Creasy v. Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist.

BETTY CREASY, Plaintiff,

v.SLIPPERY ROCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; KRISTIE SHULSKY, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00953

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dated: February 12, 2013

Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a three count Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16] filed by Betty Creasy ("Creasy" or "Plaintiff), a former guidance counselor employed by Defendant Slippery Rock Area School District ("the District"). Also named as a Defendant is Kristie Shulsky ("Shulsky"), who was at all relevant times, the Slippery Rock High School principal.¹ In her Amended Complaint, Creasy alleges age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. ("ADEA") (Count I); Age Discrimination in Employment under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. §§ 955, et seq. ("PHRA") (Count II), and retaliation in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count III). Pending is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, filed as to Count III. [ECF No. 17]. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a First Amendment claim against either Defendant; therefore, the Motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was employed by the District for a total of eleven years. Beginning with the academic year 2007-2008, Creasy served as a guidance counselor at the District's high school.[ECF No. 16 at ¶ 5]. Apparently, she had no issues with the District or the high school administration until Shulsky became principal at the end of the academic year 2008-2009. [Id. at ¶6]. Approximately one year later, Shulsky began design of a comprehensive change in the overall school schedule designated to take effect in the fall of 2010. This revision contemplated modification of the existing eight period schedule and course offerings. [Id. at ¶3]. The planned schedule change "required significant additional work to implement" and "Creasy agreed to work an additional two weeks" in the summer of 2010 to finalize the changes. [Id. at ¶ 17]. When the new schedule was disseminated two weeks prior to the start of the school year, it proved controversial, generating "numerous complaints from parents" who directed their concerns to the District Superintendent. "[T]he . . . schedule . . . was [inconsistent with the students' expectations and assumptions from the prior semester when they had selected courses. Accordingly, many students [had chosen] electives that no longer fit into their schedules." [Id. at ¶21]. These scheduling conflicts were particularly problematic for gifted students who sought advanced placement courses and students in vocational courses. [Id. at ¶22]. The scheduling upset led to a groundswell of parental questions and comments." [Id. at ¶ 26]. Numerous parents called the District Superintendent, who referred the parents to Creasy because Shulsky was on vacation. [Id. at ¶18]. Although Creasy was not the only contact, on a single day, she found over 110 messages on her phone. [Id. at ¶27]. "Creasy pointed out some inherent problems with the Master schedule . . . to [the Superintendent], who contacted ... Shulsky about it." [Id. at ¶18]. After her meeting with the Superintendent, Shulsky "complained that she [had] 'her ass handed to her on a plate.'" [Id. at ¶28].

"On August 28, 2010, Shulsky sent a harsh letter to the guidance counselors informing them they were responsible for all parent complaints and would face a reprimand if they failed toaddress [them]." [Id. at ¶30]. After receiving this letter, Creasy contacted her union representative to express concern about the schedule and her worry that Shulsky's "effort to shift responsibility for the problems could negatively impact her relationship with the parents and . . . the school faculty and staff." [Id. at ¶32].

Despite the fact that Creasy agreed to work with Shulsky to finalize the schedule over the Labor Day weekend, certain thorny issues could not be resolved. [Id. at ¶34]. Tensions mounted, and "Shulsky became increasingly frustrated and hostile towards . . . Creasy." [Id. at ¶35]. For example, Shulsky reclaimed a door key that Creasy had possessed for four years, gave her multiple tasks to be performed in a short amount of time, sent her secretary to Creasy's office to read memos "out loud in the office area, with vocal inflections to mimic the directive as she was told," and "began advancing the idea that the scheduling issues were due to clerical errors and mistakes by ... Creasy." [Id. at ¶¶ 36- 39] Shulsky also adopted a policy that all communication between Shulsky and Creasy be in writing. [Id. at ¶42].

In response to Shulsky's actions, Creasy met with many parents, advising them that they should not complain to her, but should raise scheduling issues "by working up the chain of authority." [Id. at ¶5]. She did so in the hope that the District would respond, and undo the harm that had been caused to the students' educational goals. [Id. at ¶46].

