Hansen v. Watkins Glen Cent. Sch. Dist.

KRISTINA HANSEN, Plaintiff, v. WATKINS GLEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and THOMAS J. PHILLIPS,Individually and as Superintendent of the Watkins Glen Central School District, Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-6143-FPG-JWF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 15, 2019

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kristina Hansen brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Watkins Glen Central School District ("District") and its Superintendent, Thomas Phillips.¹ She alleges that Defendants violated her rights by requiring her to obtain Phillips's permission before accessing District property in response to her attempt to enter the high school building without following security protocols. ECF No. 30.

Phillips and the District now move for summary judgment. ECF No. 32. Phillips argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, and the District argues that it cannot be held liable for Phillips's actions because they were not taken pursuant to a municipal policy, practice, or custom. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND²

Kristina Hansen is a parent and long-time activist within the District who often attended Board of Education meetings. One such meeting was held on March 2, 2016. At that meeting, Superintendent Phillips announced that he would be giving a budget presentation at the high school during a "Superintendent's Day" on March 11, 2016. Phillips invited Board members to attend, but he did not intend this presentation to be open to the public. However, he did not clarify this at the March 2 Board meeting. Hansen planned to attend.

On the morning of March 11, Hansen arrived at the high school around 7:45am. As she was pulling in, she saw Phillips through a window, and he saw her. ECF Nos. 33-1 at 34; 33-4 at 90. She waited in her car for approximately ten minutes to see if any Board members were coming. ECF No. 33-1 at 34. She eventually saw two Board members arrive, so she exited her car and began walking towards the building. Id. at 34-37. But instead of walking directly towards the entrance and pressing the intercom button to request permission to be buzzed-in—as visitors are required to do—she waited behind a pillar for over a minute and a half until the two Board members with security passes approached the entrance. She then came out from behind the pillar and followed closely behind the Board members towards the doors because, in her words, "I knew I would have to ask permission to go in. I knew he would be allowed to just sail through." ECF No. 39 at 2.

Phillips saw Hansen approach from inside the building and became alarmed because he considered Hansen to be circumventing the school's security protocol. ECF No. 33-4 at 91. Before she could make it to the doors, Phillips came through them and told her to leave and that she could not attend the presentation because it was about confidential staffing issues and not open to thepublic. ECF No. 33-1 at 42-43. Hansen refused and asked to speak to another district representative but was not allowed to do so. After a ten to fifteen second interaction with Phillips, Hansen moved through the doors and entered a vestibule situated between the exterior doors and another set of interior doors. Phillips instructed his office to notify the police and proceeded to his presentation. Hansen waited in the vestibule for several minutes until two Watkins Glen Village police officers arrived and escorted her off the property without incident.

I. Phillips's March 11 Letter (The "First Restriction")

Later that day, Phillips consulted with a school attorney about sending a letter to Hansen in response to that morning's incident. ECF No. 33-4 at 118-19.³ He sent the letter to Hansen by certified mail the same day. It said:

Due to your refusal to leave the district premises at the request of the superintendent which caused the police to intervene on Friday, March 11, 2016; the following procedure must be followed by you:

If you have a need to visit a school or a district office you must request permission from the Superintendent by stating the specifics of the need to come to the district, including time necessary to complete any business.

Before coming to school, wait for the Superintendent to grant permission in writing. Written permission must be presented at the time of admittance to the building.

ECF No. 36-10 at 2.

Hansen received the letter on March 14 and emailed a response to Board of Education President Kelly McCarthy and Phillips that same day. ECF No. 36-10 at 5. In it, she contested the legality of the First Restriction and asserted that the District's written Code of Conduct (ECFNo. 39-1 at 19) contained no provision authorizing Phillips to make a visitor get permission before accessing District property. She closed her email by indicating that she would not be adhering to the First Restriction.

II. Phillips's March 14 Email (The "Second Restriction")

Approximately fifteen minutes after Hansen sent her email, Phillips emailed her back with the following message:

Let me be extremely clear. This letter was written by the School attorney. You must follow the process as outlined in the letter you received "Certified" if you have a need to conduct business at any and all District facilities.

