Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION

HIRAM CELIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ
CATOOSA COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant.

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF THE CATOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT1

Now comes the Catoosa County School District, (“District”) which is the

legal entity in charge of the public schools in Catoosa County, and shows that the

Catoosa County Public Schools is a given name for the District. As used in this

pleading, the term “Defendant” will refer to the “District” unless otherwise

indicated in the text. Defendant answers the Amended Complaint, and shows:

1
This Defendant is not aware that there ever was an original “Complaint” in this
case, but the document filed by Plaintiff [Doc. 1] is entitled “Amended
Complaint.”
1
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 20

DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against

the Defendant, and should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

SECOND DEFENSE

The Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because the Defendant's actions were

taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and for non-retaliatory reasons.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because he has failed to mitigate his

damages, which damages, if any, this Defendant denies.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses because this

Defendant’s actions were at all time reasonable, performed in good faith, and

performed in full compliance with the law.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies.

2
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 20

SIXTH DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, because any damage or injury

sustained by Plaintiff was not proximately caused by the Defendant.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff was not deprived of

any constitutionally or statutorily protected rights under any amendments to or

provisions of the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or laws.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves the right to amend or assert other affirmative and

additional defenses and/or otherwise supplement this Answer upon discovery of

facts or evidence rendering such action appropriate.

NINTH DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff has failed to comply with all the administrative

and procedural prerequisites necessary to bringing some or all of his claims, those

claims are barred. Specifically, this Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because he

did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies with the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission.

3
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 4 of 20

TENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant is not liable because Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie

claim necessary to recover under Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination

based upon National Origin.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because even if Plaintiff could

establish a prima facie claim, he cannot establish that Defendant’s legitimate, non-

discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions were a pretext for

discrimination or retaliation.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

This Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under Title VII, because Plaintiff

cannot prove the existence of any discrimination based on national origin and

cannot show that this Defendant acted with any discriminatory purpose or intent.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

At all times relevant to the subject matter of the Complaint, this Defendant,

and any of its agents, servants, or employees, acted in good faith on the basis of

legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons and with the belief that their actions

were permissible, necessary, and proper within the mandates of the law.

4
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 5 of 20

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because any and all treatment

accorded Plaintiff with respect to his pursuit of employment was based on

reasonable, legitimate, and non-discriminatory factors.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

This Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because this Defendant has not

discriminated against Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant answers the specifically-numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff’s

Complaint as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

-1-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as written. In further response, Defendant admits that the Catoosa

County Public Schools is a given name for the Catoosa County School District and

admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

with respect matters complained of regarding civil rights and Defendant’s

employment practices.

5
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 6 of 20

-2-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as written. In further response, Defendant admits that the Catoosa

County Public Schools is a given name for the Catoosa County School District and

admits that the Catoosa County School District is a public entity in charge of

public schools over which this court has jurisdiction as to subject matters involving

complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq.

-3-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

-4-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint as written. In further response, Defendant admits an action against the

Catoosa County School District would be properly venued in the Rome Division of

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

II. PARTIES

-5-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident

of Catoosa County, Georgia.

6
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 7 of 20

-6-

Defendant admits that Defendant is a governmental entity headquartered in

Catoosa County, Georgia.

-7-

Defendant admits that Defendant is located at 307 Cleveland Street, Ringgold,

Georgia 30736. It is admitted that the Catoosa County School District would be

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

-8-

Defendant admits that it can be served by delivering a copy of the Complaint and

Summons to 307 Cleveland Street, Ringgold, Georgia 30736.

-9-

Defendant admits that it would be subject to the requirements of the laws

enumerated in the Jurisdiction and Venue section of this Complaint.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

-10-

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has declared that

7
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 8 of 20

he is of Mexican descent, but shows that it has no independent knowledge of the

extent of Plaintiff’s national origin or of his declared Mexican or Hispanic descent.

-11-

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has informed the

District that he holds two Master’s degrees, one in Educational Leadership and

another in Education with Middle School Option.

-12-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff holds a Doctorate in Education.

-13-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff has worked in education since 1991.

-14-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff has been employed by the District since July

of 2007.

-15-

Defendant admits that at all times relevant to the alleged actions complained

of by the Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was an Assistant Principal of Battlefield Primary

School.

