Grasson v. Bd. of Educ. of Orange
| Decision Date | 04 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 09 Civ. 1584SAS.,09 Civ. 1584SAS. |
| Citation | 24 F.Supp.3d 136 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Robert M. GRASSON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWN OF ORANGE, Tim James, Kimberly Altschuler, Jeanne Consiglio, Joseph Marulli, David Pite, Kristen C. Powell, Ernie Robear, Ron Ruotolo, Larry Schwartz, Toni Vitti, Patricia P. Ziman and Alfred Pullo, Defendants. |
Enrico Vaccaro, Esq., Law Offices of Enrico Vaccaro, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff.
Alexandria L. Voccio, Esq., David S. Monastersky, Esq., Howd & Ludorf, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Robert Grasson alleges that defendants1 terminated his pupil transportation contract without just cause, failed to provide him with notice and a hearing before doing so, and damaged his reputation by stating or implying that he was a pedophile.2 Grasson brings claims against the Board for breach of contract and, under section 1983, deprivation of his substantive and procedural due process rights; and against the individual defendants for deprivation of his due process rights and for various common law torts.3 Defendants now move for summary judgment on all claims. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the remaining state law claim is remanded to the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven.
II. BACKGROUND4
On May 15, 2004, the Board and Grasson entered into a contract for the transportation of elementary and kindergarten school children in the Town of Orange.5 Section C of the contract provides that:
Grasson claims, but defendants dispute, that the contract was automatically renewable upon expiration.7
On September 17, 2007, Grasson was driving three female kindergarten students from school to their homes.8 At some point Grasson had a conversation with one or more of the students on the bus during which he said that the bus was a “magic bus” that could turn into a house and asked whether the students could “keep a secret.”9 However, Grasson claims that he has never initiated a conversation with a student by asking if he or she could keep a secret.10 According to Grasson, the bus he was driving in September 2007 had a unique appearance, which prompted children to ask him if it was a “magic bus,” referring to a children's book and television series about a bus that transformed into different objects to take children on educational field trips.11
Superintendent James spoke with one of the parents of the children on the day of the incident, and the parents of the other two children the following day.12 Coincidentally, James had attended a meeting with superintendents from nearby towns on September 18, 2007, where he “learned that one statement that nearly all child predators will initiate conversations with children is, ‘Can you keep a secret?’ ” and that “[i]f in later conversations, the child reports that s/he has kept the secret, contact often escalates.”13 On September 19, 2007, based on his belief that Grasson worked for the Winkle Bus Company (“Winkle”), James asked Pullo to contact Lori Winkle to arrange for a substitute driver until the matter could be further investigated.14 Pullo said that there had been complaints about inappropriate comments on the bus, but did not elaborate.15 Within minutes of Pullo's call to Winkle, Grasson called James.16 James told Grasson that he had received complaints that Grasson had asked the students to keep a secret and told the students that the bus was a magic bus that turned into a house with various rooms.17 Grasson did not explain to James why he had engaged in the conversation with the kids.18 Grasson and James agreed to meet the next day.19
Grasson and James met on September 20, 2007, and three members of the Winkle family appeared at the meeting in support of Grasson.20 Grasson claims, but defendants dispute, that James “referred to [him] as a pedophile and talked about [him] in the context of priests and boy scout leaders who prey upon children.”21 At the conclusion of the meeting, James suspended Grasson, with pay, pending a review and decision by the Board.22 James told Grasson that he would likely be recommending suspension or termination of the parties' contract.23 After the meeting on September 20, 2007, James spoke with the children's parents again and asked them if they would be willing to submit a statement in writing explaining what their children had told them.24 The parents agreed and submitted statements.25
On September 26, 2007, the Board held a special meeting to discuss Grasson's transportation contract and his future as a bus driver in the district.26 Neither Grasson nor his attorney were present at the special meeting, although Grasson admits that he had notice of the meeting.27 At the meeting, the Board discussed, in executive session, the parents' complaints, James's conversations with Grasson, and the Board's options under the contract.28 The Board adjourned the meeting so that it could discuss the matter with its attorneys.29
The Board met again on October 9, 2007.30 Neither Grasson nor his attorney were present,31 and Grasson had no notice of the meeting. The minute entry relating to Grasson's contract provides that:
The Board moves to terminate for just cause the contract between the Board and Mr. Robert Grasson for the transportation of elementary and kindergarten school children of the Town of Orange, effective July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009. Further, the Board moves that compensation for said transportation services shall not be provided to Mr. Grasson during that contractually mandated 90–day notice period, except for money already paid during that period of time.32
The minutes indicate that the vote passed 9–0.33
On October 11, 2007, James sent Grasson “notice of the termination of the Contract.”34 The Termination Letter states that:
According to Grasson:
Prior to the termination of my contract by the [Board], I was not given notice of the specific grounds for termination[. T]he evidence against me, including the written complaints on which the action was based, were not disclosed to me[.] I was not given an opportunity to be heard in my defense personally or by counsel at a public hearing before an impartial tribunal[.] I was not afforded an opportunity to examine those persons who[se] complaints were the basis for the action against me, nor was I provided with a post deprivation hearing.35
Following his termination, the Winkles, as well as the Amity school district, continue to permit Grasson to drive for them, despite knowing why his contract with the Board was cancelled.36
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Summary Judgment
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘only where, construing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ”37 “A genuine dispute exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ”38 “ ‘A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ ”39
“The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that no genuine issue respecting any material fact exists.”40 Nevertheless, to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party “ ‘must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,’ ”41 and “ ‘may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.’ ”42
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he role of the court is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramapo Valley Ambulance Corps. v. Town of Ramapo
... ... [ 3 ] See Gizzo , 44 F.Supp.3d at 385 ... (collecting cases); see also Grasson v. Board of Educ. of ... Orange , 24 F.Supp.3d 136, 150 (D. Conn. 2014) ... (“Courts ... ...