Ulmschneider v. Los Banos Unified Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | 1:11-cv-1767 AWI GSA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CHARLES ULMSCHNEIDER, Plaintiff, v. LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LOS BANOS TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION; DAN MARTIN; DUKE MARSHALL; DR. CHARLES MARTIN; CHERYL MOODY; ANTHONY PARREIRA; JAMES ORR; SHANNA SPIVA; STEVE TIETJEN; AARON BARCELLOS; COLLEEN MENEFE DENNIS AREIAS; DAN GOIN; ANDREE SOARES; CAROLE WYNNE, RANDY NOCITO; PAUL ALDERETE, and DOES through 50. Defendants. |
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
(Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Charles Ulmschneider ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant first amended complaint alleging employment discrimination. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff is challenging his termination as a teacher from Los Banos Unified School District ("LBUSD"). He names LBUSD; the Los Banos Teachers' Association ("LBTA"); Paul Alderete, a Superintendent at LBUSD,1 Dan Martin, the principal at Los Banos High School ("LBHS");Duke Marshall, the Dean of LBHS; Charles Martin, the Assistant Superintendent of LBHS; Cheryl Moody the President of the LBTA; Anthony Parreira, the Vice President of the LBTA; James Orr, a member of the LBTA; Shanna Spiva, the Personnel Director of LBUSD; Dr. Steven Tietjen, the Superintendent of LBUSD; Aaron Barcellos the President of the LBUSD school board; Carole Wynne, a teacher and Chair of the LBUSD Foreign Language Department; Randy Nocito, a teacher and member of the Peer Assistance Review ("PAR") at LBHS; and Colleen Menefee, Dennis Areias, Don Goin, all members of the LBUSD School Board (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court has screened the complaint, and upon review of the first amended pleading recommends that the case be dismissed with leave to amend.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court determines that the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment.
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949.
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts insupport of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Plaintiff began working at LBHS as a foreign language teacher in July 1999. He contends that he has excellent educational and teaching credentials and he received tenure in April 2001. (Doc. 9, at Exhibit A). However, he also had a history of speaking out against racial, language, cultural, and civil rights discrimination at LBHS. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his half-Hispanic daughter was discriminated against by the district when she was not allowed to attend LBHS and that he had to be insistent that she receive equal treatment on sports teams and in the band.2 Id. at Exhibit B.
Plaintiff alleges that because he was outspoken about the discriminatory practices at the school, he was placed into a mandatory PAR program in 2003-2004.3 Id. at Exhibits F & G. The PAR program is designed for teachers who need assistance in improving various aspects of their teaching. The assigned teacher works with a consulting teacher who offers supervision to promote professional development and improve job performance. Plaintiff alleges he was the only teacher in the entire district who had been placed in the PAR program after five years of itsexistence.
After being placed on the PAR, Plaintiff filed three complaints against LBUSD and LBTA. The first was a complaint filed in October 2004, with the Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") at the United States Department of Education. Id. at Exhibit C. This complaint raised issues about segregation and the lack of inclusion of Hispanic and other minority students in the school. Id. The second complaint was filed in October 2004, with the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") against the LBTA. Id. at Exhibit D. This complaint alleged that Plaintiff was required to attend the PAR for unfounded, baseless, and retaliatory reasons. Id. There were also two complaints filed in October 2004 and November 2004, with the California Department of Education. Id. at Exhibits E and F. Plaintiff filed these complaints contending that teachers were teaching classes outside of their credentialed areas and that students were having difficulty understanding school announcements due to language difficulties.4 Moreover, in November 2004, Plaintiff was injured on the job and he filed a Worker's Compensation Case. As a result of this injury, he missed work once a week during the afternoons which he argues also served as a basis for the retaliation
Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed over the next several years by the superintendent, teachers and members of LBTA. For example, he believes he was unjustly required to be on PAR for the remainder of the time he was employed in the district. Id. at Exhibit L. Moreover, he contends that none of the supervising teachers that he worked with in PAR spoke Spanish or had teaching credentials in foreign languages which was Plaintiff's areas of expertise.5 Plaintiff alleges he complained to the union several times regarding this issue but the union refused to process his grievances. In addition to being placed in PAR, Plaintiff contends he received several formal letters of reprimand in front of other teachers, and he received biased and unsubstantiated performance evaluations. Id. at Exhibits H, J, K, L.
Although the exact timing is unclear, Plaintiff alleges that the district began administrative proceedings to terminate Plaintiff's employment. By early 2007, Plaintiff contends that the teachers union refused to negotiate on his behalf. The superintendent offered him $106,000.00 to leave, however, Plaintiff refused the offer. He was suspended without pay on January 1, 2008.
Plaintiff had a dismissal hearing in July 2008 which he alleges was unfair and biased against him. Plaintiff was officially terminated on September 11, 2008. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in February 2009. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on July 28, 2011. (Doc. 9, Exhibit M). Plaintiff filed the instant action in this court on October 24, 2011. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's first complaint with leave to amend on February 16, 2012. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant amended complaint.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff alleges he suffered lost wages, humiliation, emotional distress, mental and physical pain, and anguish. He has alleged retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e -3 et seq ("Title VII"), creation of hostile work environment under Title VII, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation of character.6 Plaintiff seeks general, special, incidental, consequential and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, a complete resetting of his "employment clock" to 2003 before "all this began," and reinstatement of his position at LBHS. (Doc. 9, Pg. 30).
A review of Plaintiff's amended complaint reveals he failed to correct many of the deficiencies outlined in this Court's first screening order. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend the complaint because he has added new claims in the amended complaint. In particular, Plaintiff has listed causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and1985, as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1658 and 1343 in the heading of the pleading. He also lists these alleged violations of law in the title of the other causes of action pled. However, these are not separate causes of action in the complaint, and it is not clear whether Plaintiff intends to pursue these claims. Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards for those causes of action. Plaintiff is again advised that the causes of action must be more clearly organized so that there is one cause of action for each alleged violation of law. For example, the instant complaint alleges violations under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1658...
To continue reading
Request your trial