I have included David Waite⁴ in this email. By way of this email your letter "response" has been received and I am denying your coming to campus to hand deliver the letter.

Failure to follow the process outlined in the letter will result in further legal consequences.

ECF No. 36-10 at 8. (The First Restriction and the Second Restriction will sometimes be collectively referred to as the "Permission Requirement").

III. Hansen's Subsequent Attempts to Come to the District and Resulting Arrests

On March 17, Hansen sought to attend a parent/teacher conference at the school and Phillips granted her permission without incident. ECF No. 36-10 at 10.

After that, however, Hansen consulted with the New York State Committee on Open Government ("COG"), a unit housed in the Department of State that oversees and advises the government, public, and news media on Freedom of Information, Open Meetings, and Personal Privacy Protection Laws. Based on her communications with COG, on March 21, Hansen sent a letter to board president Kelly McCarthy and Officer David Waite informing them that she planned to attend a board meeting that night, but that she would not seek permission from Phillips becauseshe "know[s] the law" and "open meetings are open to everyone. You don't need to ask permission." ECF No. 32-4 ¶ 20. When Hansen arrived that night, Phillips told her to leave because she had not adhered to the Permission Requirement. Hansen refused, and Phillips turned the matter over to the Watkins Glen Police. They asked her to leave and advised her that she would be arrested if she did not. She again refused and was arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

On May 4, Hansen again came to the District premises and attended an outdoor tennis match without seeking Phillips's permission. The police again asked her to leave, she refused, and she was again arrested and charged with criminal trespass.

The Watkins Glen Village Court dismissed the charge stemming from the March 21 arrest for facial insufficiency. It dismissed the charge stemming from the May 4 arrest in a written Decision and Order. ECF No. 39-1 at 84-95 (Village Court Decision and Order). In it, the court acknowledged that Hansen "circumvented the security system of the school building when she entered into the lobby area by following persons who used their 'key card' to open the outside doors." Id. at 88. Nevertheless, the court found that the "banishment order" against Hansen was unlawful under New York Penal Law §§ 140.00[5] and 140.10[d]. Id. at 89-90. The court reasoned that, because a quorum of the Board was present at Phillips's March 11 budget presentation, under New York Education Law § 1708 and New York Public Officers Law § 103 (the "Open Meetings Law"), the March 11 presentation should have been open to the public and Hansen should have been permitted to attend. Id. at 87. The court held that the "banishment order" lacked a legitimate basis and was an "overreaction to a relatively benign infraction of school rules by a citizen who reasonably believed she had a right to attend the open session of a meeting attended by a quorum of the Board of Education . . . ." Id. at 90. The court further held that theorder would inhibit Hansen's ability to engage in constitutionally or statutorily protected rights, such as the right to lawfully enter and remain in public buildings. Id. at 91-95.

IV. This Action

Hansen then sued Phillips and the District for imposing the Permission Requirement against her. In her first cause of action, she alleges that Phillips violated her "rights under the District's policies and procedures, established pursuant to State Law;" her constitutional rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, and association; and her right to due process.⁵ ECF No. 30 at 10. In her second cause of action, Hansen alleges that Phillips retaliated against her for complaining about the First Restriction by increasing its scope from any "school or district office" as stated in the First Restriction to "any and all District facilities" as stated in the Second Restriction. Id. at 11. In her third cause of action, Hansen alleges a Monell⁶ claim against the District. Id. at 12.

Phillips and the District now move for summary judgment on all of Hansen's remaining claims. ECF No. 32, 32-5.

DISCUSSION

I. Hansen's Claims for Violations of State Law Are Not Cognizable Under § 1983

Within her first cause of action, Hansen alleges that Phillips violated her rights under state law. Specifically, she alleges that Phillips violated the District's Visitors' Policy, which is included in the written Code of Conduct established by the Board of Education pursuant to NewYork Education Law § 2801....