Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13738
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00265-RH-GRJ
JARED HALE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM HUSFELT,
in his official and individual capacities,
Defendant - Appellee,
BAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Interested Party - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 10, 2019)
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 2 of 9
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Jared Hale appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of Defendants Bay County School Board (“School Board”) and School
Board Superintendent William Husfelt, in Plaintiff’s employment-related civil
action. Plaintiff asserts claims for tortious interference with a business
relationship, in violation of Florida law, and for retaliation based on protected
association, in violation of the First Amendment. No reversible error has been
shown; we affirm.
The facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows. In December 2010, Plaintiff
was hired to teach physical education, weightlifting, and history -- and to serve as
the head football coach -- at North Bay Haven Charter Academy (“NBH”). NBH
is a charter school operated by Bay Haven Charter Academy, Inc. (“BHCA”).
BHCA received its charter to operate from the School Board.
In January 2015, NBH Principal Meredith Higgins notified Plaintiff that she
was terminating his contract as football coach, explaining that the school wanted to
“go in a different direction.” A few days later, Plaintiff emailed Principal Higgins
and asked her -- for purposes of his “professional growth” -- about the ways in
2
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 3 of 9
which he could improve his performance. In response, Principal Higgins explained
that Plaintiff needed additional growth in the areas of organization, leadership, and
discipline.
Principal Higgins told Plaintiff that she hoped he would continue teaching
history and coaching weightlifting the following school year. Plaintiff was later
informed, however, that his annual teaching contract was not renewed for the
2015-2016 school year. Assistant Principal Michelle Gainer testified that, when
she encouraged Principal Higgins to keep Plaintiff on the teaching staff, Principal
Higgins responded, “Don’t ask me anymore. This is coming from above me.”
Gainer said the person “above” Principal Higgins was Dr. Tim Kitts, BHCA’s
Chief Educational Officer.
Meanwhile, in early 2015, Plaintiff was hired as an assistant football coach
at Bay High School (“BHS”), a public school operated by the School Board.
BHS’s head football coach, Jimmy Longerbeam, told Plaintiff that Longerbeam
also wanted to help secure a teaching position for Plaintiff at BHS. Longerbeam
had no hiring authority and no personal involvement in the application or interview
process for classroom teaching positions. Longerbeam testified, however, that he
would encourage his assistant coaches to apply for open teaching positions and
would recommend his coaches to BHS’s principal, who had final hiring authority.
3
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 4 of 9
Longerbeam said the football coaches whom he recommended “never” were
required to go through a formal interview process: “a lot of times” they
interviewed with BHS’s principal for just a few minutes.
When Plaintiff applied for an open history teacher position, however, he was
interviewed by a three-person interview panel. The committee then ranked
Plaintiff sixth out of the nine applicants who were interviewed. Plaintiff was not
offered the position.
Plaintiff later filed this civil action against Superintendent Husfelt, in both
his official and individual capacities. The parties later stipulated that the School
Board should be substituted as the Defendant for Plaintiff’s official-capacity
claims. Plaintiff asserted against Defendants claims for tortious interference with
business relations and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
Briefly stated, Plaintiff contends that Husfelt influenced improperly the
adverse employment decisions about Plaintiff in retaliation for conduct engaged in
by Plaintiff’s parents. By way of background, Plaintiff’s parents -- James and Julie
Hale -- were employed by the School Board beginning in 2000. The Hales
opposed openly Husfelt’s 2008 campaign for election to Superintendent and then
Husfelt’s 2012 campaign for re-election. In 2012, the School Board terminated
both James’s and Julie’s employment. In November 2014, the Hales notified the
4
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 5 of 9
School Board of their intent to file a lawsuit challenging the termination of their
employment. The Hales’ lawsuit was filed in March 2016 and has since been
resolved.
The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In
pertinent part, the district court determined that “there is simply no evidence” that
Husfelt was involved in (1) the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s contract as NBH’s
football coach, (2) the non-renewal of Plaintiff’s NBH teaching contract, and (3)
the hiring process to fill BHS’s open history teacher position.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Ave.
CLO Fund, Ltd. v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.,
723 F.3d 1287, 1293 (11th
Cir. 2013). We view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.
Id. at 1294. In considering a motion for
summary judgment, we “must avoid weighing conflicting evidence or making
credibility determinations.”
Id.
We reject Plaintiff’s assertion that the district court “cherry-picked” facts
from the record or construed improperly the evidence in favor of Defendants. The
district court need not accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations that are based only on
speculation and conjecture. See
id. (in considering a motion for summary
judgment, “[a]ll reasonable inferences arising from the undisputed facts should be
5
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 6 of 9
made in favor of the nonmovant, but an inference based on speculation and
conjecture is not reasonable.”).
