Worthley v. Sch. Comm. of Gloucester

• Decision Date: 24 January 2023
• Docket Number: 22-cv-12060-DJC
• Parties: JEFFREY T. WORTHLEY, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF GLOUCESTER and BEN LUMMIS, in his official and personal capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

1

JEFFREY T. WORTHLEY, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF GLOUCESTER and BEN LUMMIS, in his official and personal capacities, Defendants.

No. 22-cv-12060-DJC

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Denise J. Casper, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jeffrey T. Worthley (“Worthley”) has filed this lawsuit against Defendants School Committee of Gloucester and Ben Lummis (“Lummis”), Superintendent of Gloucester Public Schools (collectively “Defendants”), bringing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of the First Amendment (Count I), Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process (Count II) and under Mass. c. 12, § 11I for retaliation (Count III) and violation of due process (Count IV). D. 1-2. Worthley has now moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction striking the November 14^th Order, D. 8. For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS Worthley's motion for injunctive relief as to the November 14^th Order, D. 8.

II. Standard of Review

As to Worthley's motion, the Court must consider: “[1] the movant's likelihood of success on the merits of [his] claims; [2] whether and to what extent the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld; [3] the balance of hardships as between the parties; and [4] the effect, if any, that an injunction (or the withholding of one) may have on the public interest.” Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Harnett, 731 F.3d 6, 9 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1996)). “Likelihood of success [on the merits] is the main bearing wall of [this] framework.” Ross-Simons, 102 F.3d at 16; Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009) (stating that whether the movant's claim likely will succeed on the merits “normally weighs heaviest in the decisional scales”). Irreparable harm, on the other hand, is measured “on a sliding scale, working in conjunction with a moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, such that the strength of the showing necessary on irreparable harm depends in part on the degree of likelihood of success shown.” Gedeon v. City of Springfield, No. 16-cv-30054-MGM, 2017 WL 4212334, at *8 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2017) (quoting Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 622 F.3d 36, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2010)).

Preliminary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). The plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing that these four factors weigh in its favor.” Esso Standard Oil Co. (P.R.) v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

III. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from Worthley's complaint, D. 1-2, the affidavits submitted in support of Defendants' opposition, D. 17-1; D. 17-2, and Worthley's affidavit filed in support of the complaint, D. 1-2 at 20-27 and with his reply brief, D. 20-1 at 54-59, and the various exhibits filed by the parties.

A. Initial Contact Between Worthley and KF at Gloucester High School

Worthley is a Councilor at-Large on the City Council for Gloucester, Massachusetts (“the

City”). D. 1-2 ¶ 1; D. 20-1 ¶ 2. On November 8, 2022, Worthley went to vote at Gloucester High School (“GHS”), his polling station. Id. ¶ 8. The parties offer different versions of what occurred at GHS that day. Worthley alleges that he introduced himself to a group of students hosting a bake sale and commended them for their efforts. Id. ¶ 10. KF, who is sixteen years old, identified herself as a student government leader and introduced herself in response. Id. Worthley relayed his own experiences in student government at GHS. Id. ¶ 12. He also shared his ideas about how to increase civic engagement and fundraising. Id. Worthley mentioned that the City Council president was interested in reinstituting “student government day” and KF expressed keen interest in the idea. Id. ¶ 14. Worthley also explained to KF that he had worked on a volunteer project to clean up a local field and that he had plans to create a volunteer corps. Id. ¶ 15. KF expressed interest in the project and asked Worthley for his phone number. Id. Worthley gave her his number and KF immediately dialed it and said “now you have my number too.” Id. ¶¶ 16-17. According to Defendants (based on information from KF's mother), Worthley introduced himself, but did not specify exactly what he did within the City. D. 17-2 ¶ 5. KF's mother also told James Cook, the principal of GHS, that Worthley wanted KF's opinion on beginning a student government for the City and asked for her cell phone number so that he could send some ideas to her. Id. ¶ 6.

