WORK WITH US
Judge Finds Pre-School Director Was Fired For Encouraging Employees To Burn Through Sick Time Rather Than Race Discrimination
Dr. Caroline Diaz, an Asian American woman of Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese descent, began her employment as the Preschool Director of Westminster Schools in Atlanta in 2015. Her responsibilities included compliance with licensing, recruiting teachers, and strategic oversight of the nursery’s operations.
From 2015 to 2019, Dr. Diaz said she received favorable evaluations under her initial supervisor, Brent Ivey, then-Director of Auxiliary Programs and later the Director of Human Resources. In 2019, Kelley Day, a Caucasian female hired as the Risk and Auxiliary Manager, became her supervisor. Dr. Diaz expressed dissatisfaction with Day’s leadership, claiming that Day lacked understanding of the rules and regulations governing preschool programs.
Tensions arose over operational decisions, including staffing and scheduling, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Dr. Diaz said she sent an email to Day shortly after the School reopened in August 2020, raising concerns about supervision, staffing, and the timing of classroom cleaning.
Dr. Diaz alleged that the conflict escalated in 2020 when Dr. Diaz raised concerns about Day’s management style, including that Day scrutinized her every action and was bordering on bullying and harassment. Dr. Diaz also reported that Day made inappropriate comments, including questioning her English proficiency and stating that it “must be hard to be Asian because [Asian people] caused the virus.” Day also allegedly refused to allow Dr. Diaz to discipline a Black teacher because “people like her play the race card.”
At the same time, throughout 2020, at least three nursery teachers resigned and, before leaving, raised concerns about Dr. Diaz’s management style.
In March 2021, Dr. Diaz authored an article in EducationWeek addressing anti-Asian racism, which she later shared with Westminster staff. Soon after, she reported further racial comments by Day to the HR Director, Christa Hansen, but alleged that her complaints were dismissed and that Hansen encouraged her to “lay low and be agreeable.”
Later, Dr. Diaz accepted a position at another school without disclosing this decision to Westminster. Members of Westminster’s leadership team learned of her new employment offer through third parties, including from other Westminster employees.
Shortly afterward, in April 2021, allegations emerged that Dr. Diaz encouraged staff to “stick it to Westminster” and leave early each day as retaliation against Westminster. On May 4, 2021, Antoinette Boyd, a senior administrator at Westminster, conducted an investigation about whether Dr. Diaz told other employees to disingenuously take sick leave. Boyd concluded that one of these employee’s attendance records showed seven instances of leaving early in the month of April. Accordingly, Boyd terminated Dr. Diaz’s employment, citing insubordination, unprofessional behavior, and a toxic workplace environment as reasons for the dismissal.
Dr. Diaz filed a number of claims, including race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and breach of contract against Westminster and her supervisors.
Title VII prohibits race and national origin discrimination in employment. To establish a Title VII claim, courts often apply a burden-shifting framework. Under this framework, the plaintiff first bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for their position; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) they were treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside their protected class. If the plaintiff succeeds, an inference of discrimination arises, shifting the burden to the employer to articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Once the employer provides such reasons, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that these reasons are pretextual, meaning they are false, and that discrimination was the real motive.
Here, Dr. Diaz is a member of a protected class as an Asian American of Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese descent, and the School did not dispute this. Dr. Diaz was subject to an adverse employment action when she was terminated.
Dr. Diaz alleged that a hostile work environment was created by Day and Hansen’s biased actions and comments. Westminster argued that Dr. Diaz’s termination resulted from legitimate concerns about her management, including complaints from subordinates and her instruction to misuse sick leave.
This case was handled by a magistrate judge. Magistrate judges generally do not have the authority to issue final rulings, but will make findings and recommendations to a trial court judge, who will later rule on the case.
Here, the magistrate judge found that, while Dr. Diaz satisfied some elements of her prima facie case, Dr. Diaz failed to show that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees. Westminster also offered legitimate reasons for her termination—such as allegations of workplace misconduct, fostering a toxic environment, and a pattern of unprofessionalism. Dr. Diaz failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual, leading the judge to recommend granting summary judgment in favor of Westminster as to the Title VII discrimination claim.
For Dr. Diaz’s retaliation claim, Dr. Diaz must show proof of protected activity (e.g., complaints about discrimination), an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two.
Dr. Diaz argued her termination was retaliation for reporting racial comments and publishing an article about anti-Asian racism. Westminster argued that the decision was based on workplace misconduct and unprofessionalism, unrelated to any protected activity.
The magistrate judge again agreed with the School. The judge concluded that writing an article about a general industry trend did not qualify as protected activity. Similarly, Dr. Diaz’s complaints to Hansen about racial comments made by Day did not constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice, and therefore not protected activity. The judge also concluded that Dr. Diaz failed to establish a causal connection between her alleged protected activities and her termination. Boyd, the decision-maker, was unaware of Dr. Diaz’s complaints or the article. Thus, the judge recommended granting summary judgment on the retaliation claims, as well.
A breach of contract claim requires evidence that Westminster failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. Dr. Diaz claimed Westminster owed her unpaid salary for the final months of her employment, a $2,000 COVID-19 bonus, and an educational stipend. Westminster contended it had paid Dr. Diaz more than what she was owed under the contract based on the prorated contract amount and the date of termination, the bonus was contingent on her completing the school year, and the stipend was contingent on her signing a promissory note, which she did not sign.
The judge found no evidence supporting Dr. Diaz’s claims for additional compensation and recommended granting summary judgment in Westminster’s favor.
Diaz v. The Westminster Schools, Inc. (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2024) No. 1:22-cv-02707-TCB-RGV.
Note: This case is an important reminder that schools should keep detailed documentation of employee performance concerns and any investigations, as this evidence can be critical in showing that a school’s decision was unrelated to an employee’s protected status(es).