Connolly v. Woburn Pub. Schs.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-10695-FDS |
| Parties | JESSICA CONNOLLY, Plaintiff, v. WOBURN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This case arises from a series of disputes between a teacher and a public school system. Plaintiff Jessica Connolly alleges that defendants Woburn Public Schools, the City of Woburn, Matthew Crowley, and Michael Baldassarre engaged in discrimination retaliation, and a campaign of workplace bullying against her. Connolly contends that defendants treated her adversely because she requested workplace accommodations for disabilities and because of her advocacy on behalf of disabled children.
The complaint asserts claims under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B; and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Baldassarre has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim against him. The other defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on the ground that the claims are time-barred.
In this case, assessing the allegations of the complaint to determine the validity of the claims is an unusually difficult exercise. Among other things, the complaint asserts four different forms of disability discrimination, arising out of two different sets of disabilities: (1) discrimination on the basis of plaintiff's own physical disability (asthma) and mental disability (general anxiety disorder); (2) retaliation for actions arising out of her own disabilities (such as requesting accommodations or filing a complaint); (3) discrimination in the form of retaliation for her advocacy for the rights of other disabled persons (her students); and (4) discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment (apparently arising out of both her own disabilities and her advocacy efforts). Those four theories are intermingled across three different counts arising under both federal and state law. Furthermore, some of those claims fall outside the limitations period, and some have been waived under state law. Finally, it asserts common-law tort claims against two individuals.
For the following reasons, the motions to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.
In light of the complexity of the claims asserted, a detailed review of the complaint is required.
Jessica Connolly is a resident of Wilmington, Massachusetts. She is a special-education teacher employed by the Woburn Public Schools. (Compl. ¶ 10). She has taught for thirteen years. (Id.). According to the complaint, she suffers from general anxiety disorder and asthma. (Id.).
Woburn Public Schools (“the District”) is a school district in Woburn, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 2).
The City of Woburn (“the City”) is a municipality in Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 3).
Matthew Crowley is a resident of Lexington, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 4). Crowley was the superintendent of the District during the events described in the complaint.
Michael Baldassarre is a resident of Concord, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ 5). Baldassarre was the assistant superintendent of the District during the events described in the complaint.
The complaint alleges a lengthy series of disputes between Connolly, defendants, and other school officials over a two-year period from August 2020 to May 2022. Essentially, it alleges that Connolly has objected to the school's special-education policies, requested various teaching accommodations, and clashed with various school and District officials. It alleges that as a result, she has been “continuously belittled, spied upon, intimidated, harassed and asked to do things she believes are illegal.” (Id. ¶ 82).
In August 2020, Connolly submitted a request to Kenneth Kessaris, the principal of her school, to teach remotely “due to a personal health issue.” (Id. ¶ 11).[1] The complaint alleges that Kessaris approved the request, but when she tried to make arrangements with the school's human-resources director, “she was met with anger and hostility and was sent away.” (Id.).
On September 3, she received a call from the human-resources director telling her that Baldassarre had rejected her request. (Id. ¶ 12). She “politely protested,” and later the humanresources director “reluctantly said” that after talking with Baldassarre, her request had been approved. (Id.).
According to the complaint, shortly afterward, Baldassarre called Connolly and asked her to come back for in-person teaching because “parents were sad to see her go,” thus “reneging on the accommodation he had promised.” (Id. ¶ 13). It alleges that “[m]eanwhile,” she had received “an intense workload that far exceeded her job description and was disproportionate to her peers.” (Id. ¶ 14). She “requested training and resources and was denied and ignored.” (Id.).
Despite her “fears about COVID,” Connolly “reluctantly agreed” to Baldassarre's request to return. (Id. ¶ 15). On September 17, 2020, she “rescinded” her request to teach virtually. (Id.).
On September 21, Connolly attended a meeting arranged by the District to “‘discuss[ ] accommodations' . . . for her health issues.” (Id. ¶ 16). She read “an emotional personal statement . . . about her circumstances and health concerns and the lack of support she had received.” (Id.). According to the complaint, Crowley and Special Education Director Maureen Ryan “shamed,” “embarrassed,” and “ridiculed” her at the meeting. (Id.).
The complaint alleges that Connolly was mistreated repeatedly throughout the rest of the 2020-2021 school year. It alleges that she was given “another assignment as a virtual teacher” despite returning to teach in person. (Id. ¶ 17). It further alleges that Ryan falsely accused her of “not being in compliance with student service times.” (Id. ¶ 18).
According to the complaint, Connolly raised concerns about her school's deficient special-education services and was punished by the school in retaliation. The District designated her as its local educational agency (“LEA”) representative for individualized education program (“IEP”) meetings, a position that she continues to hold. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 23). Connolly contends that her appointment was inappropriate because she does not have legal authority to commit resources on behalf of the District, which (she contends) federal law requires. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). The complaint alleges that after she “spoke out about this issue,” she “was the subject of further retaliation and bullying” that took the form of “assigning her an uneven and impossible workload and using pretexts to punish her and make her miserable and upset.” (Id. ¶¶ 22-23). It further alleges that the District continues to assign her a disproportionate number of student evaluations without providing coverage for student services that she misses during the evaluations. (Id. ¶ 82).
According to the complaint, Connolly protested a lack of appropriate educational resources for disabled students. The complaint presents her efforts on behalf of L.W., a student at her school, as its principal example. She contends that the school “promise[d] . . . additional and comprehensive services” for L.W., but in reality provided L.W. with only an “inexperienced” teacher. (Id. ¶ 25). Connolly personally provided support to L.W. (Id.). The complaint alleges that Connolly “was blamed” for L.W.'s substandard care, and that the school “failed to defend” her from the “wrath” of L.W.'s parents. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26). The complaint alleges that Greitzer and Ryan “expected more and more” of Connolly and “gave her more and more work,” “den[ying]” her the ability to make changes to her caseload. (Id. ¶ 27). The complaint further alleges that Ryan and Vice Principal Stephen Gallo “demanded” and “insisted” that Connolly provide them with her personal notes concerning L.W. (Id. ¶¶ 28-30).
On November 17, 2021, Connolly and Ryan attended a meeting over Zoom concerning a student. (Id. ¶ 31). According to the complaint, Ryan had “predetermined the services she wanted the student to receive,” which (Connolly contends) violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (Id.). It further alleges that Ryan expected Connolly to “pass [that decision] off as her own.” (Id.). It alleges that Ryan “berated” her in a manner that other meeting participants found “abusive and relentless.” (Id. ¶¶ 31-32). After the meeting, she was “shaken and upset.” (Id. ¶ 32). She sent an email to Ryan, Kessaris, and Gallo “express[ing] how she felt devastated by the way she was treated at the meeting” and “explain[ing] that her workload was overly burdensome.” (Id. ¶ 33). She “suggested that her duties be lightened,” that “the chairperson play more of a hands-on role with the students,” and that she “be relieved from oversight of LW's case since she had been placed in an untenable position by the administration.” (Id. ¶ 34). Ryan responded to her email “with a curt message without offering any help” and “asked her to provide her caseload and student names.” (Id.). She did so. (Id.). The complaint alleges that “nothing was done, and her caseload remained the same.” (Id. ¶ 35). Ryan and “her principals ignored [her] request” to be “relieved of the responsibility for LW's case.” (Id. ¶ 35).
On December 2, the school held a meeting with L.W.'s parents. (Id. ¶ 36). In advance of the meeting Connolly provided the school administration with a copy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial