Smoler v. Bd. of Educ.for W. Northfield Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20 CV 00493 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | DANA SMOLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION for WEST NORTHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #31, et al, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Dana Smoler, a former teacher, filed a complaint against the Board of Education and individual board members alleging that the board members breached their contract with her, defamed her reputation, and violated her constitutional right to due process. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Smoler's Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons below Defendants' motion [26] is denied in part and granted in part. Smoler's complaint is dismissed as to Counts I, II III, and V. The motion is denied as to Count IV.
The Court takes the following facts from Smoler's Second Amended Complaint. Winkelman School employed Smoler as a tenured teacher. Winkelman School belongs to West Northfield School District #31. Smoler was a member of the West Northfield Teachers' Association, which has a collective bargaining agreement in place with the Board of Education for the West Northfield School District (“Board”).
While working at Winkelman School, Smoler grew concerned with how one of her colleagues treated minority students on district-structured behavioral plans. After several negative interactions with this colleague, Smoler met with the assistant principal to discuss her concerns and receive advice as to how she should formally address the situation. Following that meeting, the administration launched an internal investigation. Smoler had no knowledge of this investigation.
After the investigation concluded, the situation was referred to the Board. In a closed meeting, the Board discussed the concerns disclosed in Smoler's conversation with the assistant principal. The Board didn't give notice of the meeting to Smoler and didn't inform her that she could have representation or an opportunity to respond to any accusations made against her. At the end of the meeting, the Board voted to issue Smoler a “Notice to Remedy.” Among other things, the Notice to Remedy stated that the Board found Smoler's performance unsatisfactory and that if she did not fix her deficiencies, she would risk termination. It also stated that Smoler “… knowingly made false statements about a colleague.” Smoler contends these accusations are false.
Following the Notice to Remedy, Smoler struggled to continue to work at Winkelman School. The administration shunned and ostracized her, took away her keys and access to the districts network, and changed the way she was evaluated. Moreover, several mentors told her that because of the Notice to Remedy, no other school district would employ her. Additionally, Smoler contends that she faced such significant emotional distress that she could not apply to any other jobs. She eventually went on Family and Medical Leave due to severe anxiety, though the administration told the staff and community members it was due to pregnancy. In the end, Smoler resigned from her position as a tenured teacher because of her working conditions.
Smoler subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint against the Northfield School District, the Board of Education for West Northfield School District, and five individual Board members. In that complaint, Smoler claimed three due process violations: a property interest violation; a liberty interest violation; and coerced resignation or, in the alternative, constructive discharge. She also brought two counts under state law for defamation and breach of contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismissed Smoler's property interest, liberty interest, coerced resignation, and breach of contract claims, in turn dismissing the School District and the individual Board Members in their official capacities. The Court declined to dismiss Smoler's constructive discharge and defamation claim.
On March 26, 2021, Smoler filed her Second Amended Complaint. This Complaint sues the Board of Education and the five individual Board members in their individual capacity. Smoler states the same five legal claims contained in her First Amended Complaint. She added several factual allegations to try and cure the previously identified deficiencies. The Board of Education and the five individual Board members filed a motion to dismiss.
Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) when a plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a court accepts all well-pled facts as true and will grant the motion only when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Nischan v. Stratosphere Quality, LLC, 865 F.3d 922, 928 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To determine whether a plaintiff's claim is plausible, a court will consider facts stated in the complaint, as well as any attached documents referred to in the complaint and central to plaintiff's claim. Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). Moreover, when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). This requires the court to draw all possible inferences in plaintiff's favor. Id.
Smoler brings three separate due process claims under 42 U.S.C § 1983: a violation of her due process property right (Count I), a violation of her due process liberty interests (Count III), and a claim for constructive discharge[1] (Count IV). She also alleges two state law violations: defamation (Count II) and breach of contract (Count V). Smoler brings her claims against several Defendants: the Board of Education of West Northfield School District #31 (“Board”) and five individual Board members present at the meeting (“Board members”). Defendants' move to dismiss all individual Board members as party-defendants and all claims against the Board. The Court first addresses the Defendants' arguments relating to the individual Board members as party-defendants and then the claims against the Board.
I. Claims against Defendant Board Members
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the claims against the individual Board members. In these claims, Smoler alleges that the Board and the individual Board members violated her procedural due process rights. Smoler concedes, and this Court has previously ruled, that the Court should dismiss any official capacity claim against the individual Board members as redundant. But Defendants also seek to dismiss Smoler's procedural due process claims against the Board members in their personal capacity. Smoler fails to respond to Defendants' arguments that the Court should dismiss the section 1983 claims against the individual Board members in their personal capacity.
Personal capacity suits seek to impose individual liability on a government officers for actions taken under color of state law. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). To support a §1983 claim against government actors in their personal capacity, a “plaintiff must plead that each government official Defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662, Thompson v. Vill. of Monee, No. 12 C 5020, 2013 WL 3337801, at *9 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2013). “[A]n official satisfies the personal responsibility requirement of section 1983… if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at his direction or with his knowledge and consent.” Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 369 (7th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted)). Put differently, without a showing of direct responsibility, personal liability will not lie against a government official. Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983)
Smoler does not allege facts from which the Court can infer that any individual Board member directly participated in a due process deprivation. As Defendants point out, the fact that the individual board members participated in a vote cannot form the basis of a claim against them. See Roberts v. Board of Educ., 25 F.Supp.2d 866, 868-869 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Therefore, because Smoler fails to show any kind of direct responsibility on the individual Board members' behalf, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted regarding the individual Board members as Defendants for Counts I, III, and IV.
II. Due Process Violations Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Smoler alleges that the Board violated her procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. “The Due Process Clause provides that certain substantive rights -- life, liberty, and property -- cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985). Smoler argues three separate theories of due process deprivations: a property interest, a liberty interest, and constructive discharge. The Court addresses each in turn.
In Count I, Smoler alleges the Defendants deprived her of her property interest without due process. Smoler argues that she had a constitutionally protected property interest in the Board following procedures included in the collective bargaining agreement regarding how to handle disciplinary issues. She maintains that the Defendants deprived her of due process of law when they didn't follow these procedures.
To adequately allege a procedural due process violation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial