Leichter v. Lebanon Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 09 January 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:12cv342(VLB).
• Citation: 917 F.Supp.2d 177
• Parties: Malcom LEICHTER, Plaintiff, v. LEBANON BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

917 F.Supp.2d 177

Malcom LEICHTER, Plaintiff,

v.LEBANON BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:12cv342(VLB).

United States District Court,

D. Connecticut.

Jan. 9, 2013.

George Carl Schober, Somers, CT, for Plaintiff.

James M. Sconzo, Jonathan C. Sterling, Jorden Burt–Smsby, Simsbury, CT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' [DKT. # 31] MOTION TO DISMISS

VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge.

The Defendants, Lebanon Board of Education, (the “Board”) and the Superintended of the Board, Janet Tyler (“Tyler”), have moved to dismiss the Plaintiff Malcom Leichter, Jr. (“Leichter”)'s amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff brings various causes of action in connection with his placement on administrative leave and then the elimination of his position as the Director of Business and Technology for the Lebanon Public School System, including violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., violation of his due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, failure to pay wages in violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–71a et seq., violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a–51 et seq. and for punitive damages. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Procedural Background

On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff amended his complaint. See [Dkt. # 29]. On August 29, 2012, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Monell claim, due process claims, equal protection claim, ADA and Section 504 claims against Defendant Tyler, breach of contract claim, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim and claim for punitive damages against the Board. Defendants argued that the ADA and Section 504 claims against Defendant Tyler should be dismissed on the basis there is no individual liability under either statute. See [Dkt. # 32, p. 15]. Recognizing their impropriety, the Plaintiff consented to the withdrawal of those claims against Tyler. [Dkt. # 37, p. 21]. The Court therefore dismisses the ADA and Section 504 claims against Tyler. In addition, Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's equal protection claim on the basis that disability is not a protected class. See [Dkt. # 32, p. 15]. Plaintiff also consented to the withdrawal of that claim in his response as well. [Dkt. # 37, p. 21]. The Court therefore dismisses the Plaintiff's equal protection claim.

After Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff moved to withdraw his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and all claims in any counts of the amended complaint for damages for emotional distress, which the Court granted. [Dkt. 40–41]. Consequently, arguments relating to the withdrawn intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are moot.

Factual Allegations

On October 25, 1996, the Plaintiff and the Board executed an employment agreement whereby the Plaintiff was hired as of November 4, 1996 as the Director of Business and Technology for the Lebanon Public Schools. [Dkt. # 29, Amended Compl., ¶ 13]. On June 26, 1997, the Plaintiff and the Board executed a second employment agreement which modified some terms which are not relevant to the issues in the present case. Id. at ¶ 14.

The agreement provides in relevant part:

Section I: Continuation of Contract and Salary Agreement

This contract shall be renewed annually. For each year for which this contract is renewed, the annual salary of the Director of Business & Technology shall be established by mutual agreement between the Director of Business & Technology and the Board.

Section II: Continuation of Contract and Salary Agreement

The contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the parties. It may also be terminated by the Board for cause. The Director of Business & Technology may resign or retire by submitting at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Board.

[Dkt. # 29, Ex. E, Second Employment Agreement, p. 1].

Prior to working for the Board, the Plaintiff was employed as an information systems services manager at Internal Business Machines (“IBM”). [Dkt. # 29, Amended Compl., ¶ 16]. Plaintiff continued to be employed under the agreement as the Director of Business and Technology until January 28, 2011 and was earning $102, 229 per year in his position at the time of his termination. Id. at ¶ 20.

Superintendent Tyler began working for the Board on or about July 26, 2010. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that he “never had any issues with the prior three superintendents to whom he reported and all of Plaintiff's job performance evaluations were positive.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that from the beginning of her tenure, Tyler “expressed displeasure with the Plaintiff due to his disabilities which required him to miss time at work for surgery and cardiac rehabilitation.” Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiff suffered from heart attacks and had a cardiac catheterization on July 27, 2010 and a second catheterization on August 11, 2010. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff returned to work full time on August 23, 2012 with a restriction that he could not work past six at night. Id. at ¶ 24.

