By Joe Pinchot
Herald Staff Writer
MERCER
Tue, May 13 2008
—
A federal judge has ruled that Mercer Area School District did not discriminate against a teaching candidate.
The judge added that while animosity between the candidate, Eldon N. Watson III, and then-elementary school principal Dr. Michelle Rhule might have caused him to stop being called to substitute teach, Watson could not show that he suffered any harm for which he could be compensated.
Watson, 52, of East Lackawannock Township, sued the district, Dr. Rhule and former superintendent Dr. Lawrence R. Connelly claiming he was passed over for a full-time job because of his age and his gender, and that officials retaliated against him when he complained.
The district has maintained that it did not discriminate against him and that it did not hire him because there were better candidates.
“The ruling clearly affirms the position of the Mercer Area School District from the beginning of this case,” said Dr. Rhule, Lakeview School District elementary principal and a Mercer school district board member.
“Mr. Watson was given a fair opportunity for employment,” she said. “He was not the best candidate. Justice has been served.”
Mercer Superintendent Dr. William Gathers, who was Connelly’s assistant when Watson was not hired in 2002, said the district was very happy with the ruling.
“We obviously didn’t discriminate in the past,” he said. “We don’t plan to discriminate in the future. We’re glad to set the record straight.”
Watson issued a statement that did not directly refer to the judge’s decision. He said he was thankful to have had his day in court.
As a school administrator, Connelly said he was “always faced with being fair and just” in personnel decisions, and Watson had no “rationale” for his claims.
“Obviously, after six years, it feels good to have it over with,” Connelly said. “On a personal level, it was insulting to me because of the implication that we had discriminated.”
Connelly also said he regretted that school district taxpayers have to foot part of the bill to defend the suit.
The ruling filed Tuesday by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza, Pittsburgh, followed a two-day trial in January.
School officials testified that Watson had an inside track to one of five elementary teaching positions in the spring of 2002 because he was an in-demand substitute teacher for the district. However, they were disappointed in his interview and found inconsistencies in applications he had submitted.
Watson said he thought the interview went well. He and his wife, Cyndi, said she filled out the applications and he did not review them carefully before they were submitted.
Caiazza said the credibility of Watson’s and Ms. Watson’s testimony was shaky because of discrepancies in his college grades and his exaggeration as to his duties with the U.S. Postal Service.
“Although the Watsons testified the application statements were accurate in their eyes, the factfinder (Caiazza) believes it more likely than not that the Plaintiff engaged in resume puffery,” the judge said.
Dr. Rhule engaged in “after the fact, litigation-minded posturing” that undermined her credibility, but the district’s evidence as a whole showed that officials did not discriminate against Watson, Caiazza said.
Caiazza agreed with school officials in their take on the interview, and decided they had stated legitimate reasons not to hire Watson.
Officials said Watson answered questions “on a surface level”; disagreed with state standards; seemed to favor homeschooling; and cried uncontrollably in discussing his personal life.
The judge said he rejected Watson’s anecdotal evidence that younger teachers were preferred, and differed with Watson’s interpretation of a newsletter Dr. Rhule gave to teachers. Watson said Dr. Rhule’s discussion of Greta van Sustern’s facelift in the newsletter showed Dr. Rhule’s age bias.
Caiazza also rejected as evidence recommendation letters given to Watson by Dr. Rhule and Connelly for other jobs because they were based on Watson’s substitute teaching.
During testimony, Dr. Rhule said she had told other school officials she was “uncomfortable” with Watson continuing as a substitute teacher after he first aired bias claims at a July 2002 school board meeting. Connelly told her she was being ridiculous and that it would be inappropriate and unfair not to call him to substitute.
Caiazza said “Dr. Rhule harbored animosity toward the Plaintiff and that this may have affected his status as a substitute, at least in her eyes.”
However, Watson also acted questionably by airing his “dirty laundry” at a school board meeting without confronting her first, the judge said.
The testimony and evidence showed “ambivalence” as to whether school officials actively kept him from substituting, and the judge found it “more than coincidence” that he went from subbing an average of 83 days a year over a three-year period to twice in 2002-03.
Watson’s evidence of damages, however, dealt only with the loss of the full-time teaching job and not a continuation of substitute teaching, Caiazza said. Watson presented no evidence in which the judge could sufficiently determine how much Watson lost in wages because he was not called to sub.
Because of this deficiency, Caiazza said he “declined to award nominal damages based on Dr. Rhule’s presumed retaliation.”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.