Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Ala.: White female assistant principal fired over intimate encounter with Black male colleague during school emergency has lawsuit tossed, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The school board fired both, and the record did not support her contention that she would not have been fired if she were a man or a Black female, or that she was fired to avoid a claim of racism by the Black colleague.

A school board that fired two high school assistant principals (a White female and a Black male), after concluding that the pair had been engaged in an inappropriate intimate encounter behind closed doors during a student fight, won’t face trial on the female assistant principal’s claim that her sex and association with the Black colleague were motivating factors in her discharge. Dismissing the Title VII claims on summary judgment, a federal district court found that her purported comparators were not sufficiently similar, and that she failed to refute that the teacher, the HR director, the superintendent, and the board held “a reasonable, common-sense inference or belief” that something inappropriate had occurred within the male AP’s office between the pair, after which he undisputedly pulled up his zipper as he left the office to assist with the fight while she stayed behind for almost two minutes (Fennel v. Elmore County Board of Education, No. 2:23-CV-530-RAH (M.D. Ala. Oct. 6, 2025)).

In July 2021, the school board hired the employee as a probationary assistant principal (AP). She served alongside two other APs (the Black male and a Black female) and oversaw eleventh- and twelfth-grade student discipline. The other APs were responsible for ninth- and tenth-grade student discipline, respectively.

September 2021 incident. In September 2021, a teacher reported to the principal that when she entered the teacher’s lounge, she observed the employee and the male AP alone in close proximity to each other. They purportedly quickly jumped apart, straightened their clothes, and looked embarrassed. The principal reported the incident to the HR director, and instructed the male AP to limit his interactions with colleagues behind closed doors. The principal claimed she also met with the employee about the incident, which the employee denied.

March 2022 incident. On March 8, 2022, a different teacher reported that when she had opened the door to the male AP’s office to alert him to a student fight, he was startled and yelled: “Oh shit.” The teacher then observed the employee leaning against a desk, with the male AP standing against her and touching her. The teacher yelled, “There is a fight, we need help,” and the male AP followed her out of the office while pulling up his zipper. The employee later claimed that the two had merely been discussing his broken zipper and how to fix it.

HR investigation. The next day, both APs were placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. The HR director reviewed video footage outside of the male AP’s office from the day of the incident as well as a random sampling of other dates and noticed extended periods of time that the pair were alone behind closed doors during school hours. Though they both denied any wrongdoing and claimed they were discussing a student discipline matter and the male AP’s broken zipper, the HR director ultimately concluded from the teacher’s observations and video surveillance that the pair had engaged in inappropriate conduct “unbecoming of a school administrator.”

Terminated. The superintendent reviewed the findings and recommended both their terminations based on his belief that they compromised themselves as leaders and engaged in inappropriate, intimate behavior on school grounds during school hours. He also considered that the employee failed to timely respond to the fight, and that the male AP had been previously warned about making unwelcome comments to female colleagues. The board then voted to terminate them both.

Mixed-motive theory. The employee proceeded under a mixed-motive theory of discrimination, and thus needed to only prove that her sex was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate her. She failed to meet her burden, however, because she failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional bias by the decisionmakers.

No inference of bias. The court rejected her contention that sex discrimination could be inferred from a Board member’s stated concern “about a male and a female administrator spending time together alone behind closed doors.” While she claimed that she would have been treated differently if she were a man, she failed to refute that the evidence could not support “a reasonable, common-sense inference or belief” by the teacher, the HR director, the superintendent, or the board that something inappropriate had occurred within the male AP’s office between the pair. Moreover, at most, the board member’s reference to the parties’ sex, after the superintendent had already recommended their terminations, was a “stray remark” largely unconnected to the decision-making process. It reflected a genuine inference based on an admitted fact—that male and female administrators were observed behind a closed door in a suggestive position, and both were terminated as a result of the same incident.

Dissimilar comparators. The court also rejected her contention that the principal’s failure to escalate the male AP’s prior incidents of alleged harassment and inappropriate behavior showed that the decision to report the March 2022 incident was motivated in part by her sex. While the principal gave him multiple warnings after he repeatedly placed himself in compromised positions with other staff members and students, he was not a proper comparator since he had engaged in different kinds of misconduct during those incidents, and in none of them was he observed adjusting his clothing after being discovered alone with a colleague behind closed doors. And he also was not involved in misconduct that impacted an ongoing emergency, as was the case when the employee failed to help quickly address the student fight. Finally, when he was found alone with the employee in his office, he was subject to the same discipline (termination). Thus, the principal’s treatment of the male AP actually supports the Board’s argument that the employee’s termination was not motivated by sex.

While the employee also pointed to two additional male comparators who were not terminated after committing misconduct, they also were not sufficient comparators since they engaged in different kinds of misconduct. They also were not found in close proximity in a compromising position behind closed doors during school hours and during a student emergency, and had not engaged in more than one instance of related conduct.

Associational race bias. The court rejected the board’s contention that the employee’s associational race discrimination claim failed since she did not allege that she was married to or in a romantic relationship with her Black colleague. “When an employee complains that she was terminated because of her interracial association, it necessarily falls within the statutory language that she was terminated “because of” race—the degree of association is immaterial.”

Black female also too dissimilar. However, her claim failed on the merits. In addition to relying on much of the same evidence that did not support her sex discrimination claim, she also asserted that the principal’s failure to discipline the Black female AP for her purported relationship with the male AP suggested bias. Specifically, when the male AP was questioned about the September 2021 incident with the employee, he pointed out that the Black female AP had publicly rubbed his back and held his hand. But she was not a proper comparator since no witness has lodged a complaint concerning any incident, and the alleged conduct was “very different than being discovered behind closed doors in an apparent intimate manner during a student emergency.”

Speculation. Finally, the employee argued that the principal moved to terminate her at the same time as the male AP to avoid a claim of racism. But this argument amounted to pure speculation, and the timing was not suspicious since they were both involved in the same incident the same day.

The case is No. 2:23-CV-530-RAH.

Judge: Huffaker, R.

Attorneys: Christina Maxine Malmat (Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb) for Amanda Fennel. Dana Bolden Hill (Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black) for Elmore County Board of Education.

Companies: Elmore County Board of Education

Cases: SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees AlabamaNews