Haiyan v. Hamden Pub. Sch.

Decision Date19 June 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:10–CV–767 (VLB).
Citation875 F.Supp.2d 109
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesBAI HAIYAN, Plaintiff, v. HAMDEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Frances Rabinowitz, Hamlet Hernandez, Karolyn Rodriguez, and the College Board, Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Albert J. Oneto, IV, Peter E. Ricciardi, Law Offices of Peter E. Ricciardi, Hamden, CT, for Plaintiff.

Johanna G. Zelman, Michael J. Rose, Robin B. Kallor, Rose Kallor LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. # 55]

VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Bai Haiyan (Haiyan), an English language and literature professor from the People's Republic of China, brings this suit against Hamden Public Schools (“HPS” or “District”), the superintendent of HPS, Frances Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz), assistant superintendent, Hamlet Hernandez (Hernandez), the world language chair at HPS, Karolyn Rodriguez (Rodriguez), and the College Board, a New York non-profit Corporation with a Chinese Guest Teacher Program. Haiyan brings a variety of claims against the Defendants stemming from her placement for a single school-year term in the Hamden Public Schools as a Chinese language teacher in a guest teacher exchange program, including claims of discrimination on account of national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Connecticut General Statutes Sections 46a–100 and 46a–60, Substantive and Procedural violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a–58, breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988 and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–51q.

Currently pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Rabinowitz, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Hamden Public Schools expressly pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

Factual Background

Plaintiff, Bai Haiyan, a Chinese citizen and a professor of British and American literature at a Chinese university, was accepted in April 2009 as a Chinese Guest Teacher by Hanban and the College Board. [Dkt. # 56, Def. Rule 56(a)(1) Stmt., ¶ 1]; [Dkt. # 64, Ex. 1, PI. Stmt. Of Disputed Facts, ¶ 12]. Hanban is a Chinese non-profit organization affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education which works in conjunction with the College Board, a United States non-profit association, to place Chinese teachers into schools in the United States as Chinese language teachers through a Guest Teacher Program. [Dkt. # 64, ¶ 6]; [Dkt. # 56, Ex. 1, PI. Rule 56(a)(2) Stmt., ¶ 6]. Hamden Public Schools participated in the College Board and Hanban's Chinese Guest Teacher Program during the 20092010 school year, relying on the College Board to interview, screen and select Chinese teachers and identifying two teachers for assignment to HPS. [Dkt. # 56, ¶¶ 3–4].

The Chinese Guest Teacher Program is an international cultural exchange visitor program established pursuant to the Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (the “Cultural Exchange Act) also known as the Fulbright–Hays Act of 1961 whose purpose “is to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations, and the contributions being made toward a peaceful and more fruitful life for people throughout the world; to promote international cooperation for educational and cultural advancement; and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” 22 U.S.C. § 2451, et seq. (1988). The Cultural Exchange Act empowers the Department of State to authorize exchange visitor programs “which provide opportunities for international candidates to teach, study, conduct research, demonstrate special skills or receive on the job training for periods ranging from a few weeks to several years.” http:// j 1 visa. state. gov/ programs (last visited June 12, 2012).

A J–1 exchange visitor nonimmigrant visa is “provided for persons who are approved to participate in exchange visitor programs in the United States” (“J–1 Visa”) established pursuant to the Cultural Exchange Act. http:// travel. state. gov/ visa/ temp/ types/ types_ 1267. html (last visited June 12, 2012); see also,8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(J) (“an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is a bona fide student, scholar, trainee, teacher, professor, research assistant, specialist, or leader in a field of specialized knowledge or skill, or other person of similar description, who is coming temporarily to the United States as a participant in a program designated by the Director of the United States Information Agency, for the purpose of teaching, instructing or lecturing, studying, observing, conducting research, consulting, demonstrating special skills, or receiving training”).

The State Department promulgated regulations to implement the Cultural Exchange Act and administer exchange visitor programs established pursuant to the Act. See 22 C.F.R. § 62. Under these regulations and the Act, the Secretary of State of the State Department designates legal entities known as “sponsors” to conduct exchange visitor programs. See22 C.F.R. § 62.2. Under the regulations sponsors are “responsible for the effective administration of their exchange visitor programs,” including the screening and selection of exchange visitors for program participation. The sponsors are also obligated to “monitor, through employees, officers, agents or third parties, the exchange visitors participating in their programs” including “monitor[ing] the progress and welfare of the exchange visitor to the extent appropriate for the category.” Id. at § 62.10.

