Hughes v. City of N.Y.

197 F.Supp.3d 467

Everett HUGHES, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, New York City Department of Education, New York City Community School District 19, Carmen Fariña, and Joyce Stallings-Harte, Defendants.

15 Civ. 5269 (AMD) (SIL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed June 23, 2016

Luna Droubi, Joshua S. Moskovitz, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Paul F. Marks, Corporation Counsel of the City of NY, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

ANN DONNELLY, District Judge

The plaintiff brought this civil rights action against New York City Department of Education ("DOE") defendants in connection with the termination of his employment with the Center for Educational Innovation–Public Education Association ("CEI" or "CEI-PEA") and the prohibition against his working in New York City public schools. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and First Amendment associational rights pursuant to Section 1983. He also raises state law claims. The defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons set out below, the defendants' motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff is a former New York City educator. When he retired from the Department of Education in 2011, he had worked for the DOE for more than 30 years, and had most recently served as the principal of Intermediate School ("I.S.") 292 for almost ten years. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Following his retirement, CEI hired the plaintiff to assist DOE principals in Brooklyn. (Compl. ¶ 1.) CEI is a non-profit organization that contracts with the DOE to provide educational support services to schools and administrators. (Compl. ¶ 1.)

According to the plaintiff, he had "every reason to believe that he would continue to be employed by CEI" because he "was highly effective in fulfilling his employment responsibilities and, upon information and belief, CEI was pleased with his work performance." (Compl. ¶ 65.) The plaintiff alleges that he had a "renewing annual contract with CEI," (Compl. ¶ 33), and that he "contracted to work with CEI again each year, including the 2014–2015 school year." (Compl. ¶ 34.) Although the plaintiff refers to and characterizes the contracts, he did not append them to his complaint. The defendants, in support of their motion to dismiss, submitted the August 29, 2011 letter from CEI to the plaintiff extending an offer of employment, the form signed by the plaintiff acknowledging his receipt of the employee manual, and the July 1, 2013 contract between CEI and the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York.¹

In the August 29, 2011 letter, CEI offered the plaintiff a job and explained that his position was "contingent on ... [the] contract with the New York City DOE, which will expire on June 30, 2012 and therefore the position may be eliminated at that time." (Ex. A to Marks Decl. (25-2).) Further, the letter stated:

[Y]ou are being employed as an at-will-employee, meaning you retain the right to resign, without notice or cause and CEI-PEA retains the same right to terminate your employment without notice or cause. Your employment is for no definite term, regardless of any other oral or written statement by any other CEI-PEA representative.

(Ex. A to Marks Decl. (ECF No. 25-2).) This representation was repeated in the receipt and acknowledgment of the employee manual, which the plaintiff signed. (Ex. B to Marks Decl. (ECF No. 25-3).)

CEI separately contracted with the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York for the provision of support services in New York City public schools.² (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 1 (ECF No. 25-4).) Under the terms of that contract, CEI was to provide "direct, personal services" necessary to fulfill the support obligations under the agreement. (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 9 (ECF No. 25-4).) However, the contract expressly stated that "[n]one of the employees or consultants engaged by [CEI] shall be considered to be within the employ of the Board or the City of New York." (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 9 (ECF No. 25-4).) Similarly, the agreement provided that CEI "shall have the right to remove employees and consultants from School Sites and to terminate the contracts of employees and consultants at will." (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 10 (ECF No. 25-4).)

Though CEI reserved the right to hire and fire its employees at will, the contract gave the Board of Education "the right to demand the removal of any [CEI] employee or consultant from a school site or from continuing to provide services" under certain circumstances. (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 10 (ECF No. 25-4).) Specifically, the Board was permitted to demand removal of a contractor "if in its reasonable discretion" it found an individual "unacceptable for any lawful reason." (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 10 (ECF No. 25-4).) In relevant part, those lawful reasons included, but were not limited to, security reasons, demonstration that the individual was a threat to staff at a school site, or unsatisfactory performance. (Ex. C to Marks Decl. at 10 (ECF No. 25-4).)

