Law & Courts

High Court Declines to Hear Ex-Principal’s Race-Bias Case Over Transfer to Central Office

By Mark Walsh — June 07, 2021 4 min read
In this Nov. 4, 2020 photo, the Supreme Court in Washington.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a Black former North Carolina principal who alleges she was transferred to a central office position because of race discrimination. Her appeal sought clarification on what constitutes an “adverse employment action” under the main federal job-discrimination law.

Meanwhile, the court also declined to take up a major case challenging the federal system requiring that men, but not women, register for the military draft. The challengers argued that because women are now allowed into all combat roles, male-only draft registration violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection clause.

Because draft registration is required for men beginning at age 18, high schools across the country are involved in reminding young men to fulfill the obligation and that the consequences for failing to do so include ineligibility for federal student aid.

The case of the North Carolina educator involves Wanza Cole, who served as a middle school principal in the Wake County school district from 2007 until 2015, when she had run-ins with her supervisors over teacher evaluations.

The district transferred her to a central office position, director of intervention services, with no change in pay or benefits, court papers say.

“Cole was devastated, both because of how the transfer would change her job and also because she realized she had been treated differently from her white peers,” says her appeal.

Cole sued, alleging race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that a lateral transfer with no effect on pay, benefits, or seniority was not an adverse employment action under Title VII. The appeals court said the reassignment would have to lead to some “significant detrimental effect” in pay or work conditions to fall under the statute.

The former principal appealed to the high court in Cole v. Wake County Board of Education (Case No. 20-1373), arguing that there was a significant split among the federal circuit courts over which discriminatory employment practices violate Title VII.

A transfer “necessarily alters previously established ‘terms, conditions, or privileges’” her brief says, referring to language in Title VII, and such transfers are reasonably understood as a demotion.

The Wake County district, in a brief urging the justices not to take up the case, said Cole was transferred after an investigation that brought to light her management failures as a principal. The district “elected not to take adverse action against Ms. Cole and instead opted to provide her a fresh start in a new role in central office,” the brief says.

Cole never reported to the central office position, using up leave until her administrator contract expired at the end of the 2016-17 school year, the district’s brief says.

The district argued that in contrast to the circuit split alleged by Cole, the federal appeals courts “have consistently held that the circumstances presented here—where there is a lateral transfer with no reduction in pay or benefits, no diminution in responsibility, and no material changes in the conditions of employment—are not actionable under Title VII.”

Male-Only Draft Registration

The nation last conscripted men in 1973, during the Vietnam War, and draft registration ended in 1975 before being reinstated in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter. In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld male-only draft registration in a 6-3 decision in Rostker v. Goldberg.

The new challenge was filed by a group called the National Coalition for Men on behalf of those aged 18 to 26 who are subject to the registration requirement. They argued that the key factual foundation of the court’s 1981 decision had been undermined by the opening up of all combat military roles to women. They lost in a lower court but gained support in the high court appeal from a handful of women’s rights and military associations and retired generals.

The federal government urged the court not to take up the issue at this time because “Congress is actively considering the scope of the registration requirement.”

The court denied the appeal in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System (No. 20-928), with three justices signing on to a statement that explained why they went along with that outcome.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Brett M. Kavanaugh, said that “the role of women in the military has changed dramatically since” the Rostker decision, with some passing “the military’s demanding tests to become U. S. Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, and Green Berets.”

But Congress has also taken an interest, establishing a commission to study the issue. That panel, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, issued its report last year, concluding that “[m]ale-only registration sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.”

Sotomayor said that “at least for now, the court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.”

The Supreme Court is still working on several cases being watched by educators, most notably the one involving off-campus student speech. The next day for opinions is this Thursday.

Events

School Climate & Safety K-12 Essentials Forum Strengthen Students’ Connections to School
Join this free event to learn how schools are creating the space for students to form strong bonds with each other and trusted adults.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
IT Infrastructure & Management Webinar
Future-Proofing Your School's Tech Ecosystem: Strategies for Asset Tracking, Sustainability, and Budget Optimization
Gain actionable insights into effective asset management, budget optimization, and sustainable IT practices.
Content provided by Follett Learning
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Budget & Finance Webinar
Innovative Funding Models: A Deep Dive into Public-Private Partnerships
Discover how innovative funding models drive educational projects forward. Join us for insights into effective PPP implementation.
Content provided by Follett Learning

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts District Can Deny Opt-Outs on LGBTQ+ Books, Court Rules
Religious parents objected to a Maryland district's policy ending opt-outs for elementary school 'storybooks' with LGBTQ+ themes.
5 min read
A pedestrian passes by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Courthouse, June 16, 2021, on Main Street in Richmond, Va.
A person walks near the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's courthouse in Richmond, Va. A panel of the court denied an injunction seeking to restore religious parents' opportunity to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ "storybooks" in a Maryland district.
Steve Helber/AP
Law & Courts Brown v. Board of Education: 70 Years of Progress and Challenges
The milestone for the historic 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down racial segregation in schools is marked by a range of tributes
12 min read
People mill around the third floor of the Kansas Statehouse in front of a Brown v. Board of Education mural before hearing from speakers recognizing the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case on April 29, 2024 in Topeka, Kan.
People mill around the third floor of the Kansas Statehouse in front of a Brown v. Board of Education mural before hearing from speakers recognizing the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case on April 29, 2024 in Topeka, Kan.
Evert Nelson/The Topeka Capital-Journal via AP
Law & Courts Republican-Led States Sue to Block New Title IX Rule
A pair of lawsuits focus on the rule's protections for students' gender identity.
5 min read
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Demonstrators advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus. Four Republican-led states filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Biden administration's new Title IX regulation, which among other things would codify protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Patrick Orsagos/AP
Law & Courts Why It Will Now Be Easier for Educators to Sue Over Job Transfers
The case asked whether transferred employees had to show a 'significant' change in job conditions to sue under Title VII. The court said no.
8 min read
Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 16, 2022.
Light illuminates part of the Supreme Court building at dusk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 16, 2022. The high court on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, made it easier for workers, including educators, to sue over job transfers.
Patrick Semansky/AP