step 1. Williams’s Voicemail
About ailment, this new plaintiffs argue that Williams, an SCBE staff member and you may principal off Bon Lin, retaliated resistant to the plaintiffs of the making a great disparaging voicemail when they had registered a grievance to your OCR. In response, SCBE contends the voicemail message cannot be noticed retaliatory as the Williams was not aware that the new plaintiffs had recorded its OCR grievance up to . Brand new legal will follow SCBE with this claim.
*796 To establish this particular voicemail was retaliatory, this new plaintiffs need demonstrate that SCBE realized and you will acted just like the plaintiffs involved with safe activity. Thaddeus X v. Blatter, 175 F.three-dimensional 378 , 387 (sixth Cir.1999). If Williams try clueless your OCR problem is filed during the time she kept the latest voicemail content, it will be impossible on her behalf to possess retaliated on account of secure passion.
To show you to definitely Williams knew of one’s OCR grievance at go out she kept the fresh new voicemail, this new plaintiffs give a contact from Hargrave in order to SCBE directors and you may SCHD nurses, where Williams was CC’d, that mentioned J.C. “tend to document an issue that have OCR if the . the girl daughter’s need are not met” to determine studies and you may causation. (D.Elizabeth. 35-8, at the dos.) Yet not, so it current email address simply establishes you to definitely Williams realized that there is actually a beneficial chance the fresh plaintiffs can get participate in secure passion. Indeed, the newest plaintiffs give zero proof to help you refute the truth that Williams did not discover the fresh new OCR grievance up until . (D.Age. 30-cuatro, within 34, 39, 40-42.)