1. Williams’s Voicemail
On the problem, the newest plaintiffs believe Williams, an SCBE staff member and you will principal regarding Bon Lin, retaliated from the plaintiffs by the leaving a beneficial disparaging voicemail after they got recorded a criticism on the OCR. In response, SCBE argues that voicemail message can’t be sensed retaliatory as Williams wasn’t conscious that the plaintiffs had filed their OCR criticism up to . The brand new court will follow SCBE on this allege.
*796 To ascertain that voicemail are retaliatory, brand new plaintiffs must demonstrate that SCBE realized and you can acted once the plaintiffs engaged in safe activity. Thaddeus X v. Blatter, 175 F.three-dimensional 378 , 387 (sixth Cir.1999). When the Williams was clueless your OCR ailment is filed during the time she leftover the latest voicemail content, it will be impossible on her to own retaliated because of secure pastime.
Showing you to definitely Williams knew of the OCR issue within time she leftover brand new voicemail, this new plaintiffs render an email out-of Hargrave so you’re able to SCBE directors and you can SCHD nurses, where Williams are CC’d, you to said J.C. «often file a grievance which have OCR if the . her daughter’s needs commonly satisfied» to ascertain knowledge and you can causation. (D.E. 35-8, within 2.) Yet not, it email just establishes you to definitely Williams know that there try a chance this new plaintiffs may participate in protected pastime. In reality, the plaintiffs promote zero facts to help you refute the fact Williams failed to notice this new OCR grievance up until . (D.E. 30-cuatro, within 34, 39, 40-42.)
The new plaintiffs as well as believe Williams are charged with degree of your own OCR issue since the she is conscious of new compound of the problem. (D.Elizabeth. 35-1, during the 5-eight.) Plaintiffs argue that, in addition to being CC’d towards the s is introduce from the a meeting stored towards the , where in actuality the parties talked about the fresh new plaintiffs’ questioned leases, and therefore generally designed the cornerstone of your plaintiffs’ OCR complaint. (D.E. 35-step 1, during the 5-7.) However, it appointment was held to the s accidentally kept the latest voicemail message toward . While doing so, the brand new record doesn’t reveal that the OCR problem are ever in fact chatted about on conference. So it is irrational to say one Williams acted on account of an enthusiastic OCR criticism, which was not even particularly stated at the an event that happened immediately following Williams remaining the newest voicemail.
The fresh new legal plus cards one to Williams don’t make an excellent conscience decision to depart the latest voicemail, and also the people don’t dispute your voicemail try accidently leftover. Therefore, it 
So it allege try presented within the J.C.is why deposition. not, it is not obvious just what «bad reactions» J.C. try writing on, therefore the plaintiffs don’t disagreement SCBE’s objections in regards compared to that specific allegation. For this reason, brand new legal features summation judgment with this alleged act away from retaliation.
*797 step 3. SCBE’s Suggestion you to definitely A great.C. end up being Examined for a reading Handicap
That it claim has also been presented throughout depositions. (D.E. step 30-3, from the 20.) SCBE contends you to definitely the idea that An effective.C. getting checked to own a training disability cannot be sensed retaliatory because the it was not a bad action and because the newest plaintiffs dont present a beneficial causal partnership between the idea and you will any alleged protected pastime. Particularly, SCBE contends you to definitely (1) the new plaintiffs don’t experience a bad step given that A.C. wasn’t in fact checked-out; (2) one to university areas keeps a legal duty to determine children and you will try him or her to have handicaps; and you may (3) it is impossible to declare that SCBE did not have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory factor in pretending because the A.C. try trailing academically. (D.E. 30-1, in the 26.) The plaintiffs do not dispute any of these arguments. The new plaintiffs condition only responding that the moms and dads indeed manage believe testing A good.C. to have learning disability but chose to reassess the challenge during the a good afterwards day. (D.E. 35-step one, from the 18.) In the light ones items and you may SCBE’s undisputed objections, SCBE are permitted realization view on this claim out-of retaliation.