Lewis v. Board of Education of Talbot County, CIV. JFM-02-3147.

• Citation: 262 F.Supp.2d 608
• Decision Date: 07 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. CIV. JFM-02-3147.,CIV. JFM-02-3147.
• Parties: Marsha A. LEWIS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TALBOT COUNTY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

262 F.Supp.2d 608

Marsha A. LEWIS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TALBOT COUNTY, et al.

No. CIV. JFM-02-3147.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

May 7, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robin R. Cockey, Cockey Brennan and Maloney, Salisbury, MD, for Plaintiff.

Barry Bach, Lynn Edwards Brenneman, Hodes Ulman Pessin and Katz PA, Towson, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

MOTZ, District Judge.

Marsha A. Lewis, a former employee of the Board of Education of Talbot County ("the Board"), has sued the Board and various agents of the Board for violations of her federal and state constitutional rights, breach of contract, promissory estoppel and wrongful discharge. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.¹

I.

According to the allegations in the complaint, Ms. Lewis began working for the Board as a secretarial associate on January 21, 2000. (Compl.f 9.) Her immediate supervisor was the plant operations division manager, Gelson Brooks. Within her three month probationary period, Lewis received a written reprimand for leaving personnel information face-up on her desk. (Compl.¶¶ 11, 13.)

On March 30, 2000, Lewis brought to work a hand-written letter her husband, Mitchell Wise, requested she place in typewritten format on a work computer. (Compl.¶ 14.) The letter expressed Mr. Wise's opinions concerning a range of "controversial social issues including gun control, youth violence, and public school management." (Compl.¶ 17.) Lewis allegedly typed the letter on her own personal time and, a couple of days later, made some minor changes to the same letter, also on her own personal time. (Compl.¶ 18.)

On April 5, 2000, Brooks asked Lewis to meet with him. (Compl.¶ 19.) Also attending this meeting were John Masone, Assistant Superintendent of Support Services for the Board, Shirley Pinkett, and Midge Kroll. (Id.) Lewis was allegedly asked if she had typed the "inflammatory" letter. (Compl.¶ 20.) When she confirmed she had brought the letter to work, she was terminated with severance pay. Lewis claims she was fired without an opportunity to respond in any meaningful, explanatory way. (Compl.¶ 21.) While clearing out her desk, Lewis was allegedly informed by Ms. Pinkett that she had been fired due to "the mentioning of the schools and who the letter was sent to." (Compl.¶ 22.)

The day after Lewis's termination, Brooks composed a letter to John Masone justifying his decision. (Compl.¶23.) In the letter, Brooks claimed Lewis had problems with processing preventive work orders, maintaining attendance records and duplicating purchase orders. (Id.) He also referenced the discovery of the letter regarding gun control. (Id.) Brooks communicated to Masone that Lewis was unable to make good judgment calls and had therefore been dismissed prior to the end of her probationary period.

Lewis scheduled a meeting with J. Samuel Meek, the Superintendent of Talbot County Public Schools, approximately one week after her termination. (Compl.¶ 26.) At this meeting, plaintiff was allegedly reminded of the tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado to emphasize the "sensitive nature" of the issues addressed in the letter and told she was approaching the letter with a "simplistic view." (Id.) Meek did not take any action after his meeting with Lewis, and Lewis was not reemployed by the Board.

Two and a half years later, Lewis filed suit against the Board, as well as Brooks, Masone, and Meek, each in their official and individual capacities. The first four counts of the complaint allege violations of Lewis's federal and state constitutional rights and are directed at all defendants in all capacities. Count I alleges a violation of Lewis's First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C, § 1983. Count II, also under § 1983, alleges Lewis was denied procedural due process with respect to her property and liberty interests in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This count also alleges she was denied substantive due process. Count III is identical to Count II except that the due process claims are brought under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. In Count IV, Lewis alleges under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) that the defendants conspired to deprive her of her rights based on a discriminatory animus against "all individuals politically opposed to gun control laws." (Compl.¶ 52.) Counts V-VII are Maryland state law claims directed exclusively at the Board asserting breach of contract (Count V), promissory estoppel (Count VI), and wrongful or abusive discharge (Count VII).

II.

Defendants, in varying degrees, assert their sovereign immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Because the Board is entitled to this immunity with respect to all claims against it and other defendants are entitled to the immunity in specific contexts, I will address the sovereign immunity issue prior to addressing any of the substantive claims.

State agencies and state instrumentalities are entitled to sovereign immunity from suits brought by individuals in federal court, unless the suit is brought pursuant to a statute passed by Congress containing a valid abrogation of sovereign immunity. See U.S. Const. amend. XI; Regents of the Univ. of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (confirming § 1983 contains no valid abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity). This immunity applies to all forms of relief, legal and equitable, directly against the state or its instrumentalities. Similarly, the law is clear that individuals sued in their official capacity as state agents cannot be held liable for damages or retrospective injunctive relief. They may, however, be sued for prospective injunctive relief to end violations of federal law and remedy the situation for the future. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (articulating the distinction between retroactive and prospective injunctive relief); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). Finally, individuals sued in their personal capacities under § 1983 or § 1985, are not immune from suit in federal court even if performing acts within their authority and necessary to fulfilling governmental responsibilities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) (holding a government official, in her individual capacity, is not immune from suit arising from an employment decision).

The nature of the entity and its relationship with the state are critical to a determination of the entity's sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. The primary factor to be considered is whether a judgment against the governmental entity would be paid from the state's treasury. See Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 48, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994). Generally, if the judgment would be paid from the state treasury, the inquiry is at an end. See Hess, 513 U.S. at 50, 115 S.Ct. 394. If the judgment would not be paid from the state treasury, the factors to be considered in determining whether suit against the state would nonetheless be an affront to its "sovereign dignity" are "(1) the degree of control that the State exercises over the entity or the degree of autonomy from the State that the entity enjoys; (2) the scope of the entity's concerns—whether local or statewide—with which the entity is involved; and (3) the manner in which State law treats the entity." Cash v. Granville County Bd. of Educ., 242 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.2001). If the judgment would not be paid from the state treasury, the "sovereign dignity" factors may sufficiently tie the entity to the state so that suit against the entity would amount to suit against the state. See id.

The Board of Education of Talbot County, and therefore its agents acting in an official capacity, are entitled to sovereign immunity to the extent provided under the Eleventh Amendment. Defendants do not strongly dispute the fact that a judgment in plaintiffs favor would not have a direct impact upon the state treasury. Rather, they address their argument primarily to the three factors of the "sovereign dignity" part of the analysis.

In Cash, after a thorough review of North Carolina's system of public education, the court determined that the Granville County Board was not an arm of the state and should not be accorded sovereign immunity. Id. at 224-27. While the Cash opinion strongly informs the analysis of a school board's sovereign immunity within the Fourth Circuit, it is not dispositive of this case. Cash lays out the test to determine whether suit against a school board essentially constitutes suit against the state, but the decision does not imply that county school board's in other states should automatically be denied sovereign immunity. The lower federal courts of Maryland have consistently held in published decisions both before and after Cash that the school boards of Maryland are entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Adams v. Calvert County Pub. Sch., 201 F.Supp.2d 516, 521 (D.Md.2002); Biggs v. Bd. of Educ. of Cecil County, 229 F.Supp.2d 437, 444 (D.Md.2002); Jones v. Frederick County Bd. of Educ, 689 F.Supp. 535, 538 (D.Md.1988). I agree with those decisions, but will nonetheless address the parties arguments and explain my determination.

The Talbot County School Board is less autonomous than the board at issue in Cash in many respects. Among other things, the Talbot County Board's members are appointed by the Governor of Maryland, not locally elected. See Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 3-108. In Maryland, the Board may buy, sell, and hold property only with the approval of the State Superintendent. See...