McMillan v. Cumberland Cnty. Sch.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:14-CV-344-D,5:14-CV-344-D |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | BOBBYDYNE MCMILLAN, Plaintiff, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SCHOOLS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, and JOSEPH M. LOCKLEAR, Defendants. |
On May 27, 2014, Bobbydyne McMillan ("McMillan" or "plaintiff") filed suit against Cumberland County Schools in Cumberland County Superior Court, asserting various claims arising from her termination as a school employee. See [D.E. 1-1] 9-21. On June 13, 2014, Cumberland County Schools removed the action to this court [D.E. 1]. On June 20, 2014, Cumberland County Schools moved to dismiss McMillan's complaint [D.E. 5]. On July 11, 2014, McMillan amended her complaint, dropping Cumberland County Schools as a defendant and adding as defendants the Cumberland County Board of Education ("CCBE") and Joseph M. Locklear ("Locklear") (collectively, "defendants") [D.E. 8].1 On September 26, 2014, the court issued a scheduling order, setting January 16, 2015, as the deadline for amending pleadings [D.E. 21].
On November 4, 2014, McMillan moved for leave to file a second amended complaint [D.E. 24]. On December 30, 2014, the court granted McMillan leave to file a second amended complaint[D.E. 28]. On January 9, 2015, McMillan filed a second amended complaint [D.E. 29]. In the complaint, McMillan claims: (1) that defendants deprived her of a property interest in her continued employment without due process; (2) that Locklear tortiously interfered with her employment contact with the CCBE; (3) that Locklear fraudulently induced her to resign; and (4) that defendants negligently induced her to resign. 2d Am. Compl. [D.E. 29] ¶¶ 37-76.
On December 15, 2015, McMillan filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [D.E. 42] and a memorandum in support [D.E. 43]. On December 31, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [D.E. 45], a statement of material facts [D.E. 46], and a memorandum in support [D.E. 47]. On January 5, 2016, defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to McMillan's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [D.E. 49]. On January 19, 2016, McMillan replied to defendants' memorandum in opposition to McMillan's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [D.E. 50]. On January 21, 2016, McMillan responded in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 51] and to defendants' statement of material facts [D.E. 52]. On February 4, 2016, defendants replied to McMillan's response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 55], which defendants amended on February 5, 2016 [D.E. 56]. On February 10, 2016, McMillan filed a surreply in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 57], which she amended on February 11, 2016 [D.E. 58]. As explained below, the court denies McMillan's motion to file a third amended complaint and grants defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Cumberland County Board of Education ("CCBE") employed McMillan from August 1994 through May 2012. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 7; Ans. [D.E. 39] ¶ 7; Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts [D.E. 46] ¶¶ 1-3; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts [D.E. 52] ¶¶ 1-3. The CCBE overseespublic schools in Cumberland County, North Carolina and is sometimes called "the Cumberland County Schools." 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 2; Ans. ¶ 2. At all times relevant to this case, Locklear served as Cumberland County's Associate Superintendent for Human Resources and was "in charge of all personnel issues." See Till Dep. [D.E. 46-3] 12-13; 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 3; Ans. ¶ 3.
In August 1998, McMillan obtained "career status," commonly known as tenure. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 2. A county board of education may dismiss an employee with career status only in accordance with certain procedures. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(h). The provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325 were "expressly incorporated into [McMillan's] employment contract." Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 40; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 40. An employee with career status may be fired only for certain reasons and only upon the recommendation of the superintendent, after which the career employee may request a hearing before the board of education. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(e)(1), (h).
In the spring of 2012, McMillan was an In-School Suspension Coordinator at Reid-Ross Classical Middle-High School. Hatch Dep. [D.E. 46-4] 29-30; McMillan Dep.[D.E. 46-2] 19. In April 2012, McMillan allowed a student ("Student A") to move in with her so that Student A could avoid a "bad situation at home." McMillan Dep. 24-25.
