Meredith v. Cnty. of Jefferson

• Decision Date: 01 April 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:18-cv-105
• Parties: MARY MEREDITH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON; JEFFERSON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; CYNTHIA CORNWELL; JOANNA WELCH; BRANDY SHRECKENGOST; ALLEN H. RYEN, Ph.D.; NATALIE YOUNG; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

MARY MEREDITH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON; JEFFERSON COUNTY CHILDREN ANDYOUTH SERVICES; CYNTHIA CORNWELL;JOANNA WELCH; BRANDY SHRECKENGOST; ALLEN H. RYEN, Ph.D.;NATALIE YOUNG; Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-105

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 1, 2019

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 17, 21.) Defendants County of Jefferson, Jefferson County Children and Youth Services (the "Agency"), Cynthia Cornwell, Joanna Welch, Brandy Shreckengost, and Natalie Young (collectively the "County Defendants") jointly filed one Motion to Dismiss.¹ (ECF No. 17.) Defendant Allen H. Ryen, Ph.D filed a separate Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21.) These Motionsare fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 18, 24, 25, 26, 31) and are ripe for disposition. The Court held oral argument on Defendants' Motions on January 17, 2019. (See ECF No. 36.) For the reasons that follow, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in her Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15), which the Court considers true for purposes of deciding the instant Motions.

A. Plaintiff's Employment at Jeff Tech

From 2010 until September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Mary Meredith worked as a tenured math teacher at Jeff Tech—a public vocational and technical school in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff possesses a Level II Teacher's Certification and is therefore eligible to teach high school math under Pennsylvania law. (Id.)

B. Jeff Tech's Principal Files a Child-Abuse Complaint Against Plaintiff

On September 26, 2016, Jeff Tech's Principal, Melissa Mowery, called the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline and reported Plaintiff for alleged child abuse. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Mowery reported the child-abuse allegation based on a complaint from M.S.—the mother of A.C., a 17-year-old Jeff Tech student who Meredith allegedly abused. (Id. ¶ 12.)

On September 16, 2016, M.S. informed Mowery that she was withdrawing her son from Jeff Tech because of an incident involving her son, A.C., and Meredith in the school's hallway. (Id. ¶ 29.) This incident allegedly occurred on September 13, 2016. (Id. ¶ 31.) M.S. informedMowery that her son "had a diagnosis" after the incident. (Id. ¶ 29.) M.S. also informed Mowery that Meredith had previously filed a civil lawsuit against M.S. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.)

Plaintiff describes the September 13, 2016 incident involving A.C. and Meredith as a "completely mundane exchange." (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that A.C. went to his locker between classes in violation of school rules. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff and another math teacher informed A.C. that he was not permitted to access his locker between classes. (Id. ¶ 32.) This 40-second interaction was captured on the school's security cameras. (Id. ¶ 34.)

After this interaction, A.C. submitted a written complaint to Principal Mowery. (Id. ¶ 35.) When Mowery received A.C.'s complaint, she did not report Meredith for abuse. (Id. ¶ 36.) Rather, Mowery called the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline three days later—on September 16, 2016—the date that M.S. contacted Mowery and stated that "her son had a diagnosis." (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff notes that A.C. was hospitalized for a mental injury sometime in May of 2016, but that he was not diagnosed with a psychological condition as a result of that incident. (Id. ¶ 39.)

Plaintiff alleges that Mowery's report to the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline "was nothing more than a rehash of an earlier report made by A.C.'s mother." (Id. ¶ 40.) Mowery did not provide any details about A.C.'s diagnosis. (Id.)

C. Previous Issues Between Plaintiff, M.S., and A.C.

Plaintiff alleges that the September 2016 incident was not the first dispute between Plaintiff and M.S. Plaintiff alleges that M.S. had embarked on a months-long campaign to attack Meredith and "ruin her life." (Id. ¶¶ 48-49.)

In April of 2016, M.S. filed an abuse report against Meredith with the Agency. (Id. ¶ 49.) M.S. alleged that Meredith had inappropriately disciplined A.C. (Id.) The Agency "screened out"M.S.'s abuse report and closed the case without thoroughly investigating M.S.'s allegations. (Id. ¶ 58.)

M.S. also reported Meredith to Jeff Tech administrators Mowery and Barry Fillman. (Id. ¶ 51.) M.S. accused Meredith of endangering A.C. and jeopardizing his safety. (Id.) Both Mowery and Fillman determined that M.S.'s allegations were baseless. (Id. ¶ 53.) Neither filed a report with the Agency, despite their obligation to report certain abuse allegations under Pennsylvania law. (Id. ¶ 55.) Mowery and Fillman did not take official action against Meredith after this incident. (Id. ¶¶ 54-59.) However, they did remove A.C. from Plaintiff's class "in the hopes that it would mollify M.S." (Id. ¶ 53.)

