Constantino v. S. Humboldt Unified Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 15 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-02249-RMI |
| Parties | ANN CONSTANTINO, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Defendants Southern Humboldt Unified School District, Catherine Scott, and Colleen O'Sullivan ("Defendants") move to dismiss Plaintiff Ann Constantino's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 30). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant Defendants' Motion.
A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,'" a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility is established "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Thus, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper when there is either "a lack of cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); see also, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); and De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts may consider only "the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice." Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). When matters outside the pleadings are presented on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and are not excluded by the court, the court must convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Southern Humboldt Unified School District ("SHUSD") provides elementary and secondary education to numerous students. See First Amended Complaint "FAC" (Doc. 25) at 4. Plaintiff worked for approximately seventeen years at SHUSD as a Student Service Technician ("SST"). Id. At the time of the events described herein, she was a classified permanent employee with legal rights to continued employment. Id. Plaintiff has received consistently good performance evaluations and has never been formally disciplined except where otherwise specified herein. Id.
In or around September 2015, SHUSD hired Defendant Colleen O'Sullivan as a school counselor. Id. This was not a supervisory position and Defendant O'Sullivan had no supervisory power pursuant to her job description. Id. Defendant O'Sullivan was never Plaintiff's supervisor. Id. Defendant O'Sullivan is the daughter of the President of SHUSD's school board. Id.
In the Fall of 2015, Plaintiff met with a student and her mother because the student planned to spend a semester abroad in New Zealand beginning in January 2016. Id. In or around late 2015, rumors were spread about possible layoffs of SSTs. Id. In December 2015, Defendant Catherine Scott sent an email to Plaintiff and another SST, Donna, stating unequivocally that the SHUSD was "in the black" for the first time in a long time and that there would be no layoffs. Id.
In January 2016, the student's mother asked Plaintiff about independent study English packets that she was to get from an English teacher named Bill Richards. Id. However, although unknown to Plaintiff and Defendant O'Sullivan at the time, shortly before leaving for New Zealand, the student decided not to take any independent study work with her while abroad inNew Zealand. Id.
In February 2016, Plaintiff had conversations with Defendant O'Sullivan regarding this student and the independent study work. Id. Both Plaintiff and Defendant O'Sullivan at this time still believed that the student had been given independent study work. Id. Defendant O'Sullivan expressed concerns about this because, according to Defendant O'Sullivan, it was illegal to give independent study work to an unenrolled student. Id.
Despite the fact that Defendant O'Sullivan was not a supervisor, in February 2016, Defendant O'Sullivan began directing Plaintiff to perform certain tasks by repeatedly instructing Plaintiff to contact the student's mother to ensure there were no misunderstandings regarding independent study credit. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to contact the student's mother. During one of those attempts, Plaintiff was informed by family that the mother was in New Zealand with her daughter and was unavailable. Id. at 5. When Plaintiff reported her difficulty getting in touch with the mother to Defendant O'Sullivan, Defendant O'Sullivan did not believe Plaintiff and began treating Plaintiff as though she was defying orders. Defendant O'Sullivan instructed Plaintiff to "[c]all [the student's mother] every day until you get her." Id.
In a separate phone conversation with Plaintiff shortly thereafter, Defendant O'Sullivan used the term "pushback" to describe Plaintiff's attitude. Id. Plaintiff then stated that Defendant O'Sullivan was making her uncomfortable and questioned whether Defendant O'Sullivan had any supervisory powers over her. Id. Defendant O'Sullivan replied to that by indicating she had "just gotten that clarified a few days ago," falsely suggesting that she was, in fact, Plaintiff's supervisor. Id.
Defendant O'Sullivan first took her concerns over this independent study issue, which concerns were based on a false assumption, to the Principal. Id. The Principal indicated that he did not believe this to be a serious matter, and indicated that he was not going to take any action. Id. Unsatisfied with this, Defendant O'Sullivan then took her concerns to Defendant Scott. Id. Due to the high-level nature of Defendant Scott's position (i.e. Superintendent), Defendant Scott ordinarily would not involve herself in such matters. Id. But in this instance, Defendant Scott declined to refer the matter to Plaintiff's supervisor or any of the other administrators. Id. Instead,Defendant Scott concluded that O'Sullivan, the daughter of the President of the School Board, wanted Plaintiff gone and Defendants Scott and O'Sullivan colluded to cause the termination of Plaintiff's employment. Id. To that end, Defendant Scott instructed O'Sullivan to issue disciplinary action in the form of two written reprimands to Plaintiff. Id.
On March 1, 2016, Defendant O'Sullivan called Plaintiff into a meeting with a union representative and issued two written reprimands. Id. at 6. The first written reprimand concerned the independent study issue, and accused Plaintiff of breaking the law and putting SHUSD at risk by providing independent study work to an unenrolled student. Id. The second reprimand concerned a conversation from the previous year (November 2014) between Plaintiff and a student wherein Plaintiff advised the student that the school could write the student a letter certifying her fluency in her native language which would exempt her from having to take 2 years of foreign language in high school, but would not disqualify her from attending a 4-year college that requires 2 years of high school level foreign language instruction for admissions. Id. The second reprimand accused Plaintiff of having provided false information to this student in the November 2014 conversation, when in fact the information Plaintiff provided the student was true and accurate. Id. In addition to being false, the second reprimand was issued more than one year after the occurrence of the allegedly inappropriate conduct. Id.
By the time of the meeting on March 1, 2016, between Defendant O'Sullivan, Plaintiff, and the union representative, Plaintiff had discovered that the foreign exchange student had not, in fact, taken any independent study work with her. Id. During that March 1st meeting, Plaintiff explained the misunderstanding and pointed out the various falsehoods and inaccuracies in the two reprimands. Id. Plaintiff also presented Defendant O'Sullivan with evidence that her statement to the student about foreign language requirements was true. Id. On March 3, 2016, Defendants caused these two false written reprimands to be placed in Plaintiff's personnel file without correction. Id.
Because Defendant O'Sullivan issued the reprimand, any appeal would go to the Principal, Jim Stewart. Id. at 7. In mid-March 2016, Plaintiff sought to appeal the falsified reprimands to Mr. Stewart. Id. Mr. Stewart advised that his boss, Defendant Scott, had instructed that he shouldnot discuss the matter with Plaintiff nor should Plaintiff discuss the matter with him. Id. Plaintiff then submitted a written appeal contesting the false writeups to Mr. Stewart. Id. Mr. Stewart advised that he knew the write-ups were unfounded, but stated he was not in a position to do anything about it because he feared retaliation from Defendant Scott. Id. He stated, in reference to Defendant Scott, that "she can make my life hell." Id.
Defendant Scott knew that Plaintiff was appealing the false reprimands prior to March 25, 2016. Id. Prior to March 25, 2016, Defendant Scott had been provided with sufficient information and evidence indicating that the write-ups were false such that she either knew the reprimands were false or had serious doubts about their truth. Id.
On March 25, 2016, Defendant Scott called Plaintiff and the other classified SST, Donna, into a meeting with a union representative to inform them that she would be asking the school board to lay them off. Id. This directly contradicted Defendant Scott's December 2015 email described above. Id. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial