Campus Police Officer’s Age Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Can Proceed to Trial Following District’s Refusal to Rehire Him

Keenan Meadors was hired as a campus police officer for the Tulsa School District in August 2010. From 2012 to 2017, Meadors received positive performance reviews and was promoted from police officer to sergeant.

In February 2017, two significant events occurred. First, Meadors filed a complaint against two superior officers, including Deputy Chief Matthias Wicks, alleging illegal/unfair practices and sexual harassment. Second, a vacancy arose for the position of Chief of Campus Police. Meadors opposed Deputy Chief Wicks’ appointment by signing a Letter of No Confidence and applying for the position himself.

Despite the opposition, Wicks was selected as the new chief. After Wicks became chief, Meadors began receiving negative feedback. In August 2017, Chief Wicks provided Meadors with informal “coaching” regarding various issues like raising his voice, interrupting superiors, and having a negative attitude. In September 2017, Meadors covered a security camera in a high school security office, violating a prior email directive. This led to his suspension and a recommendation for termination. After a pre-termination hearing, the Board decided to demote Meadors from Sergeant to Police Officer instead of firing him.

Between December 2017 and April 2019, Chief Wicks continued to have concerns with Meadors’ job performance, though these did not result in formal disciplinary actions.

In April 2019, the District proposed a reorganization plan that eliminated all campus police officer positions, including Meadors’. Meadors, who was 65 years old at the time, requested not to be fired as he was close to retirement.

Despite his request, the Board approved the reorganization plan, eliminating 179 positions (including all police officer positions) effective June 30, 2019.

Meadors applied for one of the newly created school security officer positions. He participated in interviews but received lower scores compared to some other applicants. Meadors was not asked about his age during the interview process, but there was allegedly evidence that at least one panelist expressed concerns about Meadors’ age a few months prior to the interview process.

A leadership team, which included Chief Wicks, discussed Meadors’ application, considering his interview scores, past job performance, and recent performance assessments. Ultimately, Meadors was not selected for the new position. The District claimed this was due to his poor interview performance and past incidents, while Meadors alleged age discrimination and retaliation.

Meadors sued the District, alleging among other claims, age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

For the ADEA claim, the Court applied a burden-shifting framework. Under this framework, Meadors must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing: (1) he applied for an open position; (2) he was qualified for the position; and (3) he was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

If Meadors establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the District to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not rehiring him. If the District meets this burden, Meadors must show that the District’s stated reasons are pretextual.

The District conceded, and therefore the Court concluded, that Meadors could establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. Similarly, Meadors did not dispute that the District set forth 16 non-discriminatory reasons for its decision not to re-hire Meadors. Among the reasons were: poor interview performance, past job performance issues, and recent performance assessments.

Accordingly, the only disputed question was whether a jury could conclude that the 16 justifications offered by the District were pretext. To establish pretext, Meadors must present facts that the age-neutral reasons for his dismissal were so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory that a jury could find those reasons unworthy of belief. The Court concluded that Meadors presented sufficient facts to create such a jury question.

The Court reached this conclusion for the following reasons:

• The School Board had previously disagreed with the District’s findings regarding Meadors’ alleged disobedience to the security camera directive in 2017.
• There was a misalignment between the 16 reasons provided by the District in its brief and the reasons set forth in the evidence of record as to why Meadors was not rehired. For example, the evidence suggested that some individuals in the hiring process were not motivated by the 16 reasons. Such inconsistencies could be viewed as evidence of pretext.
• Many of the reasons for refusing to rehire Meadors were subjective, such as that Meadors was disrespectful, argumentative, and unwilling to respond to coaching.
• The Court expressed concern about the District citing 16 separate grounds for its decision, referencing a Sixth Circuit opinion that suggests a multitude of suspicious explanations may itself indicate a suspect decision-making process.

As a result, the Court denied the District’s motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claim.

For Meadors’ retaliation claim, the Court applied the same burden-shifting framework. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Meadors must show: (1) he engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The Court concluded that Meadors engaged in protected activity when he filed a complaint in February 2017. The elimination of his position and failure to rehire him in 2019 constituted adverse employment actions.

The District argued that Meadors failed to establish a causal connection between his 2017 complaint and the 2019 adverse actions due to the length of time that had elapsed. The Court agreed that the amount of time between the two events was significant, but concluded that timing alone was not dispositive. Here, Meadors had received positive reviews from 2012-2016, and Meadors alleged that the District’s opinion about his performance began to change around 2017, when he first raised concerns about Wicks engaging in sexual harassment. In fact, Meadors argued that all of Wicks’ criticisms arose after, and as a result of Meadors’ decision to report Wicks’ conduct. The Court concluded that a jury could find either way—that Meadors’ performance began to slip around the time he accused Wicks or that Wicks retaliated against Meadors when the opportunity finally arose in 2019. For this reason, the Court denied the District’s summary judgment motion on the Title VII retaliation claim.

Meadors v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa Cnty. (N.D.Okla. Oct. 3, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 181890.

Note: This case highlights the importance of carefully documenting performance issues, following consistent hiring practices, being cautious about making age-related comments, and ensuring that all employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors.