1. Williams’s Voicemail
Throughout the complaint, the newest plaintiffs argue that Williams, a keen SCBE worker and you can principal out-of Bon Lin, retaliated from the plaintiffs by leaving a great disparaging voicemail when they had registered a criticism toward OCR. As a result, SCBE argues that the voicemail message can’t be considered retaliatory given that Williams wasn’t conscious the brand new plaintiffs had filed the OCR issue up until . The fresh new judge will follow SCBE on this allege.
*796 To ascertain this particular voicemail was retaliatory, the fresh plaintiffs need to reveal that SCBE realized and you will acted as plaintiffs engaged in safe craft. Thaddeus X v. Blatter, 175 F.three dimensional 378 , 387 (sixth Cir.1999). When the Williams was unaware that OCR grievance ended up being submitted during the time she kept the new voicemail content, it will be hopeless on her behalf to possess retaliated because of secure craft.
To exhibit you to definitely Williams knew of your OCR problem at date she remaining this new voicemail, the fresh new plaintiffs provide a contact from Hargrave to SCBE administrators and SCHD nurses, where Williams is CC’d, one to said J.C. “have a tendency to document a grievance having OCR if the .
Read more2. SCBE’s Negative Responses to Plaintiffs’ Concerns