On April 25, 2012, another student ("Student B") told his teacher, Samantha Brown ("Brown"), that Student A had stashed drugs in a school bathroom. McMillan Dep. 33-34; Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶¶ 5-7; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶¶ 5-7. Brown contacted McMillan. See McMillan Dep. 33; Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 8; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts¶ 8. McMillan spoke with Brown and Student B. McMillan Dep. 33-34; Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 8; Pl.'s Resp. Defs.' Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 8. Student B suggested that he could retrieve thedrugs. McMillan Dep. 33. McMillan and Brown agreed to let Student B retrieve the drugs, and Student B did so. Id. 33-34. After Student B retrieved the drugs, he met with McMillan. Id. 34. They "stepped out of view of [a security] camera . . . and [Student B] reached in his pocket and pulled out the medication." Id. McMillan recognized the drugs as anti-nausea medication that a doctor had prescribed to her late daughter. Id. McMillan took the bottle from Student B. Id. McMillan walked to Assistant Principal Laquisha Leath's office, but Assistant Principal Leath was not there. Id. McMillan asked a custodian to check the bathroom for any other contraband. Id. 35. Later that day, McMillan spoke with Assistant Principal Leath about the incident. Id.
On the morning of April 26, 2012, Student B's mother came to the school and complained to Principal Thomas Hatch ("Hatch") about the events of April 25, 2012. Hatch Dep. 49-50. Hatch spoke with Student B, who said that McMillan had instructed Student B to retrieve the drugs. Id. 52-57. Later that day, Hatch spoke with McMillan about the events of April 25, 2012. Id. 60-61; see McMillan Dep. 47-48. Hatch told McMillan that her actions on April 25, 2012, had "jeopardiz[ed her] job and this incident could cost [McMillan her] job." McMillan Dep. 48. Hatch instructed McMillan to send him a "statement" describing her version of the events of April 25, 2012. Id.; Hatch Dep. 62.
McMillan emailed Hatch a statement, in which she said she had informed Assistant Principal Leath ("Leath") of the drug incident on April 25, 2012. See McMillan Statement [D.E. 48]. Hatch also received a statement from Leath, in which Leath stated that McMillan had not mentioned to her Student B, the drugs, or any other part of the bathroom incident. See [D.E. 46-4] 137-38. Hatch continued his investigation and collected statements from Brown, Student A, Student B, another student, a janitor, and another faculty member. Hatch Dep. 127-128, 131. Hatch provided the information he had collected to Locklear, the Associate Superintendent for Human Resources. 2dAm. Compl. ¶ 3; Ans. ¶ 3. After reviewing the information, Locklear presented the information to Superintendent Dr. Frank Till ("Till") and told Till that McMillan might not have been fully truthful about the events of April 25, 2012. Till Dep. 22-23.
Till decided to suspend McMillan with pay and to schedule an administrative conference to discuss the matter. On May 21, 2012, Till sent McMillan a letter notifying her of this action and setting the date of the administrative conference for May 22, 2012. See Till Letter [D.E. 46-7]. The letter also said that Till had "received certain information which may affect [McMillan's] employment as a teacher" and that "cause may exist for [her] dismissal." Id. The letter referenced N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325, a statute which outlined the procedures required before firing a school employee with career status, but mistakenly referenced a nonexistent subsection of that statute. See id. McMillan understood that the purpose of the administrative conference "was to discuss whether or not the grounds existed for [her] termination" and understood that "there was a possibility [her] employment could be terminated." McMillan Dep. 66. McMillan knew that she had certain rights as a career employee, but did not know specifically what those rights were. Id. 66-67.
On May 22, 2012, the administrative conference occurred with McMillan, Till, and Locklear present. Id. 64. The administrative conference lasted approximately one hour. Id. 65. Till asked McMillan "to give an account of what had happened on" April 25 and 26, 2012, "and [McMillan] proceeded to tell the story." Id. 64. Till related what he understood to be the sequence of events, and McMillan explained why she believed Till's understanding was incorrect. Id. 64-65. At the end of the meeting, Till told McMillan that he would consider the matter, and McMillan understood that Till would be deciding "whether what [McMillan] said was the truth" or whether the statements of other witnesses were the truth. Id. 66. McMillan also understood that "Till was considering whether or not grounds existed for terminating [McMillan's] employment." Id.
On May 25, 2012, Locklear's assistant called McMillan to set up a meeting with Locklear, which took place later that day. Id. 78-79. At the meeting, Locklear told McMillan that "Till's decision is dismissal." Id. 81. McMillan asked "about letters of recommendation," and Locklear "assured [McMillan] that [Locklear] thought Mr. Hatch would be glad to give [her] a good recommendation." Id. Locklear then told McMillan that "in lieu of being dismissed [she] could resign" and showed McMillan a...
To continue reading
Request your trial