8
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 9 of 20

-16-

Defendant denies paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as stated. In further

response, Defendant states that Plaintiff has had several “needs improvement”

ratings, and has had an overall satisfactory performance history with Defendant.

-17-

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant is unaware of its employment of any

other Assistant Principals of Mexican descent. However, it employs many people

in higher leadership positions who are members of a protected class and who have

blended Mexican family members.

-18-

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant is unaware of its employment of any

other Principals of Mexican descent. However, it employs many people in higher

leadership positions who are members of a protected class and who have blended

Mexican family members.

9
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 10 of 20

-19-

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In

further response, Defendant believes that no one in the positions of Principal or

Assistant Principal has declared to the District that they are ‘minority’ members.

However, the Defendant shows that it has people employed in higher leadership

positions than Principal and Assistant Principal who are either minority members,

or members of a protected class, or who have blended Mexican family members.

-20-

Defendant admits that on or about May 7, 2018, Plaintiff applied for a

Principal position with Defendant at West Side Elementary School. In further

response, Defendant shows that the selection of interviewees for a position of

Principal is made solely by the Superintendent, and that the Superintendent did not

know the national origin of the Plaintiff at the time that she selected second-round

interviewees for the West Side principalship.

-21-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff interviewed for the West Side Principal

position.

10
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 11 of 20

-22-

Defendant admits that on or about May 10, 2018, two Caucasian candidates

were selected by the Superintendent for a second interview for this position. In

further response, Defendant states that those two candidates performed much better

than did the Plaintiff in the first interview.

-23-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was not selected by the Superintendent for a

second interview for this position. In further response, Defendant states that this

was based in large part on the relative performances of the candidates in the first

round of interviews.

-24-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was ultimately not selected by the

Superintendent for this position.

-25-

Defendant admits that the person selected for this position declared that he

was Caucasian and not of Mexican national origin.

-26-

Defendant admits that the selected candidate has less experience as an

Assistant Principal than Plaintiff. In further response, Defendant states that such

11
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 12 of 20

candidate had more experience than Plaintiff as an Assistant Principal at the school

in question (West Side Elementary School), which is an inherent advantage in

seeking this position.

-27-

Defendant admits that the candidate selected by the Superintendent did not

have a Doctorate degree.

-28-

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was informed of his first non-selection via

email by Doug Cline, Director of Human Resources.

-29-

Defendant denies that Mr. Cline had previously stated that Plaintiff would

not get a position as Principal while Mr. Cline was head of Human Resources. In

further response, Defendant states that even if such statement had been made, the

statement would not be relevant to the result complained of by the Plaintiff because

the decision of who is recommended to the Catoosa County Board of Education for

a Principal position or as to who is selected for an interview for a Principal position

is made solely by the Superintendent.

12
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 13 of 20

-30-

Defendant admits that no such statements as those alleged in Paragraph 29

of Plaintiff’s Complaint (but not admitted by Defendant) or similar statements have

been made by any District employee with decision-making authority for these

positions about anyone.

-31-

Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In further

response, Defendant states it is unaware of anyone who has supposedly made a

statement concerning Plaintiff needing to look elsewhere if he wanted to move up

the career ladder, and demands strict proof thereof. However, even if such

statement had been made, the statement would not be relevant to the result

complained of by the Plaintiff because the decision of who is recommended to the

Catoosa County Board of Education for a Principal position or as to who is

selected for an interview for a Principal position is made solely by the

Superintendent.

-32-

Defendant admits that no such statements as those alleged in Paragraph 31

of Plaintiff’s Complaint (but not admitted by Defendant) or similar statements have

13
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 14 of 20

been made by any District employee with decision-making authority for these

positions to anyone.

-33-

It is admitted that the Plaintiff interviewed for another Principal position at

Heritage Middle School with the Defendant.

-34-

It is admitted that the Plaintiff was not selected for a second interview for

that position.

-35-

It is admitted that the person selected for that position has declared that she

is Caucasian and not of Mexican descent.

-36-

It is admitted that the person selected for that position had less experience as

an Assistant Principal than the Plaintiff, however, the person selected had more

experience as an Assistant Principal at the school in question (Heritage Middle

School) than the Plaintiff, which is an inherent advantage in seeking this position.

