc. No. 33 pp. 4-7, pp. 15-16].
19 [Doc. No. 30 pp. 18-25].
20 [Doc. No. 7, ¶¶ 80-81].
21 [Doc. No. 33-6 pp. 6-7].
let me go and you are choking me.”22 Bible wrote that O.R.’s statement saying Fulmer was
choking him was a fabrication. Bible wrote that Fulmer never touched O.R.’s neck. None of the
statements, not even O.R.’s, indicated Fulmer was choking him.23
Fulmer’s deposition (taken on March 24, 2022)24 was attached. She was still a fifth-
grade teacher at Delta and had been for approximately eight years. Fulmer detailed the incident
with O.R. She testified that O.R. was brought to her class by Bible. O.R. was yelling and tried
to leave the classroom. She reached for his shirt, and O.R. started yelling that Fulmer was
choking him. Fulmer testified that O.R. leaped at her to attack her, but Bible jumped in front of
O.R. Fulmer denied choking O.R. and actually testified that she never even touched O.R.
because he jerked back. Her intentions were to pull O.R. back into the classroom and shut the
door.
O.R. was suspended for the incident and when he came back to school he apologized to
Fulmer. Fulmer filled out a Louisiana Department of Education School Behavior Report on the
incident.25
Gray, Superintendent of MPSB, submitted an Affidavit regarding this.26 In the Affidavit,
Gray stated the principals at Delta investigated the incident involving Fulmer and found no
reason to report anything to Gray because the choking incident did not occur. Gray received no
complaint from the parent and was not forwarded any complaint by a parent from the school.27
22 [Doc. No. 33-6 pp. 2-3].
23 [Doc. No. 33-6, pp. 4-5].
24 [Doc. No. 30-9].
25 [Doc. No. 33-6].
26 [Doc. No. 30-10].
27 Id. ¶20.
Rose Clayton
In his Amended Complaint, Bradford alleges in paragraphs 85 and 86 that Clayton called
a child a “black b***h” in front of a number of students. One of the principals at Delta, Murry,28
testified at her deposition (taken on March 23, 2022) that she is currently the Curriculum
Coordinator for the Morehouse Parish School System. She was principal at Delta from January
2018 to July 2021. She was co-principal with Carla Martin (“Martin”).
She investigated the incident involving Clayton.29 The incident was fully investigated by
her. She never made a report to Superintendent Gray because there was no evidence to
corroborate that the incident actually happened.30
Superintendent Gray also confirmed31 that he was not advised of the incident involving
Clayton because the principal investigated the complaint and found no evidence to support the
allegation.
Robert Bradford
On March 13, 2019, Superintendent Gray received an oral report from Davenport, the
Supervisor of Child Welfare & Attendance, who reported that while at Delta, he observed several
parents in the principal’s office complaining to the principal about physical abuse by Bradford to
their children. Gray directed Davenport to further investigate the allegations. Davenport
returned to Delta and provided Gray a written report on March 18, 2019.32 Davenport’s report
indicates Bradford received complaints of shaking a student, causing him to fall to the floor,
28 [Doc. No. 30-7].
29 She also investigated the incident involving Fulmer.
30 [Doc. No. 30-7, pp. 16-17].
31 Affidavit of David Gray, [Doc. No. 30-10 ¶ 23-24].
32 [Doc. No. 33-16].
picking up another student by his shirt to place him against the wall, and of using inappropriate
language with the students.33
Davenport and Murry interviewed Bradford, who denied the allegations. Davenport’s
report indicated evidence from the students in the class strongly showed that Bradford used
unnecessary physical force to discipline the students involved.
The deposition of Murry was also attached.34 Murry testified that she, Martin and
Davenport interviewed students and staff with regard to the allegations against Bradford. Murry
conducted most of the interviews. She took interview notes.35 The interview notes were taken
on March 13, and March 14, 2019. Some of the second-grade students were interviewed
individually and some as a group. Bradford argues the notes were inconsistent. However, the
vast majority of the students interviewed gave facts consistent with Bradford getting angry at the
second-grade class, grabbing C.M. by the arm and throwing him down, and in picking J.N. up by
his shirt and putting him against the wall.
The first group of six students36 all told the same story that Bradford picked J.N. up by
the shirt and J.N. running away, with Bradford running after him like he was going to hit him
with a bottle. One of the six interviewed also said Bradford grabbed his arm and almost made
him cry. An individual student interviewed said some of the kids were under the bleachers, and
Bradford began beating on the bleachers resulting in the students running.37
33 Indicating the “B and S” words.
34 [Doc. No. 30-7].
35 [Doc. No. 33-10].
36 [Doc. No. 33-10, p. 1].
37 [Doc. No. 33-10, p. 2].
One student, D.W., issued a hand-written statement that he was hit on his arm. The
statement was difficult to understand because it was written by a young child, but the statement
indicated that he was hit.38
A group of five students was interviewed the next day, March 14, 2019.39 The students
indicated that some of the students were going under the bleachers. Bradford told them to get
out and get up against the wall. J.N. did not get up and Bradford told him to “get his ass up,”
yanked J.N. up hard, and J.N. ran away, resulting in Bradford throwing a bottle at him.
A second group of five students was also interviewed on March 14, 2019. This group
stated J.N. was doing cartwheels by the wall. Bradford yelled at J.N. to stop. J.N. took off
running and Bradford threw a bottle at him. The students said Bradford said the “B” word and
the “S” word.
