ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

only board members present with Moylan were Kennedy, McMillan and one other member. This
charge stemmed from installation of cameras to monitor entry into a girls visiting locker room
where theft had recently occurred. Video tapes from these cameras were located in Mr. Hinson’s
office. Installation of these cameras was done with the knowledge of Dr. Hinson (still principal
during this time), Mr. Hinson, Tison, Lonnie Webb, the school resource officer. Mr. Hinson was
ultimately terminated for the incident while no others were disciplined.
At this point, numerous dilatory requests to amend her lawsuit by adding her husband and
seeking to compel discovery on certain issues by Hinson were denied by the district court. The
district court determined that there were no issues of fact in Hinson’s Title VII claim and granted
summary judgment to the defendants. The court noted that Hinson’s claim was faulty in so much
that Title VII claims were to be directed at employers or individuals acting on orders from an
employer; thus, the individuals could not be held liable under Title VII. Moreover, the court
further ruled that her due process claims under § 1983 were invalid as they appealed to state law
and because Hinson did not suffer a demotion in regard to salary she held no procedural rights.
This appeal followed.
Issues: (1) Were Hinson’s Title VII claims valid thus nullifying the court’s summary
judgment decision for the defendants? (2) Did Hinson possess a valid claim under § 1983?
Holding: The court held that summary judgment granted to the defendants on the Title
VII claim was correct in part. However, summary judgment for the defendants based on the
district court’s dismissal of Hinson’s discrimination claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
was erroneous.
Reasoning: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s
determination on the validity of Hinson’s Title VII claim against individuals. Relief from the
176