On September 23, 2010, Plaintiff began a cardiac rehabilitation program which ran three times a week for twelve weeks. Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiff alleges that Tyler made “many derogatory and hurtful remarks about Plaintiff not being in the office due to his cardiologist ordered cardiac rehabilitation, and the restrictions placed upon him regarding the length of his work day by his cardiologist.” Id. He completed the rehabilitation program on December 22, 2010. Id. at ¶ 26. In December 2010, Tyler ordered Plaintiff to get a full release back to work because he was still limited to working no later than six at night. Id. at ¶ 27. His cardiologist insisted that he could work no later than six and “Tyler continued to express displeasure with Plaintiff's inability to work as late in the evening as she wanted him to.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that Tyler was “rude, sarcastic, demeaning, controlling and manipulative to the Plaintiff due to his disability and inability to work as many hours as she had demanded.” Id. at ¶ 28.

On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff experienced chest pains and was instructed to not return to work on January 10, 2011. Id. at ¶ 29. Plaintiff returned to work on January 10, 2011 and “Tyler continued to harass and demean Plaintiff due to Plaintiff's disability and his need to leave work by six each night.” Id. at ¶ 30.

On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff alleges he was called into Tyler's office where he was “suspended without cause (purportedly placed on ‘administrative leave’) by Tyler.” Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges he was told by Tyler that the suspension “was not disciplinary, nor was Plaintiff being fired or laid off, but was necessary so that Tyler could review the operations of the business office.” Id. Tyler allegedly stated that “she was looking for ‘efficiencies' and that Plaintiff should look at the suspension ... as a ‘mini-vacation.’ ” Id. Plaintiff was required to “turn in his keys, and was escorted from the building by a burly (physically imposing) staff member ... in the presence of two state troopers.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges he was told to “stay away from the premises and to have no contact with any employees of the Lebanon Public School.” Id.

On January 18, 2011, Tyler sent an email regarding Plaintiff's suspension to “all staff of the Lebanon Public Schools.” Id. at ¶ 32. Plaintiff alleges that the email led staff members “to believe that the Plaintiff had done something morally, and/or ethically, and /or criminally wrong.” Id. In the email, Tyler wrote

This communication is to inform district staff that Mal Leichter, the Director of Business and Technology, has been placed on administrative leave while district operations are reviewed. Mr. Leichter will not be taking any action on behalf of the school district while he is on leave, nor is he to have any contact with district employees. Should you receive communications from Mr. Leichter, please forward that information to my office. Additional information will be forthcoming concerning responsibilities and reporting in Mr. Leichter's absence for affected employees. In the meantime, please contact me directly should you have any question.

[Dkt. # 29, Ex. F].

On February 1, 2011, five days after Plaintiff was suspended, Tyler completed her review of the operations of the business office and her search for efficiencies without any input from the Plaintiff. [Dkt. # 29, Amended Compl., ¶ 34]. Tyler decided to divide the Plaintiff's position into two positions; a business manager position and a technology manager position. Id. On February 16, 2011, the Board hired an outside contractor at an annualized cost of $124,800 per year to perform a part of the technology portion of Plaintiff's position. Id. at ¶ 35. On March 1, 2011, the Board hired a temporary part time business manager to perform the business management portion of Plaintiff's position. Id. at ¶ 36.

On March 15, 2011, the Board contracted an outside accounting firm, Kostin and Ruffkess & Company, LLC (“Kostin”) to conduct a review of the operations of the school business. Id. at ¶ 32. Plaintiff alleges that upon information and belief, Kostin was contracted to “find accounting irregularities, and/or illegal transactions, and/or fraud allegedly perpetrated by the Plaintiff.” Id. at ¶ 37. Plaintiff alleges that Kostin “was directed to audit transaction that by their nature tend to be higher risk such as credit card transactions, payments to...