ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

questions or concerns regarding sexual harassment and unfair workplace conditions. These all
qualified as protected activities in the eyes of the court for it was CPS’s responsibility to ensure
that these activities were curtailed. Second, the activity was known by CPS, which passed the
test. Third, Black had to prove that CPS enforced an adverse action upon her due to the protected
activity, which was made evident in the job reassignment. Fourth, Black had to show that the
activity directly caused the adverse action. This was accomplished through the history of reports.
Black filed ongoing reports of her disagreements with what was occurring at Mifflin for a year.
She was reassigned almost a year from the date of her first report. The court was reasonably able
to discern a causal relationship. Black proved a valid claim under § VII; thus, summary judgment
was incorrect on this claim. Black was unable to pass the tests for why she was not promoted
over her two White colleagues. Black was also unable to successfully prove that CPS
discriminated against her on the basis of age as both women chosen over her where within 5-7
years of Black’s age. As it was proven earlier, Black was unsuccessful in passing the hostile
work environment test, so her federal claims on that point were invalid as were her equal
protection claims. As to Black’s claims on her First Amendment right to freedom of speech, she
had to demonstrate that her speech was of a public concern. While anything that goes on in a
public school could be construed as a public concern, Black’s correspondence was never of
public concern--it was personal. Moreover, sexual harassment was never established. Thus,
Black failed on her First Amendment claim.
Black claimed that CPS violated her due process rights but never specified as to how it
did so. Black further failed to show a deprivation of a property interest. Consequently, Black
failed on her Fourteenth Amendment claim. Black failed on her final Ohio claims and her
husband (named in suit) failed on Loss of Consortium claims.
182