Gladhill v. Bd. of Educ.

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,Maryland
• Parties: JEFFREY S. GLADHILL, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al. Defendants.
• Citation: Gladhill v. Bd. of Educ., CIVIL MJM-23-0098 (D. Md. Mar 22, 2024)
• Decision Date: 22 March 2024
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
• Docket Number: CIVIL MJM-23-0098

1

JEFFREY S. GLADHILL, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al. Defendants.

CIVIL No. MJM-23-0098

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 22, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew J. Maddox, United States District Judge

PlaintiffJeffrey S. Gladhill commenced this civil action against Defendants Washington County Board of Education(“WCBE”) and David T. Sovine, Superintendent of Washington County Public Schools(“Dr. Sovine”)Melissa A. Williams, President of WCBE (“Ms Williams”); Theresa L. Baker, Executive Director of Human Resources for Washington County Public Schools(“Ms. Baker”); and Jennifer Webster, Associate Superintendent of Washington County Public Schools(“Dr. Webster”)(collectively, “Individual Defendants”).See generallyAm. Compl., ECF No. 10.The six-count Amended Complaint generally alleges Defendants conspired to violate and violated Plaintiff's procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article 24 of the Maryland Constitution by transferring him from the position of Director of Special Education to the position of a middle school Assistant Principal.Id.

Currently pending is Defendants' motion to dismiss(the “Motion”).ECF No. 12.Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion, ECF No. 14, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 15.The Court has reviewed the filings.On March 5, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff's request, ECF No 17, this Court conducted a hearing and heard oral argument on the Motion.For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from the Amended Complaint, documents incorporated into the Amended Complaint by reference, and public records.^[1]

Plaintiff has been employed by WCBE at Washington County Public Schools(“WCPS”) since 2003. Am. Compl. ¶ 1.He served as the district-wide Director of Special Education from 2007 until the at-issue employment transfer, which took effect on December 2, 2022.Id.On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff was notified of the intended transfer pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 6-201. Id.Plaintiff alleges the transfer constitutes a demotion in pay, rank, and responsibilities.Id.

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's transfer was “precipitated by concerns surrounding the transfer of a third-grade student (‘Doe') to a special education classroom” at a different school in the district.Id.¶ 22.Plaintiff“was not directly involved in decisions about Doe's education.”Id.¶ 27.Nonetheless, the circumstances involving Doe's transfer resulted in Plaintiff receiving a disciplinary “Letter of Concern” from Dr. Webster on November 1, 2022, nine days before Plaintiff was notified of his transfer.Id.¶ 32.The letter “expressed [Dr. Webster's] concern over Dr. Gladhill's involvement in transferring Doe to [another school].”Id.The letter stated that “any failure to meet the expectations expressed in this document or any failure to exercise professional judgment will result in additional disciplinary action up to, and including, a recommendation for termination of your employment.”Id.¶ 34.Plaintiff understood this letter to be “the final punishment for his alleged misconduct.”Id.¶ 35.

Thereafter, on November 10, 2022, Plaintiff met with Ms. Baker and Dr. Webster, who informed Plaintiffhe was being placed on administrative leave.Id.¶ 37.Ms. Baker and Dr. Webster informed Plaintiff that “he had two options: (1) accept what they termed a ‘transfer' to an Assistant Principal position; or (2) accept a severance agreement and resign.”Id.¶ 37.At this time, Ms. Baker and Dr. Webster “strongly encouraged”Plaintiff's resignation and “refused to provide Dr. Gladhill with the reason(s) for his demotion.”Id.After the meeting, Plaintiff was “escorted out of the building, his access to email was terminated, and his badge, computer and phone were confiscated.”Id.¶ 38.

On November 11, 2022, Ms. Baker wrote to Plaintiff to inform him he was being “administratively transferred] . . . based on the needs of the district . . . .”Id.¶ 39.On November 14, Plaintiff was told “there [was] no statement of charges” against him, as he was not being transferred for cause.Id.¶ 41.He was advised of his appeal rights on November 28.Id.¶ 67.The transfer took effect on December 2.Id.¶¶ 1, 11, 21, 72.

On December 20, 2022-eighteen days after Plaintiff's transfer-Plaintiff and his counsel met with Drs. Sovine and Webster.Id.¶ 70.At this time, “Dr. Sovine articulated that there were concerns about Dr. Gladhill's leadership, staff relations and follow-through.”Id.Defendants did not directly respond when asked whether these were the reasons for Plaintiff's transfer.Id.

Thereafter, on January 18, 2023, “Dr. Sovine issued a letter reaffirming his decision to demote Plaintiff, writing that a “common theme” in his investigation was that Plaintiff lacked leadership skills to successfully lead at the district level, including to garner results, make independent decisions, clearly communicate, and provide necessary supports and tools.”Id.¶ 73;ECFNo. 13-2at 10.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants“bypass[ed] the due process requirements that Maryland law expressly affords to Board employees . . . before they can be dismissed.”Am. Compl. ¶ 2.Through counsel, Plaintiff advised Defendants multiple times of his claimed pre-transfer hearing right under Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 6-202 between November 2022 and February 2023.^[2]Plaintiff alleges Defendants have not responded to his request for an arbitration hearing regarding his transfer.Id.¶ 3.

B.Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint in this matter on January 13, 2023.ECF No. 1.On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed his currently operative Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10, alleging six counts against Defendants: (I) denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983(personally against Dr. Sovine);(II) denial of due process under § 1983(personally against Ms. Williams);(III) denial of due process under Maryland law (against WCBE); (IV) denial of due process under Maryland law (personally against Dr. Sovine); (V) denial of due process under Maryland law (personally against Ms. Williams); and (VI) conspiracy to deny due process under federal law (against Dr. Sovine, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Baker).^[3]

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction, ECF No. 13, Plaintiff filed an opposition, ECF No. 14, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 15.The parties dispute which sections of Maryland's Education Article apply to Plaintiff's employment transfer.Defendants argue Plaintiff was transferred in accordance with Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 6-201, which involves the superintendent's power to transfer employees “as the needs of the schools require.”Plaintiff argues he was “suspended or dismissed” from employment under § 6-202, which applies to for-cause dismissals and provides more procedural protections than § 6-201.

Plaintiff has an appeal pending under § 4-205, the mechanism for appealing decisions made under § 6-201.ECF No. 13-1 at 22.The appeal, which will be before an independent hearing examiner, has been stayed pending this Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion.ECFNo. 13-2at 39.Plaintiff contends the § 4-205 appeal is legally insufficient because it does not enforce his due process rights under § 6-202, namely a pre-transfer hearing and statement of the charges against him.Am. Compl. ¶ 88;Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 6-202(a)(2)(i)(providing that, before removing an individual, the county board shall send the individual a copy of the charges against them and permit them ten days to request a hearing).^[4]

II.LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).This rule is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007)(cleaned up).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663(2009).A complaint need not include “detailed factual allegations” to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), but it must set forth “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest” a cognizable cause of action, “even if . . . [the] actual proof of those facts is improbable and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely.”Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56(internal quotation marks omitted).Furthermore, federal pleading rules “do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.”Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 10(2014)(per curiam).However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action's elements will not do.”Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555(cleaned up).

A complaint must contain factual...