A third group of five students was interviewed on March 14, 2019.40 A group of students
were going under the bleachers. Bradford told everyone to get up against the wall. Bradford
pulled J.N.’s shirt collar. J.N. said he was going to tell his mother and Bradford said he was not
scared of his mother. J.N. ran out the door and Bradford tried to hit J.N. with a bottle. The
students stated they heard Bradford cussing, using the “B” word.
An individual student (who evidently wrote out his own statement)41 indicated “he” was
shaking the student hard, and the student fell down.
Another individual student stated Bradford pushed a student down with his hand and
shook him hard. The student did not cry.42
38 [Doc. No. 33-10, p.3].
39 Id. p.4.
40 Id. p.5.
41 Id. p.6.
42 Id. p.7.
Another individual student (interviewed on the day of the incident) said “he” pushed a
student, yanked, and shook him, resulting in the student bumping his head.43
J.N. stated Bradford put his hand on him because he went to the bathroom and was
playing. He said Bradford tried to hit him with a water bottle.44 Another student said Bradford
grabbed a student on the shoulder and yanked.45
J.N. also stated Bradford told them to go to the wall. Bradford grabbed him by the
shoulder to put J.N. on the wall. Bradford became angry and told them to go outside, and
Bradford was acting like he was going to chase J.N.. J.N. went to the office to call his mother.46
C.M. stated Bradford started getting angry for no reason. Bradford held his arm and
when C.M. tried to get away, Bradford threw him into the bleachers. C.M. said he hit his head
on the bleachers. Another student also verified the incident indicating Bradford grabbed C.M.’s
arm and threw him, that Bradford was angry, called everybody “stupid”, and had a water bottle
in his hand, acting like he would hit J.N.47
Another individual student was interviewed on March 14, 2019. The student stated some
of the students started climbing onto and under the bleachers. The students apparently started to
annoy Bradford by doing this, and he told them to stand against the wall. J.N. did not want to
line up against the wall, and Bradford started running after J.N. and acting like he was going to
throw a bottle at him. J.N. said he was going to tell his mother and Bradford said, “what’s your
mama going to do to me?”48
43 Id. p.8.
44 Id. p. 10.
45 Id. p. 10.
46 Id. p. 11.
47 Id. pp. 12-17.
48 Id. p. 18.
In his Affidavit, Superintendent Gray stated Davenport reported the incident to him, and
he had Davenport investigate. After the students were interviewed, confirming the allegations
against Bradford, Gray sent a letter to Bradford, terminating him.49
In conclusion, it is the Court’s opinion that Bradford was not treated less favorably than
Fulmer and Clayton. The obvious difference is that there was no corroborating evidence that
Fulmer or Clayton did anything wrong, and there was corroborating evidence from almost the
entire second-grade class that Bradford did. Therefore, this Court finds that Bradford has not
made a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.
B. Legitimate Reason for Employment Action/Pretext
Even if Bradford were to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, MPSB has
articulated a legitimate reason for Bradford’s termination – violation of MPSB’s policy against
unnecessary physical force and/or improper use of corporal punishment.50 Therefore, the burden
of proof would shift to Bradford to prove that the legitimate reasons offered by the Defendant
were not its true reasons but were just a pretext for discrimination. A plaintiff proves pretext
either directly by showing a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer’s
decision, or indirectly showing the employer’s explanation is not worthy of credence.51
Bradford has not met this burden. Unlike the allegations against Fulmer and Clayton, the
allegations against Bradford were substantiated by the second-grade students in Bradford’s class.
There is no evidence of pretext.
Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MPSB and Gray [Doc. No. 30] is
GRANTED with regard to Bradford’s Title VII racial discrimination claim.
49 [Doc. No. 30-10 ¶¶ 4-7].
50 [Doc. No. 30-10, pp.15-16].
51 Burdine, 450 U.S. 256.
C. Age Discrimination Claim
Bradford’s remaining claim is based upon age discrimination under the ADEA. Like
Title VII, claims involving circumstantial evidence are also evaluated under the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting standard.52 Bradford must establish a prima facie case by
demonstrating that: 1) he was discharged; 2) was qualified for the position; 3) was within the
protected class at the time of discharge; and 4) was either replaced by someone outside the
protected class, replaced by someone younger, or otherwise discharged because of his age.53
The first three elements are uncontested. As to the fourth element, Bradford was fifty-six
years old at the time of his termination. Bradford was discharged on April 12, 2019, toward the
end of the school year. Bradford was initially replaced, for the remainder of the school year,
with a substitute teacher, Carolyn Glosson (“Glosson”), who was fifty-nine years old, three years
older than Bradford.54 At the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year, MPSB only received one
application by a certified teacher, Raymece Savage (“Savage”), a black male that was younger
than forty years old.55 Because Glosson was a substitute teacher and a temporary replacement,
this Court finds Bradford was replaced by Savage and has therefore made out a prima facie case.
However, as noted in the discussions in Bradford’s Title VII claim, MPSB and Gray
have articulated a legitimate reason for Bradford’s termination, and Bradford is unable to prove
the termination was pretextual. Therefore, Bradford’s age discrimination complaint also fails.
The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MPSB and Gray is GRANTED as to
Bradford’s ADEA age discrimination claim.
52 Goudeau v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. 793 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir. 2015).
53 Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc. 376 F.3d 305, 309 (5th Cir. 2004).
54 Affidavit of David Gray [Doc. No. 30-10, ¶9].
55 Id. ¶10.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Ruling, the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by MPSB and Gray is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Monroe, Louisiana, this 22" day of June 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRIC, DGE
14