With respect to teacher exchange visitor programs, the regulations provide that:

Programs under this section promote the interchange of American and foreign teachers in public and private schools and the enhancement of mutual understanding between people of the United States and other countries. They do so by providing foreign teachers opportunities to teach in primary and secondary accredited educational institutions in the United States, to participate actively in cross-cultural activities with Americans in schools and communities, and to return home ultimately to share their experiences and their increased knowledge of the United States. Such exchanges enable visitors to understand better American culture, society, and teaching practices at the primary and secondary levels, and enhance American knowledge of foreign cultures, customs, and teaching approaches.

Id. at § 62.24. A foreign national is eligible to “participate in an exchange visitor program as a full-time teacher if the individual: (1) Meets the qualifications for teaching in primary or secondary schools in his or her country of nationality or last legal address; (2) Satisfies the standards of the U.S. state in which he or she will teach; (3) Is of good reputation and character; (4) Seeks to come to the United States for the purpose of full-time teaching at a primary or secondary accredited educational institution in the United States; and (5) Has a minimum of three years of teaching or related professional experience.” Id. Sponsors are obligated to adequately screen teachers prior to accepting them for the program. Id.

“Prior to the issuance of the Form DS2019, the exchange visitor shall receive a written offer and accept in writing of a teaching position from the primary or secondary accredited educational institution in which he or she is to teach. Such position shall be in compliance with any applicable collective bargaining agreement, where one exists. The exchange visitor's appointment to a position at a primary or secondary accredited educational institution shall be temporary, even if the teaching position is permanent.” Id. Lastly, “the teacher shall be authorized to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program for the length of time necessary to complete the program, which shall not exceed three years.” Id.

An exchange visitor's participation in the program is expressly subject to termination. The regulations provide that a sponsor shall terminate an exchange visitor's participation in its program when the exchange visitor is unable to continue, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to these regulations or violates the Exchange Visitor Program regulations and/or the sponsor's rules governing the program, if, in the sponsor's opinion, termination is warranted. Id. at § 62.40. An exchange visitor's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program is also subject to termination when he or she engages in unauthorized employment. Id. Upon establishing such violation, the Department of State shall terminate the exchange visitor's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program. Id. at § 62.40. In addition, an “exchange visitor who willfully or negligently fails to comply with the requirements established in Public Law 104–208, as amended, shall be terminated from the Exchange Visitor Program by the sponsor.” Id. at § 62.78.

The regulations contemplate that a “citizen or national of a foreign country who has been awarded a grant to lecture, teach and engage in research may be entitled to certain benefits when authorized” by the Department of State such as transportation and per diem allowance. Id. at § 63.4. In addition, an “exchange visitor may receive compensation from the sponsor or the sponsor's appropriate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan Univ. At Middletown v. Wesleyan Univ.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 5, 2021
    ... ... App. 512, 520, 2 A.3d 942 (2010) ; see also Bai Haiyan v. Hamden Public Schools , 875 F. Supp. 2d 109, 134 (D. Conn. 2012) ... ...
  • Hughes v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 23, 2016
    ... ... Plainview Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist. , 96 F.3d 623, 63031 (2d Cir.1996) ). Second, the stigmatizing ... See Bai Haiyan v. Hamden Pub. Sch. , 875 F.Supp.2d 109, 131 (D.Conn.2012) (reasonable ... ...
  • Beltran v. Interexchange, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • February 22, 2016
    ... ... 9. Defendants also rely upon Bai Haiyan v ... Hamden Public Schools , 875 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D. Conn. 2012) to argue ... ...
  • Sharpe v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • May 28, 2013
    ... ... See also Donato v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist. , 96 F.3d 623, 630-31 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that statements that ... a stigma plus claim, however stigmatizing it might appear to be." Haiyan v. Hamden Pub. Sch. , 875 F. Supp. 2d 109, 131 (D. Conn. 2012) (quoting ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT