Kennedy v. Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: 20-CV-72 (PKC) (ARL)
• Parties: CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Plaintiff, v. BETHPAGE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Plaintiff,
v.
BETHPAGE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

No. 20-CV-72 (PKC) (ARL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Pamela K. Chen United States District Judge

Plaintiff Christine Kennedy sues Defendant Bethpage Union Free School District (“Defendant” or “the District”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Defendant moves to dismiss this action in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted. However, in the interest of justice and out of an abundance of caution, the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff leave to replead her claims.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true at this stage of the proceedings and construes in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424, 429 (2d Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff, a social worker trained in crisis intervention and group counseling, was employed by the District for nearly 15 years^[1] as the only social worker for its high school. (Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), Dkt. 21, ¶¶ 8-9, 15, 40-42.) In addition to providing crisis

1

intervention and counseling to students, Plaintiff acted as a liaison between the District and other agencies, such as Child Protective Services. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff also was involved in several student groups and activities. For example, in 2014, Plaintiff started a mentoring program, Peers as Leaders (“PAL”), to help incoming freshmen receive guidance and mentorship from upperclassmen. (Id. ¶ 17.) After starting the program, Plaintiff continued to serve as an advisor to the group. (Id.) Plaintiff also was an advisor to the student club Students Against Destructive Decisions (“SADD”), for which she received an annual stipend from the District of approximately $3, 800. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) Throughout her nearly 15-year tenure at the high school, Plaintiff was “consistently rated as highly effective.” (Id. ¶ 42.)

During the 2017-18 school year, the District experienced a sharp increase in students needing assistance with psychological and mental health issues, as well as students requiring urgent crisis intervention and suicide assessment and prevention efforts. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff repeatedly voiced concern about this rise in mental health incidents to her superiors at Bethpage High School-including Director of Guidance Thomas Kenny (i.e., Plaintiff's direct supervisor), Principal Michael Spence, and Assistant Principals Kevin Healy and Ralph Tocco. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 19-23, 43.) Plaintiff also repeatedly asked for additional support, including new protocols and more staff, to help handle the rise in cases. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 25, 43.) Whenever Plaintiff raised these issues, however, her superiors provided “wildly unhelpful, meaningless non-answers” and “appeared to want to sweep Plaintiff's concerns under the table.” (Id. ¶¶ 26, 44.) At some point, Kenny informed Plaintiff that she was not going to be receiving any additional support at the high school. (Id. ¶ 28.) Around this time, Plaintiff also made efforts to raise public awareness about mental health issues-including speaking with teachers and parents about ways to help students, attending monthly meetings with other social workers where she shared concerns about the District

2

not addressing students' mental health needs, raising her concerns in various committee meetings, and speaking about the student mental health crisis in the District at the Stop the Violence conference at Hofstra University in December 2017 and December 2018, which Assistant Principal Healy also attended. (See Id. ¶¶ 76, 95.)

In April 2018, District Superintendent David Schneider “sent an email to staff” about preparing a 90-minute presentation, which would partly focus on mental health issues and crisis intervention, for the Superintendent's Conference Day in June 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 38.) At a meeting with District social workers and psychologists, ^[2] Superintendent Schneider conveyed that it “was not a big deal” if Plaintiff and others could not assist with the presentation, because there was “an outside presenter” ready to step in. (Id. ¶ 31, 33.) Plaintiff left this meeting early to deal with a student crisis in the building. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Following the meeting, Plaintiff informed Kenny, her direct supervisor, that she did not think she could participate in the optional presentation because of her increased workload. (Id. ¶ 34.) Thereafter, on May 18, 2018, Superintendent Schneider asked Plaintiff to prepare part of the optional presentation. (Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff respectfully declined “due to her increased job responsibilities, ” and Superintendent Schneider responded that this was “not a problem.” (See Id. ¶¶ 37, 46-47.) Nevertheless, on the same day, Principal Spence haled Plaintiff into his office and repeatedly told Plaintiff that it did not “look good for him” that Plaintiff had declined to participate in the optional presentation. (Id. ¶ 48.) Principal Spence also informed Plaintiff that failing to participate in the presentation “could correlate with a lack of support staff for the next school year.” (Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff was the only social worker in the District to decline to assist with the presentation. (Id. ¶ 50.)

3

Three days after declining to participate in the optional presentation, Plaintiff “received an unannounced crisis observation” by Kenny. (Id. ¶ 51.) Plaintiff performed exemplarily. (Id. ¶ 52.) Several weeks later, on June 14, 2018, Kenny unexpectedly “walked into Plaintiff's office, shut the door, and informed” Plaintiff that she was being reassigned to the District's elementary school for the 2018-19 school year. (Id. ¶ 53.) Kenny told Plaintiff that she should contact Assistant Superintendent Caroline Lavelle with any questions. (Id.) Plaintiff believes this was the first time during her tenure that a social worker had been reassigned. (Id. ¶ 55.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff was not permitted to continue her involvement with the PAL program and was stripped of her role as advisor to the SADD club, including the $3, 800 stipend that went along with it. (Id. ¶¶ 62-65, 78.) Additionally, in June 2019, Plaintiff created a website for District social workers, but after taking “weeks” to publish the website, Kenny refused to present or link it with other department websites and did not list Plaintiff's name on the guidance website as a social worker. (Id. ¶¶ 69, 72.) Plaintiff also “was purposefully not included or invited” to a Committee on Special Education meeting. (Id. ¶ 71.) Finally, in the fall of 2019, “Plaintiff discovered that by District fiat she was banned from participating and presenting on any topic at any PTA meeting without prior approval from the District and the PTA about her topic.” (Id. ¶ 73.) According to Plaintiff, “no other social worker or employee of the District” has ever been required to obtain District approval before speaking or presenting at a PTA meeting. (Id. ¶ 75.)

II. Procedural History

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action in state court against the District, Kenny, Principal Spence, Assistant Superintendent Lavelle, former-Superintendent Terrence Clark, and Superintendent Schneider. (See Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1, ¶ 1.) On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff served the District and individual defendants with a Summons with Notice alleging, among other things, violations of the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and

4

1983. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3; see also Summons with Notice, Dkt. 1-1.) The District and individual defendants removed the case to this Court. (See generally Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1.)

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint (Dkt. 8), ^[3] to which the District and individual defendants responded on April 23, 2020, by requesting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11). The Court held a pre-motion conference on June 23, 2020, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, with the defendants to file their motion to dismiss thereafter. (See 6/23/2020 Minute Entry.) Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on August 31, 2020 (Dkt. 21), and the defendants served Plaintiff with their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2020 (Dkt. 24).

On December 28, 2020, while the motion to dismiss was being briefed, the parties stipulated to-and the Court so ordered-the dismissal of all claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, thus leaving only the District as a defendant in the case. (See Stipulation of Dismissal, Dkt. 28; 12/28/2020 Docket Order.) Briefing of the motion to dismiss finished on January 4, 2021. (See Dkts. 29-31.)

Plaintiff's operative complaint asserts three substantive claims. First, it asserts that the District violated the First Amendment by retaliating against Plaintiff-namely, by demoting and reassigning her to the elementary school and removing her from the PAL program and SADD club-after she advocated for additional staff to handle the increasing number of students with mental health issues and respectfully declined to assist with an...