Watkins v. Columbus City Sch.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:19-cv-394
• Parties: STANLEY WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

STANLEY WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant.

Case No. 2:19-cv-394

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

March 18, 2020

Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers

OPINION AND ORDER

There are numerous matters in this case currently pending before the Court. These include: Plaintiff Stanley Watkins' ("Plaintiff" or "Watkins") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) to which Defendant Columbus City Schools ("Defendant") has responded (ECF No. 19), Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18), Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 19) to which Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 23) and Defendant had replied (ECF No. 25), Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 23) to which Defendant has responded (ECF No. 25), Defendant's Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) to which Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 29) and Defendant has replied (ECF No. 30), and Plaintiff's Motion for Removal to Federal Court (ECF No. 32) to which Defendant has responded (ECF No. 33). The time for filing responses and replies to these motions has ended.

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) and Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF No. 23) are DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 18) is DENIED as moot. Additionally, Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for Removal (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

I.

On February 6, 2019, Watkins, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit nearly three years after Defendant terminated his one-year contract as a teacher. Watkins alleges Defendant failed to properly notify him about his pre-disciplinary hearing, which violated his due process rights. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 31, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff brings this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.)

Watkins worked for Defendant as a special education kindergarten teacher from August of 2015 until October 28, 2015, when he was removed from the classroom. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 18.) Watkins worked for a total of 38 days. (Id. ¶ 11.) During this time, Defendant became concerned Watkins was unable to teach and control his class, maintain professional relationships with his teaching assistants, and ensure the safety of his seven disabled kindergarten students. (Id. at Ex. A.) Additionally, on several occasions, faculty members observed Watkins sleeping in his classroom while he was responsible for his students' care. (Id.) On October 28, 2015, Defendant removed Watkins from the classroom setting for allegedly improperly restraining a student. (Id. ¶ 18, Ex. A.)

Watkins' removal prompted a pre-disciplinary hearing. (Id. ¶ 21.) On December 7, 2015, Defendant sent Watkins a letter (the "Hearing Notice Letter"), which notified him of the pre-disciplinary hearing that was scheduled for December 16, 2015. (Id. ¶ 19-21, Ex. A.) The Hearing Notice Letter listed Defendant's allegations against Watkins, as follows:

The reason for this [assignment] hearing is: it is alleged in the course of his position of [mentally disabled] kindergarten teacher, Stanley Watkins, on 10/26/15, violated the Board's Restraint and Seclusion Policy by implementing restraint and seclusion of a kindergarten student . . . . The following are allegations regarding Mr. Watkins's performance in the classroom: 1. Inappropriate student physical interventions; 2. Failure to exhibit / document planning instruction and to direct theteaching-learning process; 3. After being directed by assigned mentor to not restrain children, Mr. Watkins continues such; 4. Falling asleep in the classroom during the supervision of [mentally disabled] children; 5. Exhibiting ineffective / negative interpersonal communication with staff; 6. Ineffective classroom. Furthermore, it is alleged that his professional conduct has created an unsafe classroom containing multiple disability children.

(Id.)

At the December 16, 2015 pre-disciplinary hearing, a union representative and two union attorneys represented Watkins. (Def.'s Mot. J. Pleadings at Ex. 1, ECF No. 19.) Defendant heard testimony from witnesses and reviewed documents. (See id.)

On April 19, 2016, Defendant notified Watkins that his alleged misconduct "[was] wholly contrary to his responsibilities, duties and obligations as a teacher" and therefore Defendant would initiate termination proceedings. (Compl. ¶ 23, Ex. B.) Defendant stated that the grounds for termination—"each of which is asserted independent of, and/or in combination with, the other grounds"—were as follows:

1. On or about October 6, 2015, while charged with the responsibility of performing duties as a classroom teacher of kindergarten students with multiple disabilities, Stanley Watkins was observed seated in a chair in the corner of his classroom for at least twenty minutes, motionless with his eyes closed while apparently asleep. On several other occasions between August 26, 2015 and October 28, 2015, two classroom instructional assistants also observed Stanley Watkins apparently asleep in the classroom. During the same time period, the building principal observed Stanley Watkins apparently asleep during a staff meeting and during a professional development meeting.

2. On several occasions between August 26, 2015 and October 28, 2015, Stanley Watkins displayed negative and/or ineffective interpersonal communication with other staff, including but not limited to the Fairwood Alternative School Music Specialist and classroom instructional assistants, and students.

3. During the time period of August 26, 2015 through October 28, 2015, Stanley Watkins failed to demonstrate and document adequate instructional planning relating to the general education curriculum as well as the individual needs of the students as required by their individualized education programs. Stanley Watkinsalso failed to direct the teaching and learning process within the classroom as it related to students and staff which resulted in an unproductive and unsafe learning environment.

(Id.)

Watkins requested a hearing before a referee, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3319.16. (Id. ¶ 23, Def.'s Mot. J. Pleadings at Ex. 2.) Watkins attorneys resigned on January 6, 2017, and going forward, he chose to represent himself. (Id.) The hearing before the referee commenced on March 6, 2017, and lasted 11 days. (Id.) The parties collectively called 14 witnesses and presented 71 exhibits. (See id.)

On June 8, 2017, the referee published a report recommending that Defendant terminate Watkins' contract. (See id.) The referee concluded that "Watkins' actions as set forth in the three enumerated grounds of [Defendant's] resolution, when taken as a whole, clearly are serious matters and constitute other good and just cause justifying termination of his limited contract as set forth under O.R.C. § 3319.16." (Id. at 17.) Based on this report, Defendant terminated Watkins' employment, effective June 20, 2017. (See id. at Ex, 3.)

Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3319.16, Watkins then petitioned the Franklin County Common Pleas Court to review Defendant's decision and determine if "substantial and credible evidence" supported the allegations. (See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at Ex. E, ECF No. 4.) To that end, Watkins alleged 27 errors by Defendant, including the violation of Watkins' procedural due process rights, specifically those required by Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). (Id.) For example, Watkins asserted the following assignments of error:

10.) The Resolution fails as to specificity and violates Loudermill [because] the Resolution falsely states, "P.1 Mr. Watkins has been informed of the charges against him as alleged below, and has been afforded an opportunity to respond to such charges."

11.) The hearing officer erred to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant in overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss because Defendant was not given a proper Loudermill termination letter.

14.) The hearing officer erred to the prejudice of Defendant-Appellant by disregarding the fact that the Board Resolution does not match any prior letter that Watkins received.

(Id. at Ex. G.)

Upon reviewing those assignments of errors, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas concluded that "Plaintiff was provided notice and full due process regarding his termination." (See id. at Ex. F.)

Watkins appealed to the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals. (Id. at Ex. K.) In his appellate brief, Watkins raised 12 assignments of errors, which again included his claims that the previous decision misapplied Loudermill. (Id.) The Tenth District addressed Watkins' "numerous claimed errors by overruling all of them en masse because [there was] no evidence in the record that the common pleas court" abused its discretion. (Id.)

On October 29, 2018, Watkins filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. (See id. at Ex. M.) On January 23, 2019, the Supreme Court summarily declined to exercise its jurisdiction over Watkins' appeal. (See id. at Ex. N.) Watkins filed this suit on February 6, 2019.

II.

The parties' cross motions for judgment on the pleadings are to be evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) which provides that, "after the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is identical to the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008). To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiffs must satisfy the pleadingrequirements set forth in Rule 8(a). While Rule 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order "[t]o survive a ...