Watkins v. Town of Webster
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 6:21-CV-06233 EAW |
| Parties | Kali WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WEBSTER, Webster Police Department, Joseph Rieger, Alex Kirkpatrick, Gretchen O'Dea, Jeffrey Webster, Webster Central School District, Carmen Gumina, Paul Benz, Jacqueline Goodwine, Stephanie Reusch, Stacey Exner, and John and Jane Doe(s), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Kamran F. Hashmi, Hashmi Law Firm, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.
Alexander James Blood, Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Shannon T. O'Connor, Vaughan Baio & Partners, Syracuse, NY, Patrick B. Naylon, Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants Town of Webster, Webster Police Department, Joseph Reiger, Alex Kirkpatrick, Gretchen O'Dea, Jeffrey Webster.
Heather Dechert, Michael P. McClaren, Webster Szanyi, LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants Webster Central School District, Paul Benz, Jacqueline Goodwine, Stephanie Reusch, Stacey Exner.
Heather Dechert, Webster Szanyi, LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant Carmen Gumina.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kali Watkins ("Plaintiff") brings this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy to deprive and deprivation of due process, equal protection, race discrimination, gender discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. (Dkt. 7).
Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss and for partial summary judgment filed by the Webster Central School District, Carmen Gumina, Paul Benz, Jacqueline Goodwine, Stephanie Reusch, and Stacey Exner (collectively, the "School District Defendants") (Dkt. 9), and a motion to dismiss filed by the Town of Webster, the Town of Webster Police Department ("WPD"), Joseph Rieger,1 Alex Kirkpatrick, Gretchen O'Dea, and Jeffrey Webster (collectively, the "Town Defendants") (Dkt. 11).
For the reasons explained below, the School District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff's due process claim, and their motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part so that Plaintiff's equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 () may proceed to discovery, but Plaintiff's malicious prosecution, individual official capacity, punitive damages, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law claims against the School District Defendants are dismissed. Further, the motion to dismiss filed by the Town Defendants is granted in part and denied in part so that the claims against the WPD are dismissed, as are the official capacity claims against the individual defendants and any claims for punitive damages, but the malicious prosecution claims (including those based on a Monell theory of liability) may proceed to discovery.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. 7). For purposes of the motions to dismiss, the Court treats Plaintiff's factual allegations as true.
Plaintiff's claims stem from the 2017 investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution of Plaintiff for the alleged rape of a fifteen-year-old girl who played on the junior varsity basketball team he coached in the Webster Central School District ("WCSD"). (Id. ). On August 26, 2019, a jury acquitted Plaintiff after trial. (Id. at ¶ 145). Plaintiff alleges that the investigation against him was "biased" and "tainted with animus," including because it was led by a conflicted police department and school superintendent. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-11).
Plaintiff was a physical education teacher and coach in the Rochester, New York area. (Id. at ¶ 37). In 2015, he was hired to teach ninth grade special education at Webster Schroeder High School. (Id. at ¶ 39). He also coached the varsity boys football team from 2006 until 2017, and the junior varsity girls basketball team from 2008 to 2017. (Id. at ¶ 40). Plaintiff is a black male and was the only black teacher in the school district. (Id. at ¶ 41).
Plaintiff alleges that in 2017, Superintendent Carmen Gumina ("Superintendent Gumina") was having an extramarital affair with a female faculty member. (Id. at ¶ 51). Superintendent Gumina discovered the faculty member was also engaged in an intimate physical relationship with Plaintiff, which caused him to be jealous and angry at Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 53-54). Plaintiff had various encounters with Superintendent Gumina he describes as "shocking," including that in Spring 2017, at a school event about racism, Superintendent Gumina told Plaintiff that white privilege does not exist and "things are not like that in Webster." (Id. at ¶¶ 47-48).
In November 2017, Plaintiff was directed to appear for a meeting at the School District Office. (Id. at ¶ 55). Present at the meeting were Superintendent Gumina, the School District's attorney, and two Webster Teachers Association Representatives. (Id. at ¶ 56). The attorney informed Plaintiff they suspected he was having an inappropriate relationship with a student and "grooming" her. (Id. at ¶ 57). Plaintiff "laughed out loud" at the suggestion and informed them that the student was "like [his] daughter," he knew her parents and attended her softball games, and he gave her free t-shirts from sponsors, like he gave to other students, custodians, secretaries, and Superintendent Gumina himself. (Id. at ¶¶ 57-58). Plaintiff stated he treated the girl like he treated his male students, and the attorney responded that the school would hypothetically investigate such allegations involving a male student "if you were gay." (Id. at ¶ 59).
Plaintiff was informed the investigation against him would continue, and he further alleges that the investigation was "authorized, planned, and directed" by Superintendent Gumina on behalf of the school district. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-61). On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and informed he had the "opportunity to resign," while the school district continued to investigate. (Id. at ¶ 62). Superintendent Gumina told Plaintiff that "gifts are not right," and also referenced Plaintiff's "pattern" of consensual relationships with female faculty members, despite that other faculty members engaged in similar relationships. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-64). The school district, through Superintendent Gumina, Principal Paul Benz ("Principal Benz") and Assistant Principal Jacqueline Goodwine ("AP Goodwine") also hired a private investigator to follow and spy on Plaintiff, including because Superintendent Gumina wanted to discover if his extramarital partner was still involved with Plaintiff, but the surveillance uncovered nothing suspicious. (Id. at ¶¶ 65-67). On November 17, 2017, the same day Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and before the investigation concluded, Superintendent Gumina told another faculty member that he had no intention of bringing Plaintiff back (id. at ¶ 79), and Superintendent Gumina also stated in a letter that he intended to terminate Plaintiff's position at a board meeting on December 27, 2017 (id. at ¶ 85).
Plaintiff alleges that the "grooming" allegations did not come from the student, and both the student and her mother denied any inappropriate relationship. (Id. at ¶ 68). Rather, the allegations were orchestrated by Stacey Exner ("Exner") and Stephanie Reusch ("Reusch"), who were both school psychologists and close personal friends. (Id. at ¶ 69). Plaintiff previously had an intimate personal relationship with Exner, but they had a "falling out." (Id. at 70). Plaintiff alleges that Exner knew Plaintiff was a source of moral support to the student who was dealing with her parents’ divorce (id. at ¶ 71), but after Plaintiff terminated his personal relationship with her, she conspired with Reusch to get Plaintiff in trouble (id. at ¶ 73). Specifically, Exner and Reusch met with the student to ask if Plaintiff was "grooming" her and showed her the dictionary definition of what "grooming" meant, but the student denied there was any inappropriate conduct. (Id. at ¶¶ 74, 76). Plaintiff alleges the investigation against him was "willfully negligent," and resulted in leaks and rumors which were propagated by students and faculty members, and expanded beyond allegations of "grooming," and instead "became a fishing expedition" into Plaintiff's legal and consensual sex life, which other faculty members and Superintendent Gumina himself engaged in, without punishment. (Id. at ¶¶ 80-83).
Plaintiff alleges that "against the backdrop of this circus-like atmosphere," a player on the junior varsity girls basketball team (the "accuser") was "emboldened to falsely accuse Plaintiff of the appalling crime of rape." (Id. at ¶ 87). The accuser made these allegations at a sleepover with her friend where they were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. (Id. at ¶ 89). The accuser told her friend that one year prior, Plaintiff told her to report early for a basketball game and then committed the act in the girls locker room before the game. (Id. ). The accuser's friend informed Reusch of these allegations. (Id. at ¶ 90). Reusch did not contact law enforcement or speak with the accuser in private, but on December 15, 2017, confronted the accuser in a room with school administrators and her own father. (Id. at ¶¶ 91-92).
That same day, the WPD initiated an investigation directed by Chief Joseph Rieger ("Chief Rieger") and carried out by Investigator Gretchen O'Dea ("Investigator O'Dea"), Investigator Alex Kirkpatrick ("Investigator Kirkpatrick"), Sergeant Jeffrey Webster ("Sergeant Webster"), and other agents or employees of WPD (collectively, the "WPD Defendants"). (Id. at ¶ 93). Plaintiff alleges that the WPD should have recused itself, including because Chief Rieger and his daughter were biased, material fact witnesses in the case, as his daughter was a teammate and close friend...
To continue reading
Request your trial