Damiano v. Scranton Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13–2635 |
| Citation | 135 F.Supp.3d 255 |
| Parties | Gwendolyn Damiano, Plaintiff v. Scranton School District, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Brett A. Datto, Patrick T Krenicky, Weir & Partners LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Joseph J. Joyce, III, Lawrence J. Moran, Jr., Matthew John Carmody, Joyce, Carmody & Moran, PC, Pittston, PA, Stephen J. Holroyd, Jennings Sigmond PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
MALACHY E. MANNION
Plaintiff Gwendolyn Damiano was a principal at the Robert Morris Elementary School ("RMES") in the Scranton School District ("SSD") from August 2009 until April 2013. SSD administrators conducted a meeting with plaintiff on April 30, 2013, regarding her performance. She was demoted from principal of RMES and reassigned, at the same pay, as vice principal of the Isaac Tripp Elementary School and then to Neil Armstrong Elementary School. She was directed to advise RMES staff and parents of the students that she would no longer be with the school. Subsequently, she was notified of misconduct charges filed against her and hearings were held. Plaintiff was terminated by the SSD board in November 2013. Plaintiff alleges that her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated with respect to her demotion, suspension and termination, and that she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights challenging her suspension and termination. She now sues the district and six members of the school board, namely, Robert Sheridan, Robert Lesh, Lynn Ruane, Nathan Barrett, Armand Martinelli, and Said Douaihy (collectively the "District Defendants"). She also sues the president of the Scranton Federation of Teachers (i.e., teachers' union), Rosemary Boland. In addition to violations of her due process rights and retaliation, plaintiff alleges civil conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights. Pending are the motions to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint, (Doc. 46), filed by SSD and the six board members, (Doc. 51), and by Boland, (Doc. 54). The court will grant, in part, and deny, in part, defendants' motions.
Plaintiff was a professional educator in Pennsylvania for about 20 years. As a professional employee of SSD, she was a principal at two schools. In particular, plaintiff alleges that she was principal at RMES from August 2009 through April 30, 2013. Plaintiff was then demoted to vice principal of another school in the SSD. On May 10, 2013, SSD placed plaintiff on a Contract for Continued Employment ("CCE") which stated that she would no longer have any administrative authority at Northeast Intermediate School and that her future position with SSD would be determined by a successful completion of her improvement plan. SSD also prohibited plaintiff from discussing any matters associated with her CCE, and allegedly did not give her opportunity to respond to her demotion before it was imposed. On June 3, 2013, SSD suspended plaintiff, with pay, from her employment with the district. Prior to her suspension, SSD allegedly failed to provide her with notice and an explanation of the reasons, and did not give her an opportunity to respond to her suspension. On July 3, 2013, SSD sent plaintiff a letter advising her of a statement of misconduct charges, and suspended her with pay and with intent to dismiss her from employment. One of the charges against plaintiff involved the security of the 2013 PSSA tests at RMES. The letter also advised plaintiff that she could request a hearing and that the SSD board would then conduct evidentiary hearings to determine whether she should be terminated from her employment. Plaintiff alleges that she was not given notice or an opportunity to respond before the suspension with the intent to dismiss, was imposed.
Later in 2013, the board scheduled plaintiff's suspension and termination hearings for August 27, and September 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, and 26. Defendant Boland participated with the SSD solicitor when he prepared the witnesses to testify at plaintiff's hearings and she also questioned witnesses at the hearings. Boland was also present in the SSD offices before and after the witnesses testified. SSD presented its case against plaintiff at the August 27, and September 16 and 18 hearings, and rested its case. Plaintiff alleges that SSD failed to substantiate any of the charges against her. The hearings, when plaintiff was scheduled to testify and present her case, were cancelled by SSD, despite the objection of plaintiff's counsel, so defendant Lesh could first review the hearing transcript.
Plaintiff alleges that the board cancelled and failed to timely reschedule the hearings at which she would present her case so that they could placate the demands of Boland, who had a symbiotic relationship with the District Defendants, which resulted in virtual control of SSD by Boland and the teacher's union. On October 25, 2013, about five weeks after the hearings were cancelled, and at a time when SSD had still not rescheduled the hearings, plaintiff filed the instant civil rights action, (Doc. 1), seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the district to conduct the remaining hearings.
The hearings were rescheduled on November 18 and 19, 2013, at which plaintiff presented her defense to the charges and SSD completed the hearings. On November 25, 2013, SSD sustained the July 3, 2013 charges filed against plaintiff relating to her suspension with intent to dismiss and dismissed her from employment. SSD allegedly did not present any evidence or make any findings with respect to plaintiff's demotions which occurred on April 30, May 1 and May 10, 2013, or with respect to her suspension on June 3, 2013. District Defendants also allegedly failed to provide plaintiff with her due process rights prior to her demotions and suspension.