-37-

It is admitted that the Plaintiff filed an EEOC claim regarding the West Side

Elementary School matters on or about December 10, 2018, which alleged

14
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 15 of 20

religious and national origin discrimination and which allegations Defendant

denies.

-38-

It is admitted that Plaintiff received a Notice of Rights dated April 8, 2019.

In further response, Defendant states that it received a letter/decision from the

EEOC regarding the claim dated April 8, 2019, but shows that this letter concluded

that the EEOC “is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes

violations of the statutes” enforced by the EEOC.

IV. Claims for Relief

-39-

Defendant restates and incorporates the answers and responses set forth

above in paragraphs 1-38 of this Answer.

-40-

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, the actual extent of Plaintiff’s declarations or

descent origins is unknown to the District.

15
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 16 of 20

-41-

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant admits that the Plaintiff has the degrees

and experience to be qualified for the two positions in question, but Defendant

states that other candidates who were eventually selected for the two positions

were more qualified based on their experience at the schools in question, based on

their knowledge of facts, issues and needs at the schools in question, and based in

large part on material factors such as their comparative interview performance.

-42-

It is admitted that Plaintiff experienced the adverse action of non-selection.

-43-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant denies that the hiring of the other two

candidates demonstrates discriminatory animus, and Defendant shows that even if

the Plaintiff had been selected for a second interview, it is impossible to determine

whether he would have been selected for the jobs in question, as it would have

depended on numerous factors, including his performance and the comparative

performance of any other candidates in the second round of interviews.

16
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 17 of 20

-44-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant denies that the failure to hire other

minorities for Principal and Assistant Principal positions demonstrates

discriminatory animus, and the Defendant shows that Plaintiff’s allegation to this

effect is non-sensical because the Defendant has maintained Plaintiff as an

Assistant Principal even though the Plaintiff declared that he is of Mexican or

Hispanic national origin.

-45-

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. In further response, Defendant denies that any comments made

regarding Plaintiff’s promotion opportunities demonstrate discriminatory animus.

-46-

It is denied that Defendant’s business reasons for its actions were

illegitimate or pretextual.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Any and all allegations contained in the Complaint which Defendant has not

affirmatively admitted are hereby denied.

17
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 18 of 20

WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the Complaint, Defendant prays:

(a) that the Complaint be dismissed;

(b) that Plaintiff’s prayer for actual and compensatory damages be

denied;

(c) that Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages be denied because

Plaintiff has not alleged acts that meet the elements required to

recover punitive damages and because punitive damages in this case

would be unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court and Georgia

Supreme Court precedent;

(d) that Defendant, having fully answered, have judgment in Defendant’s

favor and be hence discharged without costs;

(e) that Defendant receive a trial by jury on all appropriate issues; and

(f) that Defendant have such other and further relief as the Court deems

equitable and just in the premises.

***

This certifies that the foregoing pleading was prepared with Times New

Roman 14 point font in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules.

18
Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 19 of 20

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of August, 2019.

Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler,

Richardson & Davis, LLP

/s/ A. Franklin Beacham III

A. Franklin Beacham III
Ga. Bar No. 043743
I. Stewart Duggan
Ga. Bar No. 232207
P.O. Box 5007
615 West First Street
Rome, GA 30162-5007
706-291-8853 telephone
706-234-3574 fax
fbeacham@brinson-askew.com
isduggan@brinson-askew.com

Wiggins Law Office

/s/ Renzo S. Wiggins
Renzo S. Wiggins, Attorney for
Defendant
Ga. Bar #757800
P.O. Box 790
7723 Nashville Street
Ringgold, Ga. 30736
706-935-3971 telephone
706-935-5606 fax
wlo@wigginsga.com

Attorneys for Defendant Catoosa

County School District

19
 Case 4:19-cv-00143-TCB-WEJ Document 4 Filed 08/23/19 Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am counsel for the Defendant in the above-captioned matter

and that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing Answer and

Defenses of The Catoosa County School District to Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint by using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email

notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.

This 23rd day of August, 2019.

BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER,

RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP

By: /s/ A. Franklin Beacham III

A. Franklin Beacham III
Georgia Bar No. 043743

Post Office Box 5007 Attorneys for Defendant

Rome, GA 30162-5007
Phone: (706) 291-8853
Fax: (706) 234-3574
Email: fbeacham@brinson-askew.com