Raines v. Coll. Now Greater Cleveland, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00003 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | VALERIE RAINES, Plaintiff, v. COLLEGE NOW GREATER CLEVELAND, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Defendant The Cleveland Foundation moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Valerie Raines's Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 Plaintiff opposes.2 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Defendants College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc. ("College Now"), the City of Cleveland, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, and The Cleveland Foundation ("the Foundation") formed the Higher Education Compact of Greater Cleveland (the "Compact") to help Clevelandyouth with higher education.3
On or about 1, 2012, Defendants hired Plaintiff Raines as Executive Director of the Compact.4 Defendants told Raines they intended to employ her for at least three years.5
During her employment, Raines wrote a report titled "Higher Education Compact of Greater Cleveland; Strategic Issues Paper: Student Information Access" (the "Student Privacy Report").6 The Student Privacy Report detailed potential violations of student privacy rights.7 Raines told the Defendants her worries that student privacy rights might be violated because the Compact allowed access to student information.8
On or around, January 18, 2013, Defendants, acting through the Compact, fired Raines.9 The Compact then replaced Plaintiff Raines with a substantially younger individual.10
After being fired, Plaintiff Raines filed a Complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants College Now, the Compact, the City of Cleveland, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District ("CMSD"), the Cleveland Foundation, and public employees Monyka Price and Eric Gordon.11
On January 8, 2014, the Defendants removed the case to this Court.12 In her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Raines brings claims against the Foundation for civil conspiracy in violation of42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Third Cause of Action), public policy wrongful discharge (Fourth Cause of Action), tortious spoliation of evidence (Fifth Cause of Action), breach of contract (Sixth Cause of Action), promissory estoppel (Seventh Cause of Action), and age discrimination and aiding and abetting age discrimination under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 (Ninth & Tenth Causes of Action).13
On March 19, 2014, Defendant The Cleveland Foundation filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.14 Plaintiff opposed.15 The motion is ripe.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.' "16 The plausibility requirement is not a "probability requirement," but requires "more than a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully."17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides the general standard of pleading and only requires that a complaint "contain . . . a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."18 "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothingmore than conclusions."19 In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a court should assume the[ ] veracity" of "well-pleaded factual allegations."20
Defendant The Cleveland Foundation says that Plaintiff Raines cannot state a claim under Section 1983 because The Cleveland Foundation is not a state actor. To make a Section 1983 claim, plaintiffs must establish that they were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States and that this deprivation was caused by a person acting under the color of state law.21 When a defendant is a private entity, the Sixth Circuit uses three tests to determine whether its "conduct is fairly attributable to the state: the public function test, the state compulsion test, and the nexus test."22
However, these tests are not relevant in cases, such as the one before the Court,23 where there are allegations of cooperation or concerted action between the state and private actors.24 When a "private party [...] conspire[s] with state officials to violate constitutional rights, then that party qualifies as a state actor and may be held liable pursuant to § 1983."25 In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show "there was a single plan, that the alleged coconspirator sharedin the general conspiratorial objective, and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused injury to the complainant."26
Here, Raines sufficiently alleges all the elements of conspiracy to survive the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Raines says that a single plan existed (there was a joint decision); that the conspirators shared in the general objective (to violate Raines's constitutional rights); and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused injury (to fire Raines in violation of her constitutional rights).27 Plaintiff Raines has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for civil conspiracy against Defendant The Cleveland Foundation.
With her Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff says Defendants fired her in violation of Ohio public policy. The Cleveland Foundation says that Plaintiff Raines's public policy wrongful discharge cannot succeed because Plaintiff Raines failed to identify a clear public policy that prohibited her termination.28 29
An Ohio employer may generally fire an at-will employee for any reason at any time. However, Ohio recognizes an exception to the at-will doctrine for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, commonly known as a Greeley claim.30
To state an Ohio public policy wrongful discharge claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) a"clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law (the clarity element)"; (2) "dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element)"; (3) Plaintiff's "dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (the causation element)"; and (4) Plaintiff's employer "lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (the overriding justification element)."31
The clarity and jeopardy elements of the test are issues of law for a court's determination, while the causation and overriding justification elements are questions for the fact finder.32
To satisfy the clarity element of a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim, "a terminated employee must articulate a clear public policy by citation of specific provisions in the federal or state constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law."33 The specific provisions must be applicable to the plaintiff.34
In the present case, Raines does not demonstrate a clear public policy forbidding the discharge of employees for objecting to violations of student privacy rights. In trying to satisfy the clarity element, Raines cites the Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g as well as Ohio Revised Code Sections 3319.321, 1347.05 and 1347.071. However, the laws that Raines cites do not apply to her discharge.
20 U.S.C. § 1232g only applies to "educational agencies or institutions."35 While The Cleveland Foundation may have funded a program with an educational goal, the Foundation is notan educational agency or institution.
Ohio Revised Code Section 3319.321 limits public access to student records.36 Section. 1347.05 requires every state or local agency with a personal information system to implement procedures to protect personal information.37 Section1347.071 places limits on the placement of personal information in interconnected or combined systems.38
More relevant, Ohio Administrative Code 4123-16-13 provides for the suspension or removal of "[a]ny employee who initiates or otherwise contributes to any disciplinary or other punitive action against any individual who brings to the attention of appropriate authorities, the press, or any member of the public evidence of unauthorized use of personal information."39 This Ohio regulation reflects sufficient clarity to satisfy Defendant's motion to dismiss the public policy claim.
Defendant The Cleveland Foundation says that Plaintiff Raines cannot state a claim for spoliation of evidence because she cannot show her case was disrupted.40
To state a claim for spoliation of evidence, a plaintiff must establish "(1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) knowledge on the part of defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff's case, (4) disruption of the plaintiff's case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant's acts."41
In her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Raines alleges that Defendant believed litigationwas likely and willfully destroyed their electronic copy of the Student Privacy Report.42 Plaintiff Raines also says that she has a physical copy of the report but says that metadata associated with the report has independent importance.
Although her spoilation claim is not clear regarding damages, we are at the motion to dismiss claim. While Raines's claim may not survive summary judgment, she sufficiently alleges a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Raines only has a hard copy of the Student Privacy Report. She does not possess the metadata from the document. We will later...
To continue reading
Request your trial