Corey McNellis worked for fourteen years at Ponderosa High School in Douglas County Colorado. Most recently, he served as the Athletic Director and Assistant Principal as well as a father of a Ponderosa High School student. Throughout his employment, he consistently received excellent performance reviews, and before the events leading to the lawsuit, he never received disciplinary action.
As part of his role on the School’s Administrative Team, McNellis met weekly with the school principal and the other assistant principals. On October 2, 2020, the school theatre director Kayla Diaz emailed the entire staff of the School about an upcoming school production of The Laramie Project. The play depicts the aftermath of the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepherd in Laramie, Wyoming, which is widely acknowledged to have been a hate crime motivated by Shepherd’s sexuality. In her email, Diaz wrote that she selected the production because she wanted the students to learn about the story and participate in a meaningful dialogue. The email also noted that due to the content discussed in the show, it is not a family-friendly show.
McNellis responded to Diaz’s email, noting that he admired her work on the production, and asked as a parent of a student if there was recourse if he disagreed with the production. Several other teachers joined the email conversation expressing support for the production.
McNellis sent three more emails as part of this conversation, in which he said the following:
The next day, McNellis was told he needed to stay home because of his “religious comments.” A few days later, McNellis met with the principal, the Human Resources Director, and the Director of Schools, during which time they shared that the District would be investigating him for his “religious comments,” and he would be placed on administrative leave during the investigation.
At the end of the investigation, the District terminated McNellis’ employment, citing his emails regarding The Laramie Project as the reason for his termination.
Two years later, following his retirement, the School principal wrote an open letter about what happened with McNellis and his opinion that firing McNellis had “gone too far” and that McNellis was “railroaded” by a specific group of people based on his political and religious views.
The same day, McNellis sued the District asserting a number of claims, including discrimination in violation of Title VII. The District moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that McNellis stated no plausible claims. McNellis appealed.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against them because of a protected classification, including their religion. To prove a Title VII violation, a plaintiff can either provide direct evidence or discrimination or follow a three-step burden shifting analysis.
Under the burden shifting analysis, the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show the following elements are met: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the challenged action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. If the plaintiff clears this initial hurdle, then the burden shifts to the employer to prove a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer meets this, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff’s protected status was a determinative factor in the employment decision or that the employer’s explanation is pretext.
Here, McNellis argued that the trial court erred in dismissing his discrimination claims because the allegations contained direct evidence of discrimination and there were numerous allegations in his complaint that established a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Court was not persuaded that McNellis provided direct evidence of discrimination. For example, McNellis alleged that the principal’s letter was direct evidence of discrimination because it contained an admission that the District terminated his employment for his religious views. However, this would require the Court to infer that discrimination was a motivating cause for an employment decision. The Court found that the letter suggested that McNellis’ coworkers were motivated by his political and religious views and those complaints played into a decision to ultimately terminate his employment, but the Court noted that the principal also opined that some form of disciplinary action would have been appropriate, suggesting that this was not an instance of direct evidence of discrimination.
In terms of the burden-shifting framework, the Court concluded that there was an inference of discrimination. The Court considered the following facts: McNellis is a Christian man; he was qualified to perform his position; throughout his employment he received exemplary performance reviews; in the staff email he voiced disagreement about the performance of a school play; he mentioned that Christianity could be used to help the play; he was investigated and placed on leave due to “the religious comments;” and he was ultimately terminated due to The Laramie Project emails.
The Court concluded there was a plausible link between McNellis’ termination and a discriminatory motive because the District repeatedly invoked McNellis’ “religious comments” when justifying the investigation, administrative leave, and termination.
For these reasons, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of McNellis’ religious discrimination claims.
McNellis v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. (10th Cir. 2024) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22927.
Note: LCW will monitor this case for further developments. This case serves as an important reminder that taking disciplinary action against an employee after they make comments about their religion can give rise to an inference of discrimination.