Cubas v. St. James Par. Sch. Bd.

1

LATASHA CUBAS v. ST. JAMES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 20-1322-WBV-KWR

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

December 30, 2021

SECTION D (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

WENDY B. VITTER, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion for Summary Judgment of St. James Parish School Board and its Individual Defendants on All Claims.^[1] Plaintiff opposes the Motion.^[2]

After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, the Motion is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[3]

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' second attempt to dismiss the employment discrimination claims filed by plaintiff, Latasha Cubas.^[4] On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (“Second Amended Complaint”), ^[5] against St. James Parish School Board, P. Edward Cancienne, Jr., in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of St. James Parish School Board, Kelly Cook, in her individual and official capacity as Administrator/Director of Student Services of St. James Parish School Board, Anne Detillier, in her individual and official capacity as Director of Teaching and Learning K-12 of St. James Parish School Board, Vondra Steib, in her individual and official capacity as Director of Special Education of St. James Parish School Board, Sabra Robichaux, in her individual and official capacity as Pupil Appraisal/504 Coordinator of St. James Parish School Board Hollie Folse, in her individual and official capacity as principal of Paulina Elementary School, Becky Louque, in her individual and official capacity as principal of Cypress Grove School, and Paul McDonald, in his individual and official capacity as Special Education Consultant at St. James Parish School Board.^[6] Unlike her original Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against each of the individual defendants, Cancienne, Cook, Detillier, Steib, Robichaux, Folse, and McDonald, in their individual and official capacities as agents of St. James Parish School Board “and employer of Plaintiff.”^[7]

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed as a school psychologist by St. James Parish School Board between 2015 and 2019, during which she continuously complained of illegal activity in the special education department to the individual defendants.^[8] Plaintiff alleges that after reporting these illegal activities, she was labeled a troublemaker and a roadblock, she was verbally harassed by the individual defendants, and she was treated differently due to her race.^[9] Plaintiff claims that she also reported the illegal activity to third-parties, including the National Association of School Psychologists, the United States Department of Education, the United States Department of Justice, parents and children advocates.^[10] Plaintiff claims that the illegal conduct included changing student evaluations, illegally falsifying official documents, discriminating against minorities and special education students, destroying test protocols and student folders, failing to provide special education services and refusing to provide other needed services, allowing school principals to unilaterally make the decisions of what special education services the students were receiving and which students would qualify for those services, changing students' Individualized Education Plans (“IEP's”) without parental participation or knowledge, backdating official documents, discriminating against African-American special education students by imposing harsher disciplinary consequences upon them, segregating students by race and status through school scheduling, failing to appropriately evaluate African-American students for gifted services, and changing evaluations “to change the trajectory of children's lives to fit the nonscientific evaluation of principal [sic] and make evaluation due to political connection and who parents are and not the abilities of the child.”^[11]

Plaintiff contends that she refused to comply with the illegal activity and “continuously complained and reported the illegal activity to her supervisors throughout her employment, ” with the last major incidents occurring on August 20, 2019 and October 15, 2019.^[12] While not articulated as clearly as in her original Complaint, ^[13] the Court surmises the following regarding Plaintiff's allegations concerning these two meetings. Plaintiff asserts that on August 20, 2019, she was called into a meeting with Cancienne, the Parish Superintendent, and 22 other people, during which Cancienne told Plaintiff she could “get on the boat or get off the boat, ” and that school principals would be making decisions regarding special education.^[14] When Plaintiff challenged this directive as illegal during the meeting, Cancienne allegedly told Plaintiff to make her evaluations fit the determinations made by the principal, and then belittled and berated Plaintiff.^[15] Plaintiff alleges that Cancienne indicated that his new directive should apply, regardless of whether the student qualified for special education under Louisiana Bulletin 1508 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).^[16] Plaintiff alleges that the harassment, complaints about her job performance, retaliation, and treatment by her supervisors got worse after this meeting.^[17] Plaintiff also asserts that after the meeting, Folse “began to make false accusations about Plaintiff's job performance, questioning Plaintiff's work, spreading lies and rumors about the plaintiff, making the job more difficult by adding unnecessary tasks to job responsibilities, ” and that Cook told Plaintiff that “they” were going to get rid of her.^[18] Plaintiff asserts that she reported all of the behavior to Robichaux, Steib, Detillier, and Cook.^[19]

Plaintiff alleges that during the October 15, 2019 meeting, she told her supervisors, Steib, Detillier, Cook, and Folse, that she would not change special education evaluations or break the law, and that she was told “by her supervisors, ” to “just bend the law” and to “water herself down.”^[20] During that meeting Plaintiff “again refused to comply and informed everyone present that what was being done was illegal.”^[21] According to Plaintiff, Steib indicated during the meeting that other Pupil Appraisal members were willing to “sign off on evaluations and give the principals what they wanted, ” but that Plaintiff was refusing to do so.^[22] Plaintiff claims she stated during the meeting that these evaluations were based upon falsified data, that Detillier, Steib, and Cook knew about the falsification of data, and that Detillier instructed Plaintiff to “make up data for evaluations.”^[23] Plaintiff alleges that she began experiencing mental health issues due to the workplace conditions and submitted her letter of resignation on December 20, 2019.^[24]

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven counts.^[25] In Counts 1 through 3 of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts Title VII claims against St. James Parish School Board for retaliation, discrimination, and harassment based upon her race and gender.^[26] While not a model of clarity, Plaintiff seems to assert that St. James Parish School Board should be held vicariously liable for the actions of Cancienne, Detillier, Folse, Louque, Robichaux, and Steib because they are supervisors for purposes of Title VII.^[27] Plaintiff also asserts a race discrimination claim against St. James Parish School Board in Count 2, based upon Louisiana's Employment Discrimination Law, La. R.S. 23:301, et seq.^[28] Plaintiff asserts a claim for “Section 1983 Retaliation” against “Defendant” in Count 4, but does not identify any defendant by name.^[29] Plaintiff appears to seek to hold St. James Parish School Board liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through its policy, practice and custom of engaging in illegal activity.^[30]

In Count 5, Plaintiff asserts a defamation claim against all of the individual defendants and St. James Parish School Board, although Plaintiff only identifies statements made by Detillier and Folse.^[31] Plaintiff asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Count 6 against unnamed “Defendants” based upon the “extreme and outrageous” conduct of Cancienne, Detillier, Folse, Robichaux, and Louque in asking Plaintiff to violate special education laws, state laws, and federal laws between 2015 and 2019.^[32] In Count 7, Plaintiff asserts a claim against St. James Parish School Board for violating the Louisiana Whistleblower statute, La. R.S. 23:967, based upon Cancienne, Detillier, Folse, Robichaux, and Louque asking Plaintiff to bend, break, or twist the law, including Louisiana Bulletin 1508 and the IDEA.^[33] Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of back pay, front pay, non-pecuniary losses including emotional distress, damages for loss of enjoyment and humiliation, past and future pecuniary losses, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.^[34]

The St. James Parish School Board, Cancienne, Detillier, Steib, Robichaux, Folse, and Louque (collectively, “Defendants, ” or individually by their last name) filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion for Summary Judgment on May 3, 2021, seeking to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims.^[35] Plaintiff opposes the Motion, asserting that she can prove each of the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint.^[36] Both parties rely extensively upon deposition testimony and sworn affidavits in support of their respective positions.

The Court feels compelled to note that, after a thorough review of the briefs and enormous volume of evidence submitted by the parties, ^[37] both briefs are, at times, completely unintelligible or indecipherable due to multiple...