Parker v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.

• Decision Date: 21 November 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1744
• Citation: 415 F.Supp.3d 544
• Parties: Erica PARKER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

415 F.Supp.3d 544

Erica PARKER

v.SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1744

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed November 21, 2019

Gary Schafkopf, Hopkins Schafkopf, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, L. Anthony Dijiacomo, III, Matthew B. Weisberg, Weisberg Law, Morton, PA, for Erica Parker.

Colin Stuart Haviland, Office of the General Counsel, Marvin Weinberg, Steven K. Ludwig, Andrew M. MacDonald, Fox Rothschild LLP, Franz Espanol, Beazley Group, Jacqueline K. Gallagher, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Luke E. McDaniels, Fisher & Phillips LLP, Radnor, PA, for School District Of Philadelphia, et al.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THOMAS J. RUETER, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Erica Parker, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her after she reported the suspected abuse of a minor child. Plaintiff also asserts a state law claim for wrongful termination.

Presently before the court are the motions for summary judgment filed by: (1) defendants Intercommunity Action, Inc. ("Interact"), Sharon Stark, and Ursala Wacyk (collectively, the "Interact Defendants"), see Doc. 77; (2) defendants the School District of Philadelphia ("SDP") and Jamal B. Dennis (collectively, the "SDP Defendants"), see Doc. 78; and (3) defendants Staffing Plus Holdings, Inc. ("Staffing Plus") and Alison Clark¹ (collectively, the "Staffing Plus Defendants"), see Docs. 79 and 80.²

The parties filed numerous documents in support of, and in response to, the motions for summary judgment.³ The court has considered all pleadings and documents submitted by the parties, including the exhibits appended to the parties' submissions. For the reasons stated herein, the motions for summary judgment, Docs. 77, 78, and 79, will be GRANTED .⁴

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Throughout her career, plaintiff has worked in various healthcare and counseling roles. See Doc. 79, Exh. Parker-1 (plaintiff's resume). Plaintiff was retained by Staffing Plus, a staffing corporation, as an independent contractor beginning in approximately 2000, and worked periodically over the years for varying periods of time and for various programs. See Doc. 58 (hereinafter "Staffing Plus Answer") at ¶ 4; Doc. 79, Exh. Parker-13 (Staffing Plus Independent Contractor Agreement); Doc. 86, Exh. A (hereinafter "Pl.'s Dep.") at 20:24-22:23, 99:20-100:17, 220:12-222:23. At times relevant to this case, Ms. Clark was employed by Staffing Plus as a recruiter and acted as plaintiff's recruiter. (Staffing Plus Answer at ¶ 5; Pl.'s Dep at 64:7-8.) In 2015, Staffing Plus provided orientation and training to plaintiff in a number of areas, including the reporting of suspected child abuse by mandatory reporters.⁵ See Doc. 79, Exh. Parker-2 (Independent Contractor Core Orientation Checklist); Doc. 79, Exh. Parker-3 (Plaintiff's Certificate of Completion for Core Orientation); Doc. 79, Exh. Parker-4 (Plaintiff's Certificate of Completion for Recognizing and Reporting Child Abuse); Pl.'s Dep at 23:12-24:22; 26:1-27:11). As an independent contractor working for Staffing Plus, plaintiff was a mandatory reporter and was responsible for reporting suspicions of child abuse.⁶ (Pl.'s Dep. at 24:23-25:13.)

Interact provides School Therapeutic Services ("STS") to students in the School District of Philadelphia pursuant to a contract with Community Behavioral Health. (Doc. 51 (hereinafter "Interact Ans.") at ¶¶ 15, 16.) In 2015, plaintiff was referred to Interact by Staffing Plus to work as a Lead Clinician. (Interact Ans. at ¶ 15; Pl.'s Dep. at 28:15-22.) Plaintiff was first assigned by Interact to Blaine elementary school,⁷ and then began working at Edward T. Steel Elementary School in September 2015. (Pl.'s Dep. at 29:4-8, 31:9-12, 132:10-18, 222:20-23, 235:5-8.)

While plaintiff was assigned to Steel, Mr. Dennis was the principal of the school and Ms. Stark, an Interact employee, worked as Clinical Coordinator in the STS program and supervised plaintiff. See Interact Ans. at ¶ 17; Doc. 77, Exh. 2 at ¶ 2 (hereinafter "Stark Decl."); Pl.'s Dep. at 151:11-23, 235:9-236:6.⁸ Ms. Wacyk, an Interact employee, directed Interact's STS division. (Stark Decl. at ¶ 3.) Mr. Dennis did not supervise plaintiff while she worked at Steel. (Pl.'s Dep. at 236:7-12.) No one from Staffing Plus worked onsite at Steel as an administrator or supervisor. (Pl.'s Dep. at 152:8-17.)

