Johnson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:22-CV-045-RJC-DCK |
| Parties | CYNTHIA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, and CATHY BEAM, Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina |
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants' Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 3). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is now ripe for disposition. Having carefully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned will respectfully recommend that the motion be granted with respect to Plaintiff's claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy against Defendant Board, Plaintiff's REDA claim against Defendant Beam, Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contract against Defendant Beam Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Defendant Beam in her official capacity, and Plaintiff's § 1981 claim against Defendant Board; and denied with respect to Plaintiff's constitutional claim of wrongful termination against Defendant Board, Plaintiff's REDA claim against Defendant Board, and Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant Board and against Defendant Beam in her individual capacity.
Plaintiff Cynthia J. Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Mrs Johnson”) initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint in Mecklenburg County Superior Court in May 2019. (Document No. 4, p. 1). Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the original action in February 2020 and refiled this action within one year in August 2020. Id. At that time, Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (“Defendant Board”) for wrongful termination in violation of the North Carolina Constitution, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA); Plaintiff also asserted claims against Defendant Beam for tortious interference with contract and violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA). (Document No. 1-1, pp. 2-27).
After filing a “Pre-Answer Motion To Dismiss” on or about November 6, 2020, Defendants participated in a hearing in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on December 16, 2020 on the motion. Id. at pp. 28, 189.
Plaintiff filed a “Motion To Amend Complaint To Add Claims” on or about October 7, 2021. Id. at pp. 193-94. Plaintiff then filed her First Amended Complaint on December 29, 2021, which asserted claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against Defendant Board and a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Beam, in addition to the claims originally asserted in Plaintiff's original Complaint. Id. at pp. 195-264.
As detailed in her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, an African-American female, alleges that she “was a loyal, high performing employee in the school systems of Cabarrus County, Gaston County, and Mecklenburg County for over eleven years, with four of those years working for Defendants in Mecklenburg County” as a “School Nutrition Area Supervisor.” Id. at pp. 23435, 238. Plaintiff alleges that she received very positive performance evaluations during her time as an employee of the school system and, “in her performance reviews for 2016, 2017, and 2019, she was expressly observed as being honest and trustworthy.” Id. at p. 238.
On or about April 4, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury while working, sought medical treatment for the injury, and subsequently applied for workers' compensation benefits, returning to work in full capacity shortly thereafter. Id. at p. 240. Plaintiff alleges that she “documented] the injury with her then supervisor, Angela Camalia” and also that she “made her report to Cathy Beam and others within the CMS organization of her workers' compensation injury and inquired of her work status.” Id. at pp. 235, 257. Plaintiff alleges that she “began noticing a different interaction at work” immediately following the incident and that on September 26, 2018, her supervisor/manager Defendant Beam “suddenly made [Plaintiff] the subject of an investigative review for the free/reduced lunch applications for a look-back period encompassing six years.” Id. at p. 235. Plaintiff alleges that this investigative review occurred “after the state and federal prescribed review process” for the applications had expired and that Defendant Beam, “without any supporting documentation or justification, reported to Human Resources that [Plaintiff] was falsifying documents and suspected of wrongdoing.” Id. at pp. 239-40. Following Defendant Beam's report to Human Resources, “CMS then located six (6) online free/reduced lunch applications in the system on behalf of [Plaintiff's] children, for the periods 2012-2018/2019 school years.” Id. at p. 242.
Plaintiff alleges that she “was unaware that her two children had been given free/reduced lunch status in the CMS System,” that her children were similarly unaware, and that “at all relevant times, [she] diligently and continuously funded her children's lunch account.” Id. at p. 241. Plaintiff alleges that these applications were unauthenticated with respect to who submitted them and “it is undisputed that [Plaintiff's] signature was not on any of” the application forms. Id. at p. 242. Plaintiff alleges that she “was not given an opportunity to demonstrate that she had not submitted any online applications, in spite of the fact her signature was nowhere on the applications,” and that Defendants ultimately concluded the online applications were completed by Plaintiff's husband, Gerald Johnson, Jr., despite producing little to no evidence or receipts in support of this conclusion. Id. at p. 243.
Plaintiff alleges that on October 10, 2018, she “was suspended for free/reduced lunch applications which she did not complete or submit.” Id. at p. 235. Plaintiff “refused to resign and Defendants fired her on October 23, 2018.” Id. at pp. 235-36.
Plaintiff also alleges that “a similar situation involving the free/reduced lunch program occurred” between October and December 2018 with another family, “where both the husband and the wife worked for CMS, but the female employee, Mrs. Soares, was terminated, while the male employee, Mr. Soares was not terminated.” Id. at p. 244. Further, Plaintiff alleges that “Mr. Soares was given an opportunity to demonstrate that he had not signed the online application.” Id.
Prior to commencing this action, Plaintiff “timely filed a REDA complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor (‘NCDOL')” on or about April 3, 2019. Id. at p. 248. Plaintiff “received her right to sue letter on July 3, 2019, for which she subsequently filed her Amended Complaint on July 5, 2019.” Id.
Defendants removed this action to the Western District of North Carolina on January 31, 2022, filing a “Notice of Removal.” (Document No. 1). Defendants then filed the pending “Defendants' Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 3) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on February 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff's Response Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss” (Document No. 4) on February 22, 2022. Defendants then filed the “Reply Brief By Defendants” (Document No. 7) on March 7, 2022.
The pending motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review and a recommended disposition to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1)
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) seeks to dismiss a complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The plaintiff has the burden of proving that subjectmatter jurisdiction exists. See Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue the court must address before considering the merits of the case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). “The subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts is limited and the federal courts may exercise only that jurisdiction which Congress has prescribed.” Chris v. Tenet, 221 F.3d 648, 655 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
When a defendant challenges subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), “the district court is to regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Richmond, 945 F.2d at 768. The district court should grant the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id.; see also Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999).
Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2)
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) seeks to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). A party invoking federal court jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction exists over the defendant. New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005); Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989).
When a court's personal jurisdiction is properly challenged by a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the jurisdictional question thus raised is one for the judge, with the burden on the plaintiff ultimately to prove the existence of a ground for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence... [W]hen, as here, the court addresses the question on the basis only of motion papers, supporting legal memoranda and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial