Suniaga v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2283 |
| Citation | 504 F.Supp.3d 430 |
| Parties | SUNIAGA, et al. v. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Jeffrey P. Hoyle, The Law Offices of Jeffrey P. Hoyle, Esq., Media, PA, for Leo Suniaga, Jacquelyn Suniaga.
Michael I. Levin, David William Brown, Levin Legal Group, P.C., Huntingdon Valley, PA, for Downingtown Area School District, Dr. Emilie M. Lonardi, Sharon Standish, Thomas Mulvey, Dr. Dawn R. Lawless.
Samuel C. Stretton, West Chester, PA, for Megan Murphy, Jennifer Chicosky.
William T. Wilson, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC, West Chester, PA, for Rebecca German.
MEMORANDUM DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
I. INTRODUCTION ...438
III. LEGAL STANDARD...446
IV. DISCUSSION...447
V. CONCLUSION ...458
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs in this case are Leo Suniaga and his wife, Jacquelyn Suniaga.1 Leo Suniaga (hereinafter, "Suniaga") was employed by Downingtown Area School District (DASD) as a health/physical education teacher until he was allegedly constructively discharged after facing disciplinary action and scorn by some parents over comments allegedly made by him to sixth-grade students in one of his health classes. There are two groups of Defendants in this case: School District Defendants and non-School District Defendants. The School District Defendants in this case are Downingtown Area School District, Dr. Emilie Leonardi (Superintendent), Sharon Standish (former HR Director), Thomas Mulvey (Principal of Marsh Creek Sixth Grade Center), and Dr. Dawn Lawless (Principal of Beaver Creek Elementary School). The non-School District Defendants are Megan Murphy, Rebecca German, Lisa Gulati, and Jennifer Chicosky, who are parents of children in the DASD and local residents.
Suniaga and his wife bring eleven counts: I) Violation of due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 () against all School District Defendants; II) Violation of due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 () against all School District Defendants; III) Violation of substantive due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 () against all School District Defendants; IV) Request for declaratory judgment against DASD; V) Conspiracy to deprive Suniaga of his constitutional rights against all individual Defendants; VI) Claim for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against all Defendants; VII) State law claims for defamation against all individuals named as Defendants; VIII) Intentional infliction of emotional distress against all individuals named as Defendants; IX) Intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective contractual relations against all individuals named as Defendants; X) Invasion of privacy and false light against all individuals named as Defendants; and XI) Loss of consortium against all Defendants.
In response, Defendants DASD, Principal Lawless, Superintendent Leonardi, Principal Mulvey, and former HR Director Standish filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rebecca German (a non-School District Defendant) filed a separate Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
Plaintiff Leo Suniaga was employed by Downingtown Area School District (DASD) as a health and physical education teacher. He taught in the DASD elementary school for nineteen years until he was asked to switch to the Marsh Creek Sixth Grade Center (MCSC) beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. All physical education and health classes at MCSC are coed, and all students receive the same instruction in accordance with the specific curriculum approved by Defendants DASD, Principal Mulvey, and Superintendent Leonardi.
During the 2018-2019 school year, a new learning unit on Human Growth & Development was introduced into the health class curriculum at MCSC. The unit began during the last week of April 2019, and the second class session covered "Adolescence a Time of Change" from the students’ textbook. In presenting the material, Suniaga read from the textbook verbatim, telling students:
[T]hink about how your body has changed in the last few years ... Look at any group of teens, and you'll probably see big differences between the individuals. One teen may be a head taller than another who is the same age. Some teens may look younger or older than they really are. These differences are caused by the changes teens go through during adolescence.
According to the Amended Complaint, Suniaga then observed that the students could see the changes they and their classmates had gone through since the beginning of the school year, and that as the textbook states, students go through these changes and they occur at different times and speeds for each student. To make the students feel more comfortable as they contemplated where they were in the puberty process, Suniaga stated that some students were eleven years old and some twelve years old and asked for a show of hands. He then asked if the students had observed a big differential in height and development, saying "some of you are taller, some of you are shorter," and words to that effect. Id. ¶ 34. As an example, he pointed out that one particular female student grew taller from the beginning of the year and that one particular male student had grown taller than others, but stated that the process continues and students catch up over time. Suniaga also stated that he was the shortest kid in his class until he caught up in seventh grade.
While going through the written material and the images on the page showing a male and a female, Suniaga explained that as students their age go through puberty, their bodies change and they begin to look older and more like adults. Suniaga asked the students if they felt they looked older or younger than their age and then compared the changes that males go through versus females exactly as the textbook outlined. The figures in the textbook show that males accumulate less body fat to muscle than females, so Suniaga explained that the difference did not mean that girls were fatter than boys, but only that the ratio of muscle to fat was different.
At one point, according to the Amended Complaint, a student asked why girls shave their legs and boys do not, to which Suniaga replied that it was culturally related and that many girls in this country shave their legs, and then asked for a show of hands. Approximately twelve girls raised their hands. Suniaga also replied to questions from boys regarding shaving their lips and faces and made similar queries of the boys.
On May 7, 2019, while teaching the Human Growth & Development unit, Suniaga was told to report to Principal Mulvey's office after finishing classes. The meeting included Mulvey, former HR director Standish, and Suniaga's local Union President.3 Suniaga was told he was being placed on administrative leave with pay pending an investigation. Despite asking several times, Suniaga was not provided with any information about the reason for his leave, and Mulvey said he would be advised of the investigation results shortly.
Suniaga was then asked to leave school, not return until further notice, and refrain from any contact with students/DASD personnel. Suniaga remained on administrative leave with pay for the remainder of the week, receiving no further information.
On May 14, 2019, Suniaga received a Notice of Allegations letter from former HR Director Standish, informing him of four allegations to be addressed on May 17 at an informal hearing (hereinafter, the "Loudermill hearing"). The allegations related to a health class Suniaga taught on May 6 as well as a brief discussion Suniaga had with another student several days before while accessing the school website to submit student grades on his laptop. The letter suggested that if the allegations were true, they "may constitute neglect of duty, persistent negligence in the performance of duties, persistent and willful violation of school laws, and improper conduct." Id. ¶ 46. The letter was the first time Suniaga was provided with the allegations.
By the time Suniaga received the letter, his absence from teaching was the subject of increasing speculation at MCSC. A colleague(s) called Suniaga to say that one teacher overheard a female student bragging about getting Suniaga fired, and another teacher heard that Principal Mulvey received a report from that student's parent that some boys teased her about her physical development after attending Suniaga's class. The parent believed the reason for the teasing was that Suniaga made an inappropriate remark about their daughter's physique. Based on a written order from the School District Defendants (DASD, Superintendent Leonardi, former HR director Standish, Principal Mulvey, and Principal Lawless (from Beaver Creek Elementary School)), Suniaga was prevented from discussing the allegations with colleagues or conducting his own investigation to prepare a defense.
Due to one or more of the Defendants’ unavailability, the Loudermill hearing was rescheduled from May 17 to May 29, which was nine days before the end of the school year. On May 29, Suniaga appeared with his Union representatives at the hearing, which was conducted by DASD Attorney Levin. Suniaga claims that in spite of the numerous representations of what was allegedly reported to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLintock v. City of Phila.
... ... Taylor v. Brandywine Sch. Dist. , 202 Fed. App'x 570, 575 (3d Cir. 2006) ; see also ... ...
-
Detective Moses President v. Gov't of the V.I.
...at the pleading stage, qualified immunity must be “established on the face of the complaint.” Suniaga v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 504 F.Supp.3d 430, 450 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting Thomas v. Indep. Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 291 (3d Cir. 2006)). Courts determine whether a government official is e......