B. Subsequent Text Exchange Between Worthley and KF

Later, Worthley sent a text message to KF at 1:49 p.m., wherein he explained his idea for “reinspir[ing] and reinvigorat[ing] volunteerism in our community” and asked KF about getting involved “in this movement.” D. 1-2 at 29-30. KF responded that evening at 9:30 p.m., first apologizing “for the late text” then stating that she “wouldn't be able to respectfully dedicate myself to this movement, as I'm apart [sic] of a bunch of different clubs and boards through the school that take up a lot of my time. I'd love to get back to you and help out once things settle down for me.” Id. at 31. Worthley responded “[t]his is definitely not too late. I wouldn't advise it but I was up until 4am last nigh [sic] and at a meeting at 8 am . . . I'm either awake or my phone is on silent so it would never be a problem to text at any point.” Id. Worthley then said he “wouldn't need [KF] to dedicate any time to this movement at this point” and that he “just want[ed] to be able to consult with [KF] periodically on best practices to survey students” based on “what [her] schedule would allow.” Id. at 33. Worthley further indicated that he “completely underst[ood]” if KF “fe[lt] like even that is too much” and that “maybe [he] can work through the class advisors” on this idea. Id.

According to Worthley, KF's father called him the next morning to explain that KF was overextended in her volunteer activities and that she would not be available to work on any of the programs they discussed. Id. ¶ 27. Worthley accepted KF's father's declination to participate on behalf of his daughter and told her father he would delete her number from his phone. Id. ¶ 28. He then followed up with KF's father by summarizing the discussion in a text message. Id. at 3537, According to Defendants (based on information from KF's mother), Worthley's text outlining his ideas and request that KF “take the lead and solicit other students to join his cause” made her feel very uncomfortable. D. 17-2 ¶ 8. KF felt “caught off guard by [Worthley] as what he texted her [did not] match up with what he discussed with her at the bake sale.” Id. ¶ 10. Worthley also did not speak with one of KF's fellow students also present at the bake sale. Id. KF regretted giving her number to Worthley and was troubled by his disclosure of personal information about staying up late and waking up early. Id. ¶ 11. Accordingly, KF's mother instructed her daughter to text Worthley back and politely decline his request. Id. ¶ 9.

C. Meeting Between Worthley and City Officials and the Issuance of the November 14^th Order

On November 14, 2022, City Attorney Suzanne Egan (“Egan”) called Worthley to a meeting that also included Human Resources Director Holly Dougwillo and Police Chief Ed Conley (“Conley”). D. 1-2 ¶ 29; D. 17-1 ¶ 17. According to Worthley, he was told the meeting was in reference to “inappropriate communications with a female minor student.” D. 1-2 ¶ 30. At the meeting, Worthley shared the text messages with KF. Id. ¶ 32. Worthley alleges that despite being told by Conley that he had not committed a crime, Id. ¶ 33; id. at 25, Egan “ambushed” him with an unsigned no trespass order during the meeting. Id. ¶ 34. Superintendent Lummis issued the signed no trespass order (the “November 14^th Order”) against Worthley that same day. Id. ¶ 42; id. at 39. The November 14^th Order states in relevant part:

This letter is delivered to officially notify you not to appear on or enter the premises of [GHS] during school hours or at any school sponsored event or activity from November 14, 2022 until the end of the 2022-2023 school year. You are hereby forbidden to attend any [GHS] events, enter or remain in or upon [GHS] buildings or surrounding grounds while school is in session or while a school sponsored event or activity is taking place.

***

It has been reported to me that . . . you approached a minor female student and used your official position as city councilor promising to assist her with her studies and extracurricular activities through your involvement in a school and city sponsored programs to obtain her personal cell phone number. You specifically targeted this female student and did not include the other students at the event, you did not seek the permission of an adult before obtaining the minor's telephone number, and you represented that you were involved in an official school or city program. Later that evening you communicated with her about your sleeping habits and other personal interests. When confronted by the female minor's parent, you misrepresented the facts and asserted that the student initiated the text communications. This behavior is not acceptable behavior. It poses a threat to the safety of the [GHS] community.

D. 1-2 at 39.

D. Initiation of this Lawsuit and Superseding of November 14^th Order by January 13^th Order

Worthley initiated this action in Essex Superior...