To succeed on his claims for tortious interference and for First Amendment
retaliation, Plaintiff must first demonstrate that Husfelt was involved in the
complained-of adverse employment decisions. See Linafelt v. Beverly Enters.-
Florida, Inc.,
745 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (to prove a claim for
tortious interference under Florida law, a plaintiff must demonstrate -- among other
things -- “an intentional and unjustified interference with [a business] relationship
by the defendant”); Anderson v. Burke Cty.,
239 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001)
(to prove a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must show
a causal connection between the defendant’s adverse employment decision and
plaintiff’s constitutionally protected conduct).
Plaintiff has produced no direct evidence showing that Husfelt was involved
in the adverse employment decisions. Plaintiff asserts, instead, that Husfelt’s
involvement in the NBH employment decisions can be inferred based on
“inconsistencies” in the record and on the “suspicious timing” of the decisions.
We first reject Plaintiff’s assertion that Principal Higgins’s comment that
Plaintiff needed growth in certain areas -- made in response to Plaintiff’s express
request for more specific feedback about his performance -- was inconsistent with
6
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 7 of 9
her initial statement that the school wanted to “go in a different direction” with its
football program. Although Plaintiff disagrees with Principal Higgins’s
assessment that he was disorganized and ineffective, “[w]e are not a ‘super-
personnel department’ assessing the prudence of routine employment decisions,”
even when the decision is mistaken or based on erroneous facts. See Flowers v.
Troup Cty.,
803 F.3d 1327, 1338 (11th Cir. 2015). Moreover, nothing evidences
that the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s coaching contract was unlawful, that
Principal Higgins’s stated reasons were pretextual, or that the decision was
influenced at all by Husfelt.
We also see no “inconsistency” in the record about the people involved in
the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s coaching contract. Principal Higgins testified
that she made the final decision to fire Plaintiff as football coach after discussing
the matter with Dr. Kitts, Administrative Assistant Cas Gant, and Athletic Director
Debbie Funkhouser.
Principal Higgins denied flatly that Husfelt was involved -- either directly or
indirectly -- in the decision to fire Plaintiff. Nothing in the record contradicts that
testimony. Principal Higgins’s comment that the decision came “from above” was
made about the later decision not to renew Plaintiff’s teaching contract -- not the
decision to terminate Plaintiff’s coaching contract. In addition, the “from above”
7
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 8 of 9
comment cannot from this record be construed reasonably as referring to Husfelt or
to the School Board, neither of which had authority over hiring decisions at NBH.
We are also unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s assertion about “suspicious timing.”
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Kitts “pulled some strings” with Husfelt to secure
funding for a new gym at NBH. At the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new gym,
Plaintiff says he saw Dr. Kitts and Husfelt talking to each other. Later that day,
Principal Higgins told Plaintiff that he was being fired as football coach. Even
viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, this information is not evidence sufficient to support a
reasonable inference that Husfelt was involved in the decision to terminate
Plaintiff’s coaching contract. Plaintiff’s assertion that his coaching contract was
terminated as a “favor” to Husfelt in exchange for the gym funding -- or was
otherwise causally linked to the Hales’ notice of intent to sue -- is based entirely on
speculation and conjecture.
About the hiring decision at BHS, Plaintiff says Husfelt’s involvement can
be inferred from circumstantial evidence. On this record, we disagree. First,
Plaintiff’s contention on appeal that he was the “preferred candidate despite the
committee’s rankings” is unsupported by the record. That Plaintiff was
Longerbeam’s preferred candidate says nothing about Plaintiff’s qualifications as a
history teacher. Also, although Longerbeam said his football coaches were
8
Case: 18-13738 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 9 of 9
typically hired without a formal interview process, he also acknowledged that he
had no personal involvement in the application or interview process for the hiring
of classroom teachers. That Plaintiff believes he was more qualified than the
selected candidate is immaterial. The hiring of employees is a subjective decision,
and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the interview committee. Cf.
Flowers, 803 F.3d at 1338. Plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to
allow a reasonable inference that Husfelt was involved in -- or interfered with --
the BHS hiring decision. Nor has Plaintiff shown that he would have been hired
but for the alleged interference.
Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s
favor, Plaintiff has demonstrated no genuine issue of material fact. Because
nothing evidences that Husfelt was involved -- directly or indirectly -- in the
complained-of employment decisions, the district court committed no error in
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. *
AFFIRMED.
*
On appeal, Plaintiff also challenges the district court’s alternative reasons for granting summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s (1) First Amendment claim against the School Board arising from the
NBH employment decisions and (2) tortious interference claim against Husfelt arising from the
BHS hiring decision. Because we agree with the district court’s primary reason for granting
summary judgment -- the lack of evidence of Husfelt’s involvement in the employment decisions
-- we need not address these arguments on appeal.
9
