The Cherry Creek School District said it fired experienced teacher Leslie Shannon after she continued to underperform, was unlikely to improve, and had taken extensive absences that created major burdens for her colleagues.

Shannon, however, alleged the only thing that changed in her third and final year with the district was her decision to complain to an administrator about her principal’s racial stereotyping and her extreme discomfort with attending regular equity training sessions that featured discussions of white privilege and systemic racism.

“Black people are portrayed as victims, perceived as angry, argumentative and loud, we speak emotionally as opposed to white people who speak intelligently and how we are underperformance and not task oriented. This is how I was viewed by my coworkers,” wrote Shannon, who is Black and Native American, in her lawsuit.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martínez sided with Cherry Creek and dismissed Shannon’s claims of racial discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment. He found no dispute that the district terminated Shannon after her final year as a probationary teacher for performance reasons, not because of her race.

“(E)ven though there is no requirement that it do so, the District provided Plaintiff with multiple opportunities to improve because it renewed her contract twice and only decided to nonrenew at the end of her third probationary year,” Martínez wrote in a Sept. 21 order.

Shannon is now appealing Martínez’s judgment in Cherry Creek’s favor. She told Colorado Politics her administrators did not detail their concerns about her teaching at the time, instead leaving her alone to figure out her own curriculum. The real issue, she claimed, was the school’s reaction to her complaints about its racial equity programming.

“Most of the problems were in my third year, which is the year I spoke out. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why that nonrenewal happened,” Shannon said.

The case raised an unusual legal issue about the effect of systemic racism training sessions on people of color, and whether poorly-received programming can amount to discrimination.

Shannon had approximately 15 years of teaching experience in other states when she was hired at Highline Community Elementary School in 2016 to be the science, technology, engineering and math instructor. As a new teacher to the district, she entered a three-year probationary period, which could result in her termination after any of those years.

Highline’s principal at the time, Darla Thompson, was Shannon’s evaluator during her first year. She noted several concerns with Shannon’s performance, but opted to renew her contract. Shannon had a different evaluator her following year, who also documented performance issues.

“I retained her for a third year in hopes that she would show growth,” Thompson said in a statement submitted to the court. “I also retained Ms. Shannon because I valued her diversity for Highline’s student population.”

In Shannon’s third year, she confided in her new evaluator, Assistant Principal Kevin Watanabe, that she was uncomfortable with the racial equity meetings staff were required to attend. She described the goal of the programming was to “traumatize white people into experiencing guilt or suddenly having some epiphany,” with the end result that Shannon felt embarrassed at being singled out as one of a handful of Black educators.

“I could feel the looks of pity. My story was my story, not for everyone to hear,” wrote Shannon, who represented herself in her lawsuit. “I don’t need to have ‘white privilege’ explained to me or the negative stereotypes of Black people discussed at every staff meeting to make me a better educator. I don’t see how it could have made white educators better.”

Shannon also alleged the training sessions promoted critical race theory, an academic framework for evaluating systemic racism. In response to her lawsuit, the school district’s administrator in charge of equity, who is Black, said such a claim is untrue and that teachers of color generally supported the programming.

Watanabe did not disclose Shannon’s concerns about the equity meetings or Shannon’s other belief that Thompson had labeled her “angry” and “argumentative” during a recent disagreement. Both adjectives, said Shannon, were unflattering stereotypes of Black women.

Thompson decided to terminate Shannon after her third year. The documented reason given for the nonrenewal was not performance problems, but “other” – a category the school district advised principals to use to avoid the procedural safeguards afforded to teachers who are fired for performance.

Thompson said she would not be a reference for Shannon, but ended up taking a call from a prospective employer, during which she disclosed unflattering information about Shannon that included a high number of absences Shannon had taken during the recent school year. After the phone call, the employer rescinded its offer to Shannon.

In her lawsuit, Shannon alleged she experienced retaliation, defamation and a discriminatory, hostile work environment – due in large part to the equity training sessions.

U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews analyzed the claims in July and believed Shannon could not prevail under the law. The evidence showed concerns about her performance throughout her tenure, even if she was unaware of them. Although Crews acknowledged that terminating teachers for “other” reasons may be a questionable practice, the district was within its rights to terminate Shannon at any time during the probationary period.

In order to constitute a hostile work environment, Shannon needed to demonstrate the training sessions gave rise to pervasive intimidation or ridicule. She had not, Crews wrote.

“While Plaintiff may have felt uncomfortable with, and been offended by, either of these trainings’ focus on ‘white privilege,’ she’s proffered no competent evidence on the severity or pervasiveness of these discussions, or evidence the content of these trainings included elements of discriminatory intimidation, ridicule or insults,” he explained.

Similarly, Thompson’s alleged labeling of Shannon as “angry” and “argumentative” did not actually affect Shannon’s employment status. Finally, Shannon admitted Thompson told her prospective employer the truth about her absences, undermining any claim about the impropriety of that phone call.

Shannon objected to the magistrate judge’s analysis, but Martínez, the district judge, overruled her objections and agreed to toss the lawsuit. With her case now on appeal, Shannon said she is not opposed to all racial equity training efforts. Rather, she strongly disagreed with how Highline conducted its own anti-racism programming, making her feel singled out as a person of color among her overwhelmingly white peers. 

“I’m not gonna stand up there and talk about how I grew up. I’m not a victim. Don’t make me a victim,” she said.

The case is Shannon v. Cherry Creek School District et al.