On Monday, October 5, 2015, plaintiff was sent to a classroom along with the school guidance counselor to conduct an intervention of a student; this student had been suspended the prior week for inappropriately touching other students. (Pl.'s Dep. at 48:5-14, 53:7-54:1.) The following day, October 6, 2015, the student again acted out in class. (Pl.'s Dep. at 54:6-11.) Plaintiff was called to the classroom to speak with the student and learned information that she felt necessitated a report to ChildLine.⁹ (Pl.'s Dep. at 54:7-8, 160:18-22, 161:11-16.) Plaintiff notified Ms. Stark of the situation. (Pl.'s Dep. at 54:13-15.) That evening, Ms. Stark left plaintiff a voicemail message advising plaintiff of the necessary procedures for reporting the suspicion of abuse. (Pl.'s Dep. at 54:20-55:1, 123:15-126:11.) Plaintiff made a report by calling ChildLine, including the information that the guidance counselor had not yet made a report, and completed an Interact incident report.¹⁰ (Pl.'s Dep. at 56:24-57:4, 127:1-5.)

Plaintiff gave the incident report to Ms. Stark on October 7, 2015. (Pl.'s Dep. at 163:8-12.) That day, plaintiff, accompanied by Ms. Stark, informed Mr. Dennis that she had filed the ChildLine report and was dismissed from his office. (Pl.'s Dep. at 238:19-239:6, 251:8-15.) Ms. Stark then conducted a regularly scheduled meeting with Mr. Dennis. (Stark Decl. at ¶ 14.) On October 9, 2015, Ms. Stark left a voicemail message for plaintiff indicating that Ms. Stark was to meet with the principal that morning and sought clarification regarding what the guidance counselor had told plaintiff regarding the student on October 6. (Pl.'s Dep. at 71:18-72:15, 107:7-17.) Plaintiff worked at Steel on October 8 and 9, 2015, but did not work on Monday, October 12, 2015, as it was Columbus Day, a holiday for the School District of Philadelphia. (Pl.'s Dep. at 225:3-23.) On October 13, 14, and 15, 2015, plaintiff did not work because she was ill. (Pl.'s Dep. at 226:3-10.)

As a Lead Clinician, plaintiff was required to maintain certain documentation, including DAP notes, which documented an individual student's daily progress, quarterly treatment plans, and SALs, which were essentially timesheets. (Pl.'s Dep. at 29:13-30:10, 150:9-24, 152:18-154:4, 154:9-158:1.) While assigned to Steel, plaintiff submitted this paperwork to her supervisor, Ms. Stark. (Pl.'s Dep. at 150:20-151:12, 153:23-154:6, 158:2-13.) Plaintiff acknowledged that her paperwork contained errors. (Pl.'s Dep. at 49:1-10.) Plaintiff also acknowledged that she had difficulty managing her caseload while at Steel. (Pl.'s Dep. at 50:12-51:16.) After plaintiff made the report to ChildLine, she continued to have issues with her time management and paperwork. (Stark Decl. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff sent an email to Ms. Wacyk dated October 13, 2015, in which she requested a meeting to discuss the difficulty she was having completing her required paperwork in a timely manner. (Pl.'s Dep. at 39:7-40:17.) On or around October 14, 2015, Ms. Stark became convinced that the deficiencies in plaintiff's work required that plaintiff be removed from her assignment at Steel. See Stark Decl. at ¶¶ 18-19; Doc. 77, Exh. 4 (Stark October 14, 2015 Email); Doc. 78, Exh. H (Stark 2016 Letter). Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Stark via text message not to report to work at Steel on October 16, 2019. (Doc. 86, Exh. C.) On October 15 or 16, 2015, plaintiff spoke with Ms. Clark who also informed plaintiff to no longer report to Steel. (Pl.'s Dep. at 171:11-172:1.) After leaving Steel in October 2015, plaintiff worked at a daycare center for several months. (Pl.'s Dep. at 200:24-201:23.)

In January 2016, plaintiff exchanged email correspondence with Kate Call, an employee of Staffing Plus who had the title of Senior Compliance Representative, regarding plaintiff's certifications and clearances. (Pl.'s Dep. at 133:7-134:15, 270:15-271:2.) Plaintiff recorded a voice memo to herself on August 31, 2016, in which she memorialized that she had stopped by the Staffing Plus offices regarding her certifications and was informed by a woman there that she had been "let go back in January 2016." (Pl.'s Dep. at 177:13-180:12, 184:16-186:10.)

Plaintiff presently contends that Mr. Dennis, Ms. Stark, Ms. Wacyk, and Ms. Clark "agreed and conspired to terminate plaintiff due to her statutorily-required report [of suspected child abuse], specifically because plaintiff reported all information, including the fact that [the guidance counselor]¹¹ failed to inform the appropriate authorities." (Doc. 33, Pl.'s Sec. Am. Compl. at ¶ 30.)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed this action on April 17, 2017, asserting claims of wrongful termination, federal and state whistleblower claims, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on June 27, 2017, see Doc. 18, and a Second Amended Complaint on June 13, 2018, see Doc. 33. Defendants SDP, Mr. Dennis, Staffing Plus, and Ms. Clark filed motions to dismiss. See Doc. 34, 44, 45. In a decision dated October 15, 2018, the Honorable Jan E. DuBois denied the motions as to defendants SDP, Mr. Dennis and Staffing Plus, but granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the wrongful termination claim against Ms. Clark. See Parker v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 346 F. Supp. 3d 738, 745 n.2 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

On July 9, 2019, the parties consented to jurisdiction before the undersigned and the case was referred for trial. (Docs. 71, 72.) At plaintiff's...