On December 19, 2013, plaintiff appealed the decision of SSD to 4 terminate her to the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education. On July 10, 2014, the Secretary of Education issued an order reversing SSD's decision and stating that "Damiano shall be reinstated to her position as Principal and made whole for all losses occasioned by her dismissal." The order also stated that "there is insufficient evidence to sustain the District's dismissal of [Damiano]." Consequently, at an August 6, 2014 meeting between plaintiff and the current superintendent, SSD reinstated plaintiff and placed her in John Adams Elementary School, allegedly the worst performing elementary school in the SSD. Plaintiff was reassigned to John Adams despite a March 10, 2014, written "recommendation" of defendant Martinelli, the Chairperson of the Personnel Committee, which indicated that the district would place plaintiff in her old position as principal of RMES if the results of her due process hearing were overturned by the Secretary of Education.
SSD appealed the decision of the Secretary of Education to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and on June 5, 2015, the court affirmed the Secretary's decision reversing plaintiff's dismissal and reinstating her to the position of principal at RMES. (Doc. 77).
On October 25, 2013, plaintiff initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
. (Doc. 1). The District Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on February 13, 2014. (Doc. 5 10). Plaintiff then filed her first amended complaint on March 7, 2014. (Doc. 16). On March 21, 2014, the District Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff was then granted leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"), (Doc. 45), and it was filed on October 23, 2014. (Doc. 46). On November 13, 2014, the District Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and a brief in support. (Doc. 51, Doc. 53). On November 19, 2014, defendant Boland filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), (Doc. 54), and a brief in support the next day, (Doc. 55). On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed her brief in opposition to the District Defendants' motion to dismiss with attachments, namely, a copy of her SAC and copies of two unpublished decisions. (Doc. 60). On December 8, 2014, plaintiff filed her brief in opposition to Boland's motion with the same three attachments. (Doc. 63). The District Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion on December 17, 2014. (Doc. 66). Both motions seeking complete dismissal of plaintiff's SAC are ripe for disposition.
In Counts I–VII of her SAC, plaintiff alleges violations of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against the District Defendants regarding her demotion, suspension and termination. In Count III, plaintiff alleges that the CCE "violated the Freedom of Speech [C]lause contained in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because the provision therein requiring her to refrain from discussing the [CCE] was imposed upon her by the District without any compelling reason or other legitimate justification therefore." (Doc. 46, ¶ 32). In Count VIII, plaintiff alleges the District Defendants retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights challenging her demotion, suspension and termination. Plaintiff indicates that her due process claims and retaliation claim are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
.
In Count IX, plaintiff alleges that defendant Boland retaliated against her by "engag[ing] in [a] campaign to destroy [plaintiff's career]" for exercising her First Amendment rights regarding her criticism of Boland's article in the union newsletter and for challenging the legality of her suspension and termination. Plaintiff also alleges in Count IX that the SSD's policy of allowing Boland to participate in the hearings regarding her suspension and termination facilitated SSD's decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaus v. Mounta (In re in Reg'l Police Comm'n), CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1053
...v. Chester Upland School Dist., 2014 WL 4473726, *8 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 09, 2014) (citing Hill, 455 F.3d at 236); Damiano v. Scranton School District, 135 F.Supp.3d 255 (M.D.Pa. 2015). "A constitutionally protected property interest qualifies as a sufficient plus." Dee, 549 F.3d at 234. However,......
-
Rogers v. E. Lycoming Sch. Dist.
...2015 WL 3771420, *16; Kohn v. School Dist. of City of Harrisburg, 817 F.Supp.2d 487, 510 (M.D.Pa. 2011); Damiano v. Scranton School District, 135 F.Supp.3d 255, 268-69 (M.D.Pa. 2015). 3. Gender Discrimination Claim Under Title VII Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's gender discrimination......
-
Molina v. Pa. Soc. Serv. Union
...‘redundant of the claims’ against the entity of which they are a part." (Doc. No. 29-1 at 21) (quoting Damiano v. Scranton Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 255, 268 (M.D. Pa. 2015) ). In response, Plaintiff asserts that "[a]lthough Defendant Catanese is sued only in his official capacity," becau......
-
Braz. v. Scranton Sch. Bd.
...are subject to dismissal. Brazil has no Fifth Amendment claims since there is no alleged involvement by a federal actor. See Damiano, 135 F.Supp.3d at 266; Hammond v. City of Wilkes-Barre, No. 2012 WL 3542277, *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2012) (due process claim under Fifth Amendment only applies......