Puccinelli v. S. Conn. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 11 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-CV-00763 (SVN) |
| Parties | ANGELA PUCCINELLI, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY, JOE BERTOLINI, STEPHEN HEGEDUS, KARA FARACLAS, and ROBERT PREZANT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Angela Puccinelli has brought this action against Defendant Southern Connecticut State University (“SCSU”) and Defendants Joe Bertolini, Stephen Hegedus, Robert Prezant, and Kara Faraclas (the “Individual Defendants,” and collectively with SCSU “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants violated her rights by discriminating against her on the basis of her disability and retaliating against her when she was a student at SCSU. Plaintiff's amended complaint consists of eight claims. Plaintiff asserts her first three claims against all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law. Plaintiff brings her remaining claims against SCSU only, alleging: disability discrimination in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 794; disability discrimination and wrongful discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182; violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (the “CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-75; pregnancy discrimination in violation of the CFEPA, Conn Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b)(7); and retaliation in violation of the CFEPA, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-75.
Defendants seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims because Defendants are immune from suit and that Plaintiff has also failed to state any claims upon which relief can be granted. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff withdrew her § 1983 claims against SCSU. Plaintiff seeks to maintain her other claims, however, arguing that Defendants are not immune from suit and that she has stated claims upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons described below, the Court agrees with Defendants that all counts of the amended complaint must be dismissed because several claims are barred by sovereign immunity and because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to any remaining claims. The amended complaint is thus DISMISSED in full without prejudice to refiling.
Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges the following facts, which the Court takes as true for purposes of Defendants' motion to dismiss.[1] Plaintiff, who asserts that she is disabled because she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and anxiety resulting from a history of trauma and an upbringing in the foster care system, was formerly enrolled in SCSU's Special Education Teaching Program (the “Program”). Am. Compl., ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 2, 22. As a student in the Program Plaintiff was seeking a bachelor's degree in kindergarten through twelfth grade Special Education and a Comprehensive Special Education Teaching Certification, so that she could pursue a career working with special education students. Id. ¶¶ 2, 22. During her time in the Program, Plaintiff sought accommodations from SCSU to address anxiety she experienced in certain academic settings. Id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiff asserts that, throughout her time at SCSU, she experienced discrimination and retaliation, was denied the protection of SCSU's policies and procedures, and was held to a higher standard than her non-disabled peers. Id. ¶ 25. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that SCSU and its faculty and staff discriminated and retaliated against her in the following ways. First, in January of 2019, when Plaintiff approached an SCSU professor to resolve confusion related to a clerical error on a course website and to discuss the concepts of the course curriculum, the professor became angry at Plaintiff and, using profanity, told Plaintiff that she was not fit to be a teacher and should reconsider her degree. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Despite Plaintiff reporting this incident to the Associate Dean of SCSU's School of Education and the Chair of SCSU's Curriculum and Learning Department, SCSU failed to take meaningful action. Id. ¶ 28. Then, in or around May of 2019, Plaintiff reported that students were bullying her based on her disability, but SCSU again failed to take meaningful action in response to Plaintiff's concerns. Id. ¶ 29. Throughout the spring and summer of 2019, Plaintiff experienced an increase in her anxiety due to various stressors in her life. Id. ¶ 30. As a result, Plaintiff sought support from SCSU's Disability Resource Center and contacted several SCSU faculty and staff to seek accommodations. Id.
As her final requirement to complete the Program and receive her initial teaching certification, Plaintiff was scheduled to take part in a student teaching placement in the fall of 2019. See Id. ¶¶ 4, 31, 32. In July of 2019, Defendant Hegedus, Dean of SCSU's College of Education, sent a letter to Plaintiff conveying his decision that she would not be permitted to complete the student teaching program based on her request for accommodations and due to certain unspecified “recent incidents.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 31. Plaintiff describes this decision as a “unilateral[]” decision on the part of Hegedus that constituted a form of “discipline.” Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. Plaintiff voiced concerns regarding Hegedus's decision to her advisor, who set up a meeting with Hegedus to discuss the letter he had sent to Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 34-36.
Plaintiff met with her advisor and Hegedus in late July of 2019. Id. ¶¶ 36-37. At the conclusion of the meeting, Hegedus allowed Plaintiff to proceed with her fall student teaching placement, but he expressed concerns about whether Plaintiff could be successful in light of her anxiety. Id. ¶¶ 38-39, 48. Plaintiff was also told that, if a negative situation were to arise, she might be removed from her student teaching placement and that it was unlikely that SCSU would secure a new placement for her. Id. ¶ 39. In addition, Hegedus indicated that Defendants would increase their supervision of Plaintiff during her student teaching placement. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff asserts that the decisions made during this meeting-as well as the initial decision, conveyed in Hegedus's letter, to remove her from the Program-were based primarily on Plaintiff's difficulty communicating via email and that, as a result, Defendants agreed to have in-person communications with Plaintiff during her student teaching placement. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff further asserts that the decisions constituted changes to the requirements for completing her student teaching experience, and that SCSU was required to provide Plaintiff with due process before changing these requirements. Id. ¶¶ 43, 47.
In August of 2019, Plaintiff began her student teaching placement at Moran Middle School. Id. ¶¶ 4, 50. At the time Plaintiff began her student teaching placement, she had earned a 3.95 grade point average, achieved high honors at SCSU, and had previously successfully completed one student teaching placement at a different school. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 24, 44-46. Plaintiff was scheduled to complete the Program at the end of 2019. Id. ¶ 4. After Plaintiff's first week of student teaching, the cooperating teacher supervising Plaintiff provided her with positive feedback and told her that she would likely find a job quickly. Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiff shared this positive feedback with her advisor at SCSU. Id. ¶ 54. Early in her student teaching placement, Plaintiff also discussed her disabilities and history of trauma with her cooperating teacher, id. ¶ 56, and the cooperating teacher noticed that Plaintiff had scars on her arms from her history of cutting, id. ¶¶ 5, 57-58. The cooperating teacher thereafter instructed Plaintiff not to work with a particular student, who also had a history of trauma and cutting. Id. ¶¶ 5, 58, 60. Plaintiff, who asserts that the cooperating teacher's direction discriminated against her and violated the student's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), raised concerns about the direction to the cooperating teacher. Id. ¶¶ 5, 65, 68, 70. In response, Plaintiff's cooperating teacher was frustrated and combative and refused to provide Plaintiff with any further explanation. Id. ¶ 64.
On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff's advisor informed her that there had been a change to Plaintiff's student teaching schedule and that Plaintiff would need to meet with a team of SCSU personnel. Id. ¶ 66. Upon receiving this information, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Faraclas, Chair of SCSU's Special Education Department, expressing concerns about issues related to her student teaching placement. Id. ¶ 68. Plaintiff received no immediate response from Faraclas. Id. Plaintiff thereafter made multiple attempts to contact SCSU faculty to seek guidance regarding her placement and how to ensure she satisfied the requirements for completing the Program. Id. ¶ 70. Plaintiff grew increasingly anxious and frustrated when she did not receive a meaningful response. Id. ¶ 71. Plaintiff claims that, through this sequence of events, Defendants violated Hegedus's promise to have in-person communications with Plaintiff throughout her student teaching placement. Id. Plaintiff further claims that Defendants had notice that their failure to communicate with her in-person would increase her anxiety. Id.
Plaintiff subsequently sought an in-person meeting with Faraclas, which was scheduled to take place on September 16, 2019 Id. ¶ 72. Faraclas, however, canceled the meeting and...
To continue reading
Request your trial