On September 7, 2010, Creasy received an email from Shulsky complaining that Creasy had told teachers that Shulsky had "messed up the schedule." [Id. at ¶ 47]. Shulsky wrote: "Trust and loyalty are huge with me. You have broken that trust because every time I turn around I have a parent or teacher telling me that you said something or comments that are untrue." [Id.]. Creasy forwarded this email to her union representative to advise him of the scheduling problems and Shulsky's effort to place these problems at Creasy's feet. Shulsky was monitoring Creasy'semail and "became incensed that. . . Creasy was seeking Union protection." [Id. at ¶49]. In an email, Shulsky warned Creasy not to involve the union. "Her warning was meant to, and did, in fact chill Mrs. Creasy's expressive and associative activities." [Id.].

In an attempt to alleviate the growing hostility, the union president scheduled a September 17, 2010 meeting with the Superintendent. [Id. at ¶50]. Before that meeting could take place, Shulsky sent Creasy a memorandum directing her to appear in Shulsky's office with a union representative. [Id. at ¶51]. On September 16, 2010, that meeting took place with Shulsky, Creasy, a union representative, and the assistant principal attending. [Id. at ¶52]. Creasy characterizes Shulsky's conduct at that meeting as "blatantly hostile and intimidating." (Id.). Shulsky criticized Creasy's character and job performance, and "also physically intimidated . . . Creasy by leaning across the table [and] shouting." [Id.]. Shulsky also presented Creasy with a "Letter of Reprimand," identifying multiple deficiencies in Creasy's job performance and notifying her that if she failed to remedy these shortcomings, she would receive a second reprimand. [Id. at ][53]. "Two letters can serve as grounds for initiating a teacher's discharge." [Id. at ¶54]. The union responded to the escalating situation by filing a grievance. [Id.]

Due to the almost daily threats of an additional reprimand, Creasy experienced stress and, after consulting a physician, was placed on extended sick leave. [Id. at ¶60]. While Creasy was on leave, Shulsky continued to make life difficult for her. Creasy's access to her email account was blocked. "Not only did [this interfere with . . . Creasy's ability to assist her substitute and respond to co-workers, but... with her union position as the coordinator of the sick-leave bank." [Id. at ¶¶ 61- 62].

A hearing on the grievance was held on October 18, 2010. Creasy, Shulsky, two union representatives, the assistant principal, and the Superintendent attended. As a result of themeeting, Shulsky's Letter of Reprimand was revised, but Creasy contends that it remained punitive in tone. [Id. at ¶63]. Creasy's request to be transferred to another school was denied. [Id. at ¶64]. After the meeting, it became clear to Creasy that because she was being asked to return to a "work environment where she would be forced to endure daily threats of reprimand and other belittling behavior [that] was completely incompatible with her mental well-being," she had no choice but to resign. [Id. at ¶66].

In Count III of her Complaint, Creasy states that when she "met with School District Officials, corresponded with union officials, and attempted to notify parents of their right [sic]," she engaged in activity protected by the Petitions, Association, and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment. [Id. at ¶¶103, 107]. Creasy's activities resulted in Shulsky, as a policy and final decision maker for the District, retaliating against her by creating a hostile working environment so as to force Creasy's resignation. [Id. at ¶105].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Phillips v. Cty of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). In Phillips, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reiterated the pleading requirements under Rule 12(b)(6) explained by the Supreme Court in Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 550 U.S. 662 (2009). See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233-34. These motions are to be evaluated under a three-pronged approach. First, the Court must identify the elements essential to the plaintiff's cause of action. Second, the court evaluates whether the complaint sets forth factual allegations as opposed to conclusory statements; the former it accepts as true, and the latter it disregards. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Third, if the complaint sets forth factual allegations, the Court must determine whether they support a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78. The plausibility requirement is met when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court reasonably to infer that the...