Yelland v. Abington Heights Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-2080 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. YELLAND, Plaintiff v. ABINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE MANNION)
Plaintiff William H. Yelland was a science teacher at the Abington Heights Middle School ("AHMS") in the Abington Heights School District ("AHSD") from 2013 until May 7, 2015. On April 8, 2015, allegations of physical assault were made by the parents of one of plaintiff's eighth grade students to AHMS Principal Michael Elia and AHMS Vice Principal Eduardo Antonetti. After meeting with the parents, Elia and Antonetti assured the parents that plaintiff would not return to the classroom and the Department of Human Services Office of Children, Youth and Families ("CYF") as well as the South Abington Police Department were contacted regarding the allegations against plaintiff. The next day, AHSD officials, including defendants AHSD Superintendent Michael Mahon, Elia and Antonetti, initiated an investigation into the assault allegations and discussed the allegations with plaintiff during a meeting. The parties now dispute whether that meeting was sufficient to satisfy due process requirements and the defendants have moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's 14th Amendment claim in which he alleges insufficient pre-termination process. The defendants also move for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's a state law malicious prosecution claim against Mahon, Elia and Antonetti. For the reasons discussed below, the court will DENY IN ITS ENTIRETY the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The remaining claims in plaintiff Yelland's civil rights case, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, are: 14th Amendment pre-deprivation procedural due process claim contained in Count I of his complaint against AHSD and, against Mahon, Elia and Antonetti in their individual capacity; claim for punitive damages regarding Count I against Mahon, Elia and Antonetti in their individual capacity; and a state law malicious prosecution claim contained in Count III against Mahon, Elia and Antonetti.
Specifically, in Count I, plaintiff alleges that he was not afforded pre-deprivation due process by defendants and that the April 9, 2015, meeting did not satisfy the requirements of Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Plaintiff alleges that after his indefinite suspension without pay, defendants conducted a "sham investigation" culminating in his May 7, 2015 termination based on his allegedApril 8th "'physical[] attack' on [T.K.] as well as alleged physical attacks against other students [C.K. and S.D.]."
In Count III, plaintiff asserts a state law claim of malicious prosecution against the defendants Mahon, Elia and Antonetti.
As relief in his complaint, plaintiff seeks an injunction from the court to order the defendants to reinstate his employment, compensatory damages, including front pay and back pay, punitive damages, nominal damages as well as attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and costs.
The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a) because plaintiff avers violations of his due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law malicious prosecution claim under 28 U.S.C. §1367. Venue is appropriate in this court since the alleged constitutional violations occurred in this district and all parties are located here. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.
On December 1, 2017, the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 with respect to plaintiff's claim for pre-termination due process, his claim for malicious prosecution, and his claim for punitive damages. (Doc. 74). Defendants also assert that the individual defendants are immune from suit. Defendants' motion has been briefed and exhibits were submitted along with a statement of material factsand plaintiff's response.2
Plaintiff was a science teacher at the AHMS in the AHSD from 2013 until May 7, 2015. On April 8, 2015, allegations of physical assault were made by the parents of one of plaintiff's eighth grade students, ("T.K."), to Elia and Antonetti. Specifically, T.K.'s mother, M.K., called Antonetti and indicated that the plaintiff had pressured pointed her son in class, and that she wanted to come to the school to find out what happened between her son and the plaintiff. In the meantime, Antonetti spoke to the plaintiff about the incident, and relayed that M.K. was angry and that there were marks on T.K. that the plaintiff must have caused and, that M.K. was coming to the school to complain. Antonetti told the plaintiff that Antonetti then told the plaintiff go home for the day.
Later that day, Antonetti and Elia met with T.K. and his parents. Duringthe meeting, T.K. and his parents stated that while in class, the plaintiff came from behind T.K., put his hands around T.K.'s collarbone/neck area, and then used his thumbs to apply a pressure point under T.K.'s chin, leading to a physical struggle between the two. Elia testified that he saw "red marks underneath [T.K.'s] chin, some smaller red marks [ ] on the side of his chin and some small scratch marks back by his ear." During the meeting, alleged incidents regarding other students and the plaintiff were also discussed, including one student who was allegedly made to lick the floor and another student who was allegedly stabbed with a pen. Elia then took T.K.'s statement and left the meeting to call Mahon. Elia later testified that "[he] received information from a student and [he] reported that information to my superior related to something that happened in the classroom."
Following the meeting, Elia and Mahon decided to interview students and file Childline Reports, as required under the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa.C.S. §6318, et seq. ("CPSL"). Specifically, Elia and Mahon decided to file a Childline Report with respect to T.K. on April 8th and thereafter filed Reports for C.K. and S.D. Also, the South Abington Township Police Department was contacted by defendants regarding T.K.'s allegations about the plaintiff pursuant to the CPSL. Elia could not remember if he was on the phone call to the police.
The plaintiff's evidence of the incident with T.K. differs from the defendants' version of events and reveals that on April 8, 2015, he was returning quizzes in class and T.K. began gloating about his score. Theplaintiff then put his hand on T.K.'s shoulder to let him know that gloating was disruptive. T.K. then slid his chair backwards into the plaintiff and began to pull down on plaintiff's arm. The plaintiff then pulled his arm up to get out of T.K.'s grasp. The plaintiff's evidence also shows that the encounter was not considered a big deal by other classmates, that it was horseplay, and that plaintiff and T.K. were smiling and laughing at the time. The plaintiff also submitted evidence showing that other students did not feel unsafe or afraid, nor did they see any marks, bruises or scratches on T.K. afterward.
Regardless, it is undisputed that a physical incident between the plaintiff and T.K. occurred in the classroom on April 8th and that marks on T.K. were observed by some people.
Later on April 8th, the plaintiff called T.K.'s parents and left a voicemail regarding the incident with their son and said that he was "absolutely mortified" about it. The plaintiff later testified that he was actually mortified regarding how T.K.'s mother perceived the incident but stated that he did not apologize for the incident and he did not know what T.K. had specifically alleged about it.
About 5:30 p.m. that same day, plaintiff was given his Miranda rights and interviewed by the South Abington Police Department. Plaintiff gave a written statement about the incident with T.K., indicating he pushed on a pressure point on T.K.'s shoulder and wrestled with T.K. for five to ten seconds. Plaintiff also stated that while he was pulling his own arm, T.K. was also pulling his arm, and that his thumb went under T.K.'s chin and apparentlyleft bruises.
Also on the evening of April 8th, Mahon told Elia to call the plaintiff and tell him to come to the administration building the next morning for a meeting. The parties dispute whether Elia told the plaintiff that the meeting would relate to the incident with T.K. and whether the plaintiff was advised to bring a Union representative with him. However, it is undisputed that when Elia called the plaintiff, the plaintiff was aware of the serious nature regarding the incident with T.K., that T.K.'s parents were upset and, that the police were involved.
According to the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff was only told to show up at the administration building on April 9th and he was not given any other information. The plaintiff stated that because he was unaware that a meeting regarding T.K.'s allegations was to take place, he did not call Tim Moher, President of the Abington Heights Education Association, i.e., his Union representative. The plaintiff also stated that he never spoke with either Moher or John Holland, Region Field Director for Pennsylvania State Education Association, before arriving for the meeting on April 9th. In fact, Moher testified that Thomas Quinn, Assistant Superintendent, contacted him on April 8, 2015, and that Quinn told him "[Yelland] was suspended and that there would be an investigation." Holland testified that Moher then called him and asked him to attend the April 9th meeting.
On April 9, 2015, AHSD officials, including Mahon, Elia and Antonetti, as well as Quinn, held a meeting with the plaintiff and discussed the April 8th incident between T.K. and the plaintiff. Holland...
To continue reading
Request your trial