Hesling v. Avon Grove School Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 03-5795.,No. Civ.A. 04-4874.,No. Civ.A. 02-8565.,Civ.A. 02-8565.,Civ.A. 03-5795.,Civ.A. 04-4874. |
| Citation | 428 F.Supp.2d 262 |
| Parties | Edward and Christine HESLING, Plaintiffs v. The AVON GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT, and Thomas Seidenberger, former Superintendent of the Avon Grove School District, in his individual capacity, Defendants Christine Hesling, Plaintiff v. Augustus Massaro, et al., Defendants Christine Hesling, Plaintiff v. Thomas Seidenberger, in his official capacity as Superintendent for the Avon Grove School District, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Lorrie McKinley, Nancy C. Ryan, McKinley Ryan & Kramer LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Ralph E. Lamar, IV, Collegeville, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew E. Faust, Ellis H. Katz, Sweet Stevens Tucker & Katz LLP, New Britain, PA, Andria B. Saia, Michael I. Levin, Kristin O. Fromal, Levin Legal Group PC, Huntingdon Valley, PA, for Defendants.
The three above-captioned cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Presently before this court are two motions: defendant's motion to dismiss, or alternatively motion for summary judgment, in Hesling v. Seidenberger, # 04-4874, and plaintiff's objections to Chief Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell's denial of leave to amend her complaint in Hesling v. Massaro, # 03-5795.
For the reasons discussed in this opinion, defendant's motion to dismiss, or alternatively motion for summary judgment, in Hesling v. Seidenberger will be granted, and Judge Angell's denial of leave to amend plaintiff's complaint in Hesling v. Massaro will be affirmed.
Edward and Christine Hesling have two children with learning disabilities, who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. During the 2001-2002 school year, the Heslings invoked the administrative process available under the IDEA because of concerns about the educational services their children were receiving from the Avon Grove School District ("District"), in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
Ms. Hesling is also the founder of a special education advocacy parent group called ARConnections and a grassroots organization known as Project COPE ("Casualties of Public Education").
As of 2002, Ms. Hesling worked part-time on a freelance basis for the Avon Grove Sun, a local newspaper, covering Avon Grove School Board ("School Board") meetings and District activities. She asserts that, to avoid any conflict of interest, she did not report on topics related to special education.
On September 26, 2002 and October 17, 2002, articles by Ms. Hesling appeared in two local papers—the Avon Grove Sun and the Daily Local News—concerning the District's non-expenditure of funds set aside by the School Board for the hiring of teachers. The September 26th article was entitled "Class Sizes Spur Board Concerns," and stated that the "school board had previously approved and budgeted for six teaching positions to be held in reserve" but that the "district administrators did not fill the positions" and this "prompted questioning of district Superintendent Dr. Thomas Seidenberger." Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Hesling v. Seidenberger ("Pl.'s Resp."), App. Ex. S. According to the article, a Board member reported that the administrators failed to follow a directive "`to reduce classroom sizes by filling these teaching positions, if necessary ....'" Id. (quoting a Board member).
Ms. Hesling's October 17th article described a Board meeting which took place on October 10th and at which Assistant Superintendent Augustus Massaro reportedly "updated board members on the process underway to hire six additional teacher at Avon Grove Intermediate School." Pl.'s Resp., App. Ex. Y. The October 17th article quoted administrators, who explained that the Board had been waiting for the school year to begin to confirm whether enrollment necessitated additional teachers and that the Board had already made some efforts to reduce class sizes. See id.
On October 17, 2002, Dr. Seidenberger allegedly met with Mike Rellahan, the news editor for the Daily Local News, to inquire about the paper's "ethical standards." See Pl.'s Resp. at 10-11. Ms. Hesling contends this meeting was a direct response to her September 26th article. Deposition testimony of both Mr. Rellahan and Dr. Seidenberger indicates the meeting was very brief, and that there was some discussion of whether Ms. Hesling might have some conflict of interest. See Mot. to Dismiss, App. Ex. J at 9, 12-17; Pl.'s Resp., App. Ex. F. at 131-33.1
On October 20, 2002, a letter-to-the-editor by Sam Stretton, Esquire ("Stretton Letter")—identified below his signature as "attorney for a number of administrators at the Avon Grove School District"—was submitted to the Avon Grove Sun and Daily Local News for publication. The Stretton Letter stated that Ms. Hesling had been involved in litigation with the District and was a special education advocate, and therefore had an "absolute conflict of interest." The Letter alleged that Ms. Hesling's authorship of the article "concern[ing] the class sizes"2 was misleading in light of her bias, and asserted that she should be disciplined: "[T]he public was misled by her article since the public assumes she was a neutral reporter when in fact she was a biased observer who had an undisclosed conflict of interest." Pl.'s Resp., App. Ex. CC. The letter further asserted that no Board directive to hire more teachers had been passed, and alleged that Ms. Hesling's article inaccurately represented this point and was therefore unfairly critical. Id.
The Avon Grove Sun and Daily Local News allegedly refused to publish the Stretton Letter. However, the letter was published in the Chester County Press on October 30, 2002. See Pl.'s Resp., App. Ex. EE. Ms. Hesling reportedly submitted a response on November 12th, but it was not published,
Ms. Hesling's precise allegations regarding Dr. Seidenberger:s role in the hiring of Mr. Stretton and the publication of the Stretton Letter vary somewhat among the three above-captioned cases. Dr. Seidenberger claims he played no role in the commissioning or the publication of the Stretton Letter.
Ms. Hesling claims that as a result of the Stretton Letter she suffered the loss of career opportunities and emotional distress.
As noted supra, during the 2001-2002 school term, the Heslings invoked the IDEA's due process proceedings on behalf of their children. The Heslings ultimately prevailed before a Pennsylvania Special Education Appeals Panel ("Appeals Panel") in August 2002.
In November 2002, the Heslings initiated this suit against the District and against Superintendent Seidenberger3 his individual capacity. Initially, the suit was intended, in part, to contest the District's alleged failure to implement the Appeals Panel's August 2002 decision. The Heslings and the District reached a settlement on that issue. Mr. and Ms. Hesling also sought—and continue to seek, pursuant to their amended complaint—relief for alleged retaliation, including publishing deliberately false statements and interfering with Ms. Hesling's employment, in violation of federally-protected rights. See Amended Complaint in Hesling v. Avon Grove School District ("Am.Compl.I"). Mr. and Ms. Hesling allege that the Stretton Letter was the direct, desired result of actions taken by Dr. Seidenberger—"either on his own, or through other District administrators"—to retain Mr. Stretton's services. See id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶¶ 46, 49.
For Ms. Hesling's alleged subsequent loss of career opportunities and her emotional distress, the Heslings seek damages and equitable relief under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ().
Ms. Hesling initiated this suit for damages and a declaratory judgment in October 2003. The complaint names Acting Superintendent Augustus Massaro4 and sixteen other District administrators—all in their individual capacities—as the defendants. Dr. Seidenberger is not a named defendant in this suit.
The factual allegations in this complaint are substantially identical to those recited in Hesling v. Avon Grove School District. Ms. Hesling claims that each of the defendants defamed her and unlawfully retaliated against her, contrary to her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here, Ms. Hesling alleges that the various District administrators named in the suit "individually, collectively, and/or in concert or at the behest of District Superintendent Thomas Seidenberger," secured Mr. Stretton's services to write the Stretton Letter. Complaint in Hesling v. Massaro ("Compl.II") ¶ 41.
On May 3, 2004, Ms. Hesling moved to amend her complaint to add a claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Dr. Seidenberger, in his official capacity as former Superintendent of the District, for wrongful retaliation directed at Ms. Hesling because of her expressive activity protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Angell denied the motion on July 1, 2004.
Ms. Hesling's objection to Judge Angell's ruling is now before this court. To ward off an impending statute of limitations, Ms. Hesling has also filed her proposed amendment as a separate, additional action—Hesling v. Seidenberger.
In October 2004, Ms. Hesling filed this action against Dr. Seidenberger in his official capacity. The complaint's factual allegations are largely the same as those asserted in Hesling v. Massaro, and center around the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blunt v. Lower Merion School Dist.
...that the entire case is not ripe until those portions of the suit that may be exhausted have been.'). Hesling v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F.Supp.2d 262, 276 (E.D.Pa.2006); accord Falzett, 150 F.Supp.2d at 705. Though the plaintiffs will not be able to obtain all of their requested relief ......
-
A.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ.
...with the IDEA's exhaustion requirement is not excused by Plaintiffs' request for monetary damages. See Hesling v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F.Supp.2d 262, 274–76 (E.D.Pa.2006) (finding exhaustion required for plaintiff's entire retaliation claim, even though the IDEA only provided “some of......
-
Evans v. Chichester School Dist., Civil Action No. 07-0072.
...of providing [p]laintiffs some form of relief, even though they have only requested compensatory damages"); Hesling v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F.Supp.2d 262, 274-76 (E.D.Pa.2006) (determining that a parent of a disabled child who brought a claim for retaliation under § 504 and IDEA had t......
-
Prewitt v. Walgreens Co., CIVIL ACTION No. 11-02393
...difficulty in prosecuting a lawsuit as a result of a change of tactics or theories on the part of the other party." Hesling v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E D. Pa. 2006) (Deakyne v. Comm'rs of Lewes, 416 F.2d 290, 300 (3d Cir. 1696)). To establish prejudice, the non-mov......