Spellman v. Sch. Bd. of Chesapeake
| Decision Date | 15 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17cv635 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | DANNETTA G. SPELLMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, Defendant. |
DANNETTA G. SPELLMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, Defendant.
Case No. 2:17cv635
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division
October 15, 2018
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff Dannetta G. Spellman ("Plaintiff") instituted this cause of action by filing a two count Complaint, asserting that her former employer, the City of Chesapeake, Virginia Public Schools and the School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia had discriminated against her in her former employ as a public school teacher. ECF No. 1. On January 30, 2018, pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties, the claims against Defendant City of Chesapeake, Virginia Public Schools were dismissed with prejudice, leaving the School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia ("Defendant") as the sole Defendant in this action. See ECF No. 9 ("Joint Stipulation"). On February 27, 2018, Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, seeking dismissal of the first count of the Complaint. ECF No. 11-12. The Chief United States District Judge referred the matter to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge ("the undersigned") for a Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. On April 5, 2018, the undersigned entered a Report and Recommendation that recommended granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but allowing Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her Complaint. ECF No. 19. The recommended disposition was accepted in full by the Chief United States District Judge, and Plaintiff was given until May
Page 2
21, 2018, to file an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 20.
On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint containing three counts: (1) racial discrimination in violation of Title VII; (2) racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. ¶¶ 1981, 1983, and due process rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and (3) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). ECF No. 21. On June 4, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (and Memorandum in Support) as to all counts of the Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 22-23.
Before the Court is Defendant School Board of the City of Chesapeake, Virginia's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and accompanying Memorandum in Support, filed on June 4, 2018. ECF Nos. 22-23. The Motion asserts that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff timely filed both an Opposition and an Amended Opposition thereto, ECF Nos. 24, 27, to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. 29. On July 2, 2018, this matter was again referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to a Referral Order from the Chief United States District Judge. ECF No. 31; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 72. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's Request for a Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Spellman's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26, the undersigned makes this recommendation without a hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Eastern District of Virginia Local Civil Rule 7(J). For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Page 3
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint's three counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 23, passim.
A. Rule 12(b)(6)
A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Jordan v. Alt. Res. Corp., 458 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir. 2006). In considering this motion, the Court must assume that the facts alleged are true, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000); Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). To be sufficient under Rule 8, the pleading must meet two basic requirements: (1) it must contain sufficient factual allegations and (2) those allegations must be plausible. Adiscov, LLC v. Autonomy Corp., 762 F. Supp. 2d 826, 829 (E.D. Va. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)); see also McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 2015) ("The Supreme Court has accordingly held that Rule 8(a)(2) requires that 'a complaint . . . contain[ ] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' in the sense that the complaint's factual allegations must allow a 'court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'") (emphasis in original) (alternations in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); see also Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (2012)) (finding a complaint inadequate because its
Page 4
allegations "fail[ed] to establish a plausible basis for believing . . . that race was the true basis for [the adverse employment action]").
First, sufficient factual allegations include "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause of action will not do;" rather, "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Second, to "nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," id. at 570, "plaintiff[s] [must] plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Indeed, to achieve factual plausibility, plaintiffs must allege more than "naked assertions . . . without some further factual enhancement." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Otherwise, the complaint will "stop[] short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id.
Consequently, when considering a motion to dismiss, only those allegations which are factually plausible are "entitled to the assumption of truth." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (noting that legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations). "At bottom, determining whether a complaint states on its face a plausible claim for relief and therefore can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
As it must, the undersigned assumes the following facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 21, are true. These facts include that on or about February 28, 2017, Plaintiff's employment as a public school teacher in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia was officially terminated by Defendant. Id. at 13, ¶ 29. Plaintiff was initially hired in February 1984
Page 5
and served as an educator for thirty-two (32) years as both a classroom teacher and as a continuing contract teacher until her termination, primarily at Hickory Elementary School, located in Chesapeake, Virginia. Id. at 7, ¶¶ 18-19; see also Id., attach. 1 at 1. In the 2013-2014 school year, Kimberly Pinello ("Pinello"), a white female, became principal of Hickory Elementary School and Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Id. at 8, ¶ 20. Prior to Pinello's administration, Plaintiff had received satisfactory annual performance evaluations and was never subjected to disciplinary actions. Id. at 7-8, ¶ 20. Sometime after Pinello's arrival, Pinello placed Plaintiff on a performance improvement plan ("PIP"). Id. at 8, ¶ 21. On or about May 31, 2016, Pinello recommended Plaintiff's dismissal to Defendant on the grounds that Plaintiff was incapable of competent job performance. Id. at 12-13, ¶ 25. At the time of Plaintiff's proposed termination, Plaintiff was 60 years old and one of only two black educators at Hickory Elementary School, out of a total of approximately thirty (30) educators. Id. at 2, ¶ 2; Id. at 13, ¶ 26. The other black educator was thirty-three (33) years old. Id. at 13, ¶ 26. Ultimately, Defendant accepted Pinello's recommendation, and upheld the termination of Plaintiff's employment on February 28, 2017. Id. at 10, ¶ 27.
On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Virginia EEOC. Id., attach. 1. In this Charge, Plaintiff alleged that she had been subject to race and age discrimination in her termination and also in the time leading up to her termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See id., attach. 1 at 1 (checking "race" and "age" boxes when asked to indicate the basis of the alleged discrimination). The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on September 13, 2017, which Plaintiff received by mail on September 15, 2017. Id., attach. 2; see also id. at 6, ¶ 16.
On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a two count Complaint in this Court. ECF No. 1.
Page 6
The Court interpreted Count I as asserting four claims: (1) race discrimination pursuant to Title VII; (2) gender discrimination pursuant to Title VII; (3) race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"); and (4) gender discrimination under § 1981. See id. at 10-11, ¶¶ 28-33. Count II asserted a claim for age discrimination. See id. at 12-13.
On February 27, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Complaint and an accompanying...
To continue reading
Request your trial