While the plaintiff does not plead that he personally contracted with the Department of Education for employment in the years after 2011, he alleges that "[b]y virtue of CEI's contract with the Board and/or the DOE, and Mr. Hughes' employment relationship with CEI, Mr. Hughes had a contractual right to work in the New York City public schools, a reasonable and legitimate expectation of continued work in the New York City public schools, and effectively, a license to work in the New York City public schools." (Compl. ¶ 35.)

The plaintiff alleges that the "DOE was a joint employer together with CEI in that there was an interrelationship of operations, and CEI and the DOE handled certain aspects of the employer-employee relationship jointly." (Compl. ¶ 75.) He asserts further that "[t]he DOE was directly involved in and affected Mr. Hughes' employment duties, as well as the terms and conditions of his employment, as evidenced by the defendants' conduct." (Compl. ¶ 75.)

During the 2014–2015 school year, the plaintiff worked at I.S. 292, a school in New York City Community School District 19. (Compl. ¶¶ 36–37.) Joyce Stallings-Harte was the superintendent for that district. (Compl. ¶ 38.)

On the morning of September 17, 2014, CEI directed the plaintiff to report to I.S. 292 because a demonstration was expected to take place at the school. (Compl. ¶ 39.) The plaintiff alleges that he arrived at the school parking lot at around 7:30 a.m. so that he could "observe the demonstration from a distance." (Compl. ¶ 42.) He claims that around 7:50 a.m., Superintendent Stallings-Harte drove by the school in her car, but that the plaintiff neither spoke with her nor approached her car. (Compl. ¶¶ 44–45.)

That same day, the plaintiff was instructed by a CEI executive to report to the CEI administrative offices. (Compl. ¶ 48.) When he arrived, he learned that DOE Chancellor Carmen Fariña had instructed CEI management to remove the plaintiff from his CEI school placement, and that the plaintiff was banned from working in any New York City school until further notice. (Compl. ¶ 49.)

According to the plaintiff, Chancellor Fariña told CEI management that it had been reported to her that the plaintiff had "orchestrated the demonstration at I.S. 292, caused a ‘riot,’ and led a group of people who damaged Superintendent Stallings-Harte's car." (Compl. ¶ 50.) Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Chancellor Fariña told CEI management that the plaintiff was "not a good guy" because there had been complaints about him when he was employed by the DOE. (Compl. ¶ 59.) The plaintiff denies these accusations. (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 60.)

The plaintiff alleges further that Superintendent Stallings-Harte made a false report to the police, claiming that the plaintiff harassed her at the demonstration. (Compl. ¶ 52.) The plaintiff reports that a police officer told him that no criminal charges would be pursued against the plaintiff because the police did not believe the Superintendent's account. (Compl. ¶ 53.)

On October 1, 2014, CEI management told the plaintiff that his employment with CEI would be terminated because CEI "works at the behest of the Chancellor." (Compl. ¶ 62.) The following week, the plaintiff learned that this termination would take effect immediately, which was months before the end of his contract. (Compl. ¶ 63.) CEI continued to contract with the Department of Education to provide support to intermediate public schools in New York City. (Compl. ¶ 64.)

The Department of Education Office of Special Investigations ("OSI") and the School Safety Division ("SSD") investigated the accusations lodged against the plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding the demonstration. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 68–69.) The plaintiff claims that he was never contacted during the investigation, nor was he told of its outcome. (Compl. ¶¶ 68–71.) He alleges upon information and belief that these agencies concluded their investigation on or before January of 2015, and found that Superintendent "Stallings-Harte's accusations as to what occurred at the demonstration on September 17, 2014 at I.S. 292 were unsubstantiated." (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 71.)

As a result of the defendants' conduct, the plaintiff claims that his annual contract with CEI was terminated, and that he did not receive the compensation that he otherwise would have earned during the 2014-2015 school year, and those following. (Compl. ¶ 74.) According to the plaintiff, other educational consulting agencies that contract with the Department of Education will not employ him because of Chancellor Fariña's ban on his employment in the New York City public schools. (Compl. ¶ 74.) He alleges that this ban is ongoing, and that...