Only two of 14 civil rights complaints against Metro Schools Director Pedro Garcia and the school district are pending after the state Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights reached a determination on 12 cases last week.

LINK

Resolution of the complaints - some as old as September 2003 - was delayed last year after the chief investigator recused herself to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

While the allegations in the complaints varied, they included charges of discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, age and disability. Such discrimination is prohibited by several federal laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Some of the cases were rejected by the education department's civil rights office because it said it didn't have ''jurisdiction'' and because the complaints didn't support specific acts of discrimination. Others failed to show that the alleged discrimination had a substantial impact on students, an alternate reason for jurisdiction.

This is the status of the complaints:

• Vanessa Barbour: Violation of Title VI not found.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''It is more likely than not discrimination ... did not occur in your particular circumstances.''

• Jo Ann Brannon: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''unable to find any evidence to suggest that Dr. Garcia made his employment decision because of your race.''

• Rev. Henry Blaze on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee for Equity, a school advocacy group: Violation not found.

Complaint: Disposition of some federal funds; student discipline and special education practices. Finding: ''unable to conclude that Dr. Pedro Garcia and/or Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.''

• Reva Chatman: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''(no) evidence of any specific conversation or other documentation which reasonably lead you to believe that the decision to transfer you was based on the fact that you are African-American.''

• Barbara Dunn: Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act not found.

Complaint: Retaliatory treatment. Finding: ''did not find enough evidence to suggest that your termination was a result of retaliatory treatment.''

• Yvonne Franklin: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Change in job duties. Finding: ''Your job duties were altered, yet you have not provided information that shows that your supervisor intended to treat you differently because of your race.''

• Milton Harris: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Race discrimination. No specific example listed on the formal complaint form. Finding: The Education Department's jurisdiction is superseded by state or federal courts when a complainant files a lawsuit, as Harris has.

• Charles Hemphill: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Race discrimination. No specific example listed on the formal complaint form. Finding: ''You have not provided information that shows that Dr. Garcia acted with intent to discriminate.''

• Marilyn Holloman: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''There is no tenure in a specific position; the tenure is with the system as an educator. The director of schools has discretion as to where an employee will be placed.''

• Ovalla Jobe: Investigation pending resolution of lawsuit.

Complaint: Termination. Finding: The status of a lawsuit by Jobe is uncertain. ''Upon receipt of the notification, we will either continue or permanently close your investigation.''

• Juanita Lockert: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''What we actually found did not rise to the level of unlawful intentional discrimination in violation of Title VI.''

• Elbert Ross: No jurisdiction.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''We are not in possession of evidence, such as a showing that your successor was a less qualified Caucasian, to substantiate your claim.''

• Earlie Steele: Violation of Title VI not found.

Complaint: Demotion. Finding: ''(no evidence) that the decision to transfer you was based on the fact that you are African-American.''

• Student: Investigation ongoing.

Complaint: A high school student, whose name was not released by the state, is alleging discrimination based on race and disability.

- Diane Long

School workers' complaints rejected
By DIANE LONG, Tennessean.com, February 10. 2005

LINK

No proof rights were violated, officials say

The Office of Civil Rights for the state Department of Education has found no basis to complaints from 11 current or former Metro school employees who claimed they were fired, demoted or transferred because of their race, age, gender or disability.

The office also ruled there was no evidence of discrimination in another case filed by a grass-roots citizens group which advocates for students.





''We're very pleased, obviously,'' said June Keel, head of the human relations department for the Metro system. ''Just looking at the summary, it appears they found no purposeful acts of discrimination. Also, as I read it, they have found no substantial impact on students. And certainly, we're always pleased when any decision we have does not have a negative impact on a child.''

The Rev. Henry Blaze, who filed a complaint against the district and Schools Director Pedro Garcia on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee for Equity, was not satisfied with the state's ruling.

''Our complaints were not simply discrimination,'' Blaze said. ''We had some very specific complaints relating to special education (and) the use of Title I funds. And the response we received didn't say anything about those. We're just going to go ahead and file with the (federal) regional office of civil rights'' in Atlanta.

Other complainants - many have since resigned or retired - were equally disgruntled.

''In spite of the outcome of the investigation, it remains obvious that many successful and seasoned educators were wrongfully targeted by Dr. Garcia in terms of age, race and gender,'' said Jo Ann Brannon, who said she was unfairly demoted.

''As a product of the public school system and having achieved as much as I've achieved ... I just feel like the state system is letting me down all around,'' said Ovalla Jobe, who said she was wrongfully terminated.

State officials contend that they went beyond the call of duty to investigate even those claims that didn't fall under their jurisdiction, particularly because the resolution of the cases was delayed when the state's chief investigator was removed last summer to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

''At first glance, on some of them you can clearly see there ... really isn't going to be any jurisdiction for this,'' said Gloria Williams, a staff attorney with the education department. ''We felt that we're going to go ahead and look into this allegation and see if there were anything else here. If we found discrimination, we could send it somewhere else that maybe they did have jurisdiction. But a lot of them really didn't give us enough information to even say that discrimination had occurred.''

The ''findings'' detailed in letters to the complainants showed close attention to specifics of the cases.

In the case of Vanessa Barbour, who said she was wrongfully demoted, excerpts from the letter include:

''Not withstanding any of this, Dr. Garcia was well within in his legal right to transfer an employee. Absent proof of intent to discriminate we cannot conclude that your transfer was (anything) more than exercising a right not to renew your administrative contract. Nor do you provide evidence of any specific conversation which leads you to believe that the decision was based on the fact that you are African-American. While there was some indication the manner, specifically with regard to the late hour that you were informed of the impending transfer may have been handled in a more efficient and sensitive way, (Metro) did not violate your civil rights.''