United States District Court, D. Vermont
OPINION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. 7)
Geoffrey W. Crawford, United States District Court Judge.
Plaintiff,
David Bain, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Tracy Wrend, in her official capacity as Superintendent for
the Lamoille South Supervisory Union and her individual
capacity. Plaintiff claims Defendant violated his federal
constitutional rights during the course of his employment.
Plaintiff also asserts state law claims of wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy, violations of the Vermont Fair
Employment Practices Act ("VFEPA"), and intentional
infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").
Pending
before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A hearing on the motion was held on
May 18, 2016. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
Background
The
court accepts as true the allegations in Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint and draws all inferences in Plaintiffs favor, as it
must on a motion to dismiss. See Littlejohn v. City of N.
Y., 795 F.3d 297, 306-07 (2d Cir. 2015). However, the
court emphasizes that by summarizing the following alleged
facts in this decision it expresses no judgment as to whether
the allegations are actually true.
I.
Plaintiffs Interactions with Defendant from 2008 to Early
2014
Plaintiff
worked as a teacher at the Peoples Academy School from 1989
to 2014. He taught a variety of subjects at both the middle
and high school level, including computer technology and
business. Plaintiff also supervised student extracurricular
programs and acted as a class advisor. He "enjoyed a
positive relationship with the school and its students, and
was re-contracted for his position year-in and year-out from
1989 to 2014." (Doc. 3 at ¶ 6.)
In
2008, Defendant became the Superintendent for the Lamoille
South Supervisory Union. According to the Amended Complaint,
Defendant's administration began "targeting"
certain teachers and administrative personnel for
"inappropriate criticism and attack." (Id.
at ¶ 8.) "[Treatment of teachers was divided along
a very clear line drawn between those who supported
[Defendant] regardless of transgression, and those who
expected [Defendant] to be held accountable for the discharge
of her duties on behalf of the public, " as well as
between "those who the Superintendent believed had
influence in the community and those that did not."
(Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Specifically, Defendant
"targeted and attacked those teachers and administrators
who spoke out against matters affecting the public welfare;
the proper administration of the school; and the health,
safety and welfare of children." (Id. at ¶
11.)
Sometime
during that year, another teacher employed by the Lamoille
South Supervisory Union was warned and directed not to have
inappropriate contact with students, not to be alone with a
child, and not to socialize with children outside of school.
Defendant "possessed information that the teacher
violated these directives, " and "addressed the
situation by arranging for the transfer of the teacher from
the Lamoille South Supervisory Union to another school
district."[1] (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 17.)
Plaintiff was a "vocal critic" of the way in which
Defendant handled this situation. (Id. at ¶
19.)
Defendant's
response to the 2008 episode "was not an isolated
incident." (Id. at ¶ 20.) Rather,
"[o]n multiple occasions, [Defendant] handled serious
incidences according to [her] self-interest in preserving her
appearance of competence, and shielding herself from scrutiny
at the expense of the health, safety and well-being of
students." (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff
remained "a vocal critic" of Defendant's
decision-making and the manner in which she handled these
situations. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Other teachers,
administrators, school employees, students, and parents
"also questioned, addressed, and/or criticized
[Defendant] for her actions, inactions, and misdeeds that
threatened both student and teacher alike."
(Id. at ¶¶ 31-32.) But Defendant's
only response to "serious allegations" against her
was to "put[] them aside, " "cover[] them up,
" and "intimidate[e] ... the complainant and anyone
who criticized her actions, " seeking instead to
"shield [herself] from scrutiny, " "hide
problems at the schools, " and "create the
appearance of success where failure resided."
(Id. at ¶¶ 34-35.)
Defendant's
"targeting of her critics increased as her deficiencies
became ever more prevalent, " but Plaintiff
"persisted" in his criticisms, and "became a
vocal and active proponent in matters of public concern
involving [Defendant]." (Id. at ¶¶
36-37.) The school in which Plaintiff worked and that
Defendant oversaw "was deeply affected by the misdeeds
of [Defendant], " as "[t]eachers and administrators
became incapable of performing their jobs for fear of
retaliation for doing anything more than meekly supporting
[Defendant's] decision making, no matter how
inappropriate." (Id. at ¶ 40.)
