Stevens v. Shelton
| Decision Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 C 8710,17 C 8710 |
| Parties | ERIKA STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. TARA SHELTON, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Erika Stevens, a Chicago Public School teacher, brings this action against defendants Tara Shelton, Andrew Rhodes, Patricia Davlantes and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (the "Board") to redress discrimination, harassment and retaliation due to her alleged disability and participation in protected union activity. Specifically, Stevens alleges discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation and interference by the Board under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), (b)(5), and 12203(a) and (b), and violations by some or all of the defendants of her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Stevens also brings claims for defamation per se, false imprisonment and battery. Currently before the Court is Defendants' partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), R. 25. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the "sufficiency of the complaint." Berger v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 843 F.3d 285, 289 (7th Cir. 2016). A complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), sufficient to provide defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and the basis for it. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). This standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "'A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In applying this standard, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 646 (7th Cir. 2018).
Stevens taught advanced math at South Loop Elementary School for over 8 years prior to the events giving rise to her lawsuit. R. 21-1 ¶ 4. At all relevant times, defendant Tara Shelton was the principal of South Loop Elementary, defendantAndrew Rhodes was the assistant principal, and defendant Patricia Davlantes was South Loop Elementary's resident principal.1 Id. ¶¶ 5-7. Shelton, Rhodes and Davlantes supervised Stevens, and all are Board employees. Id. ¶¶ 4-8.
Stevens alleges that she was diagnosed with a medical condition in or about summer 2013 that causes potentially incapacitating reactions to stress. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Stevens informed Shelton of her condition shortly after diagnosis and explained that she would need to take sick days to address symptoms. Id. ¶¶ 17, 22-24. Thereafter, Stevens took time off to address symptoms, but typically did not exceed her allotted sick time. According to Stevens, both her job performance and her students' performance remained strong. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19.
Nevertheless, in the fall of 2014, Shelton became upset with Stevens taking so much time off, demanded that she stop, and evaluated Stevens negatively when she continued to do so. Id. ¶¶ 18, 21, 25. Then Shelton began interrupting Stevens's classes, at one point taking over Stevens's lesson, and eventually assigned an assistant teacher to Stevens's classroom over her objection. Id. ¶¶ 26-29. At some point, Shelton and Stevens met with Stevens's representative from the Chicago Teachers Union.2 Stevens's union representative asked Shelton whether she treated Stevens poorly because of her medical condition. Shelton allegedly replied thatStevens "did miss a lot of days." Id. ¶¶ 40-41. According to the union representative, Shelton was "singling" Stevens out, as "no other teacher faced this kind of treatment." Id. ¶ 42.
Then, in or about September 2016, Shelton imposed a new rule requiring teachers to explain how each work assignment related to grade level teaching goals. Id. ¶ 31. Stevens felt the rule imposed unnecessary work, particularly for her, because her students performed at varying levels above grade level. Id. ¶ 32. At some point thereafter, Stevens filed a class grievance with the union complaining about the rule. Id. ¶ 33. According to Stevens, Shelton then began retaliating against her on a daily basis. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. Stevens specifically complains that in May 2017, Shelton began interfering with student examinations, including by cancelling student testing or removing Stevens's students from her classroom during testing, questioning her students about whether Stevens was cheating on tests, and encouraging them to accuse her of cheating.3 Id. ¶¶ 38, 56-57. She also alleges that Shelton interrupted Stevens's class, gave students incorrect information about their lessons, began "observing" her classes to create new and increasing demands, started writing Stevens up for overusing certain instruction methods despite that her students were performing well, and yelled at her for taking her students outside, despite other teachers being permitted to do so. Id. ¶¶ 34-37, 49, 57. According to Stevens,Davlantes also interfered with her students' examinations, including by being disruptive and cutting testing short. Id. ¶ 39, 43-44, 48.
On or about June 2, 2017, Defendants again removed Stevens's students from her classroom for testing. Davlantes asked Stevens to leave the testing room, but Rhodes physically blocked her exit, grabbing her arm.4 Id. ¶¶ 50-53. Davlantes and Rhodes suspended testing. Id. ¶ 54.
Finally, on June 7, 2017, Shelton told Stevens that she was being investigated for cheating on student examinations and instructed her to leave school property. Id. ¶ 61. Shelton asked for the keys to Stevens's file cabinet before she left. Id. ¶ 62. Stevens refused to turn the keys over. Shelton blocked her exit and called the police. Id. Over an hour later, apparently because neither Shelton nor Stevens backed down, a Board attorney and a Union attorney arrived and Stevens left. Id. ¶ 63. Stevens complains that Defendants did not follow proper procedure when Shelton "removed and excluded" her from school property. Id. ¶ 70. The Board brought termination charges against Stevens, and a hearing was held on September 10 and November 2, 2018. Id. ¶ 72; R. 42. The parties informed the Court that they have received the hearing officer's Findings and Recommendation, and that the Board will decide whether to accept the Findings and Recommendation at the April 24, 2019 Board meeting.
Stevens filed this action on December 1, 2017. R. 1. On April 5, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss portions of Stevens's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). R. 18. Then, on April 24, 2018 and with the Court's permission, Stevens filed an amended complaint, which counsel indicated would remedy some of the deficiencies about which Defendants complained in their motion. R. 21. Thereafter, on May 17, 2018, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss, pointing out that Stevens's amended complaint was "almost identical" to the original and "the amendment did not cure the deficiencies." R. 25 at 1 (emphasis in original).
The allegations outlined earlier have given rise to a virtual smorgasbord of constitutional, federal statutory and state law claims. Specifically, Stevens's amended complaint alleges:5 (1) the Board discriminated against her based on her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (Count I); (2) the Board failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) (Count II); (3) the Board retaliated against her in violation of, and interfered with her rights under, the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) and (b) (Count III); (4) the Board and the individual defendants retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights because she filed a grievance with her union (Count IV); (5) the Board and the individual defendants violated Stevens's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection when they harassed and retaliated against herfor filing the grievance and/or because she was a "successful teacher" (Count V); (6) the Board and the individual defendants violated Stevens's Fourteenth Amendment rights when they removed her from South Loop Elementary and suspended her without following established process (Count VI(a)); (7) the Board and Shelton refused to allow Stevens to leave when Shelton told Stevens she was suspended in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights (Count VI(b)); (8) Shelton engaged in defamation per se when she falsely accused Stevens of cheating on standardized tests (Count IX); (9) Rhodes committed battery against her when he grabbed her arm and blocked her path (Count X); and (10) Shelton falsely imprisoned Stevens when she refused to allow her to leave the building following her notice of suspension (Count XI). Stevens purports to bring all claims against one or more individual defendants in both their individual and official capacities. She alleges that Shelton's accusations of cheating have affected her professional reputation, and that student examination performance is a major basis upon which teachers are evaluated. Id. ¶¶ 45, 66. She asserts that she has been unable to teach summer school or seek a position with an after-school program...
To continue reading
Request your trial