M.S. also reported Plaintiff to the police, the district attorney, and various school-board directors. (Id. ¶ 59.) None of these entities took official action against Plaintiff. (Id.)

In response to M.S.'s efforts, Plaintiff filed a defamation action against M.S. in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County. (Id. ¶ 60.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly referenced Plaintiff's lawsuit against M.S. whenever Mowery and other Jeff Tech officials reported Plaintiff to the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline in September of 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 60-63.)

D. Plaintiff's Participation at the Punxsutawney School Board Meeting

Sometime in August of 2016, roughly three weeks before Plaintiff allegedly abused A.C. in the Jeff Tech hallway, Plaintiff made a presentation at a meeting of the Punxsutawney School Board. (Id. ¶ 42.) Punxsutawney is a "feeder school" for Jeff Tech, meaning that vocational students from the Punxsutawney School District take classes at Jeff Tech. (Id.) At the school-board meeting, Plaintiff publicly expressed concerns about the school's failure to address bullying and special-needs education. (Id. ¶ 43.) The local newspaper thoroughly covered Plaintiff'sappearance at the August 2016 school-board meeting. (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff alleges that the Jeff Tech administration, including Mowery, strongly objected to Plaintiff's presentation at the school-board meeting, and that the administration issued a cease-and-desist letter voicing its displeasure. (Id. ¶ 45.)

E. Defendants' Investigation of the September 2016 Child-Abuse Allegations Against Plaintiff

The report that Mowery filed against Plaintiff on the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline reiterated the allegations from the April 2016 report that M.S. filed. (Id. ¶ 84.) The report also noted that Plaintiff had sued M.S. (Id.) Further, the report stated that Plaintiff stood in the school's hallway and stared at A.C. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that "[t]here was no allegation of neglect or physical abuse [in the report], and no allegation that A.C. suffered from any 'psychological condition' as that term is defined by [Pennsylvania law]. In other words, there was not the slightest basis for even a prima facie case of child abuse." (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the Agency handled the September 2016 report against Plaintiff differently than the April 2016 report, despite similar allegations. (Id. ¶ 92.) Plaintiff alleges that Jeff Tech—whose administrators filed the September 2016 report—had a special relationship with the Agency that caused it to handle the later report differently. (Id. ¶¶ 92-96.) Namely, Plaintiff alleges that the Agency and Jeff Tech had a special relationship because the same attorneys acted as the solicitors for both Jeff Tech and the Agency. (Id. ¶¶ 93-94.)

1. Welch's Interview of M.S. and A.C.

The Agency began its investigation of the September 2016 report by sending Defendant Joanna Welch—an Agency caseworker—to interview M.S. and A.C. (Id. ¶ 97.) Plaintiff allegesthat Welch "brought up the subject of enuresis, or bed-wetting, out of the blue." (Id.) M.S. agreed that A.C. experienced bed-wetting, although this information previously had not been divulged to medical professionals. (Id. ¶ 99.) A.C. did not mention bed-wetting during either of his hospitalizations in the six months prior to September 2016. (Id. ¶ 100.) Moreover, A.C. had informed his primary care physician that he did not have urinary problems on September 15, 2016—two days before Welch interviewed A.C. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Welch deliberately failed to investigate A.C.'s hospitalization for mental-health issues in May 2016. (Id. ¶ 104.) Plaintiff alleges that Welch did not seek more information on A.C.'s hospitalization because "[i]t would not serve to convict Meredith of child abuse, and in fact it would lead to the opposite conclusion." (Id. ¶ 106.) Rather, Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he records would have also demonstrated that Meredith had nothing to do with the one psychiatric hospitalization that A.C. had experienced, negating any suggestion that she caused or was responsible for a 'serious mental injury.'" (Id. ¶ 108.)

Plaintiff makes several other allegations regarding the impropriety of Welch's preliminary investigation of the complaint against her. Welch failed to inquire into other stressors in A.C.'s life that might have produced his mental-health symptoms. (Id. ¶ 115.) Welch also interviewed A.C. in the presence of his "crusading mother," which prevented A.C. from telling the truth. (Id. ¶¶ 116-17.)

2. Cornwell and Young Hire Dr. Ryen to Ensure an "Indicated Finding" of Child Abuse Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cynthia Cornwell—the Agency's Executive Director—and Defendant Natalie Young—an Agency casework supervisor—engaged a forensic expert to ensurean "indicated finding" of child abuse against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 132.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Cornwell and Young decided to engage a psychologist who they knew would falsely diagnose A.C. with a "serious mental injury." (Id. ¶¶ 134-35.)

Cornwell referred the abuse allegations to Defe...