II.
February 2014 Meeting and Subsequent Allegations Against
Plaintiff
In
February 2014, at a meeting "with other concerned school
personnel, " Plaintiff addressed issues related to
Defendant's conduct, including
"sweeping-under-the-rug allegations involving student
abuse, teacher mistreatment, and proper administration being
sacrificed to create the appearance of success."
(Id. at ¶ 41.)
In the
"wake" of this meeting, Plaintiff "became a
full-blown target for a series of attacks by [Defendant] that
ranged from trumped up innuendo to outright lies."
(Id. at ¶ 42.) After Plaintiff complained of
another incident of student abuse and criticized
Defendant's failure to address the problem, he was
charged by Defendant for failing to report abuse. Though this
allegation was "unfounded, " (id. at
¶ 43), Defendant sent Plaintiff home from work as
punishment. She did not investigate or punish the teacher who
had engaged in the abuse, but rather "protected]"
that teacher and "[swept] the allegation under the
rug." (Id. at ¶ 44.)
Sometime
thereafter, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff was
"grooming"[2] a student, despite there being "no
legitimacy to this claim." (Id. at ¶ 46.)
III.
Last Chance Agreement
On May
27, 2014, Plaintiff entered into a "Last Chance
Agreement" (the "LCA") with the Morristown
School District and the teacher's union.[3] The LCA stated
that:
As an alternative to the School District seeking [Plaintiffs]
discipline (including potential discharge) for just cause
(e.g., insubordination, failure to report a reportable
incident under school policy and state law, interfering with
a school investigation, unprofessional boundaries with a
student, dishonesty with the administration and
unprofessional behavior in communications with colleagues),
[Plaintiff], the [union], and the School District have agreed
to enter this Last Chance Agreement as a "full, final,
and complete resolution of the matter."
(Doc. 7-1 at 1.) The LCA called for Plaintiffs suspension
without pay for ten days and required him to waive his rights
to a disciplinary hearing to challenge the suspension. It
also noted that the parties agreed it was Plaintiffs
"last chance" and if he engaged in any misconduct
or failed to follow all school policies and procedures going
forward he would be terminated for "just cause."
(Id. at 1-2.) Specifically, the LCA noted that all
of Plaintiff s "communications and interactions with
colleagues, students, and adults must be professional,
respectful, and appropriate" going forward.
(Id. at 1.)
IV.
Events Following Plaintiffs Signing of the LCA and Plaintiffs
Termination
After
Plaintiff signed the LCA, Defendant began "engaging] in
a pattern of nit-picking attack" on Plaintiff, so as to
create a "false paper trail of [Plaintiffs]
'infraction[s]' and
'unprofessionalism.'" (Doc. 3 at ¶ 52.)
Thereafter, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff had divulged
confidential information regarding the grooming incident to
another student, in violation of the terms of the LCA. As a
result, Plaintiffs employment was terminated in September
2014 after a hearing before the Morristown Board of School
Directors (the "Board").[4] Plaintiff, who was fifty-two
years old at the time, was replaced by a "much younger
and less qualified individual." (Id. at ¶
67.) Defendant "continued to attack and destroy
[Plaintiffs] reputation" such that he has been unable to
"obtain employment to which he is a qualified and
suitable candidate." (Id. at ¶62.)
Analysis
Plaintiff
brings his federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which provides a civil claim against "[e] very person
who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to
be subjected any citizen of the United States ... to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution." See Kletschka v. Driver,
411 F.2d 436, 448-49 (2d Cir. 1969) (purpose of § 1983
is to "provide a remedy when federal rights have been
violated through the use or misuse of a power derived from a
State.").
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff released all of his present claims when
he signed the LCA. She also contends that the Amended
Complaint does not adequately plead a First Amendment
retaliation claim or a "stigma-plus" claim under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally,
should the court exercise its supplemental jurisdiction ...