Amy Necaise, the longtime principal of Bay High School, sued the Bay St. Louis-Waveland School District after she was asked to resign following multiple shoplifting charges. Necaise had worked for the District for over twenty years and served as principal for more than a decade. She alleged that the District discriminated against her based on sex in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.
The dispute arose in August 2023, when Necaise was accused of shoplifting at a Walmart. The District’s Employee Handbook states: An employee who is arrested or charged with a felony or misdemeanor is required to notify his or her immediate supervisor and the Superintendent as soon as possible but not later than within 24 hours. Failure to report such incidents may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.”
Accordingly, Necaise promptly reported the first charge to her supervisor. However, within a week, the police department called Necaise to let her know that she was charged with two additional shoplifting offenses stemming from separate incidents at Walmart on different dates. Necaise did not report the additional charges within the required timeframe because she was under the impression that they were all part of the same case and charge.
The situation escalated quickly as media coverage intensified, eventually reaching national outlets. The Superintendent learned of the additional charges not from Necaise, but from a reporter seeking comment. Shortly thereafter, the District concluded that Necaise had violated its reporting policy and asked her to resign in lieu of termination. Necaise later pled no contest to one of the charges, while the others were dismissed.
Necaise filed suit under Title VII, arguing that male employees who engaged in misconduct were treated more favorably and that her resignation was the result of sex discrimination. The District moved for summary judgment.
The Court evaluated Necaise’s Title VII claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under this framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing, among other things, that she suffered an adverse employment action and was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside her protected class. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, after which the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is a pretext for discrimination.
Applying this framework, the Court found that Necaise could establish a prima facie case based on being replaced by a male principal. However, her claim failed at the comparator stage. The Court emphasized that comparators must be “nearly identical” in role, conduct, and circumstances. Necaise’s proposed comparators, who were teachers and coaches, held significantly different positions and responsibilities and had not engaged in comparable conduct, such as receiving multiple criminal charges and failing to report them. For example, the Court noted that as the principal, Necaise was responsible for the safety of students, personnel on campus, curriculum, and supervising and leading a leadership team, responsibilities that were notably different than the teachers and coaches she offered as comparators.
The Court further found that the District had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action: Necaise’s violation of the reporting policy. Necaise admitted she was aware of the policy and failed to comply with it. The Court noted that such a violation is particularly significant for a principal, who serves as a highly visible leader and must maintain public trust. The widespread media attention surrounding the charges further distinguished her situation from that of other employees.
At the final stage, the Court concluded that Necaise failed to show that the District’s stated reason was pretextual. Her evidence of disparate treatment was limited and lacked specificity, and she could not identify similarly situated male employees who were treated more favorably. The Court also noted that the decisionmaker was female, which weakened any inference of discriminatory intent, and that Necaise had previously discussed transitioning roles before the incidents occurred.
Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the District.
Necaise v. Bay St. Louis Waveland Sch. Dist. (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2026) 2026 WL 881221.
Note: Although this case involves a public school district, it was decided under Title VII, which applies to private schools. This case provides useful guidance on how courts assess comparator evidence and evaluate whether a stated reason for discipline is pretextual.