Langton v. Town of Chester

168 F.Supp.3d 597

Mary Langton, Plaintiff,

v.Town of Chester, Alex Jamieson, sued in his individual capacity, Town of Chester Library Board and Teresa Mallon, sued in her individual capacity, Defendants.

No. 14-cv-9474 (NSR)

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

Signed March 2, 2016

Michael Howard Sussman, Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan M. Bernstein, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Albany, NY, William T. O'Connell, Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains, NY, David Lewis Posner, McCabe & Mack LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Mary Langton brings this action against Defendants the Town of Chester (the “Town”) and Alex Jamieson (collectively, the “Town Defendants”) and the Town of Chester Library Board (the “Library Board”) and Teresa Mallon (collectively, the “Library Defendants”) for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each defendant group has moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the Town Defendants' motion is GRANTED and the Library Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the complaint (ECF No. 1, or the “Complaint”) unless otherwise noted and are accepted as hue for the purposes of this motion.

In January 2012, Plaintiff was appointed by the board of the Town of Chester (the “Town Board”) to serve as a trustee on the Library Board, which position carries a 4 year term. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 39.) Beginning in 2013, as President of the Library Board, Plaintiff raised issues with the operations of the library, and, in particular, the performance of the library director Maureen Jagos. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff continued to have confrontations with Jagos throughout 2013, which culminated in Plaintiff's issuance of a needs improvement performance review for Jagos in 2014. (Id. ¶ 17.) The Complaint outlines several of the confrontations between Plaintiff and Jagos, including the following:

• On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff wrote to the Town Supervisor Steve Neuhaus regarding insufficient heating systems in the library and the town's failure to remedy the problem. (Id. ¶ 8.) At the time of this letter, Jamieson was a member of the Town Board. (Id. )

• In March 2013, the director of the regional library network informed Plaintiff about the possibility of establishing a Friends of the Library group as a 501(c)(3).¹ (Id. ¶ 9.) In May 2013, Plaintiff learned that the library had established such a group and donated $1,000 from library funds to the group. (Id. )

• In May 2013, Jagos informed the Library Board that the library could purchase new computers for $4,000; however, Jagos later informed that Library Board that she was mistaken and the computers would cost $6,500. (Id. ¶ 10.) Jagos requested the Library Board's permission to purchase the computers at the higher price and amend the Library Board's minutes to reflect the board's assent to the new price. (Id. )

• During the summer of 2013, Plaintiff sought to have the Library Board adopt a handbook for library staff, and at the August 2013 board meeting she distributed to Jagos and other trustees the handbooks in use at nearby local libraries. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff also requested that Jagos provide the Library Board with a job description to enable the trustees to evaluate Jagos' performance, but she failed to do so. (Id. ¶ 12.)

• In late August 2013, Jagos accused Plaintiff of prematurely submitting the library budget to the Town Board. (Id. ¶ 14.) In actuality, a member of the Town Board had previously received a draft of the preliminary budget at a Library Board meeting and presented it to the Town Board as the final library budget. (Id. ) Plaintiff explained at the Town Board meeting that the draft budget was not final, and the Library Board would take its time to review the budget. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.)

• In October 2013, Jagos rejected Plaintiff's idea that the Library Board arrange for an independent audit of the library, arguing that it was a waste of money. (Id. ¶ 13.)

• In December 4, 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Jagos intended to close the library for staff training without previously seeking approval from the Library Board, as was past practice. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff raised further issues with the operations of the library, including mismanagement of finances, nepotism, and personal use of library property. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff, on behalf of the Library Board, gave Jagos her first performance review as Director of the library in January 2014. (Id. ¶ 17.) The performance review indicated Jagos needed to improve and would be reevaluated in six months. (Id. ) Plaintiff initially drafted the review and received verbal and written comments from other trustees on the Library Board in preparing the final report. (Id. ) Subsequent to Jagos receiving her review, two members of the Library Board attacked Plaintiff and claimed they had not signed off on the final performance review. (Id. ¶ 18.) One of those members, Eileen Sullivan, had notified the Library Board in August 2013 that she would no longer attend meetings and did not participate in the review process. (Id. ) The other member, Tanya Woods, was the first board member to approve the content of the performance review. (Id. ) Plaintiff responded to these personal attacks in writing. (Id. ) In early 2014, Teresa Mallon became the President of the Library Board, and Plaintiff became the Vice President. (Id. )

In response to the performance review, Jagos filed a complaint against Plaintiff in January 2014. (Id. 21.) Despite lacking jurisdiction over the complaint, Jamieson arranged an investigation of the complaint, which cost the town over $23,000. (Id. ¶ 22.) The Complaint contends that Jamieson did so to suppress criticism of the functioning of the library. (Id. ) Throughout the course of the investigation conducted by an attorney from Rockland County, Devora Lindeman, Plaintiff was interviewed for more than 7 hours on 2 occasions and supplied documents. (Id. ¶ 23.)

On July 31, 2014, Jamieson held a meeting in his office with Plaintiff and Mallon. (Id. ¶ 24.) Jamieson demanded that Plaintiff resign, claiming that Lindeman's investigation found that Plaintiff was abusive and a liar. (Id. ) Mallon also claimed she had read Lindeman's report and agreed with Jamieson's assessment of it. (Id. ) Plaintiff refused to resign and requested a copy of the Lindeman report. (Id. ¶ 25.) Jamieson refused to give Plaintiff a copy or let her read it. (Id. )

On August 1, 2014, as president of the Library Board, Mallon advised Plaintiff that an action would be proposed to remove Plaintiff as a trustee at the August 12 meeting. (Id. ¶ 28.) On August 5, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel demanded copies of the charges against Plaintiff but was not provided them. (Id. ¶ 28.) During the August 12 meeting of the Library Board, the board adjourned to executive session and did not allow Plaintiff or her counsel to attend. (Id. ¶ 30.) After the executive session adjourned, the Library Board voted to remove Plaintiff as a trustee, without providing any reason for its actions. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33.) Plaintiff and her counsel have continually sought access to the Lindeman report and been denied. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Plaintiff was never provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations in the Lindeman report or clear her name. (Id. ¶ 40.)

STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DISMISS

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Although “a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't , 592 F.3d 314, 321 (2d Cir.2010). A court should accept non-conclusory allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Ruotolo v. City of N.Y. , 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008). “[T]he duty of a court ‘is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.’ ” DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. , 622 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Cooper v. Parsky , 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir.1998) ).

DISCUSSION

I. Standing

“In deciding questions of standing on the basis of the pleadings, the court 'accepts as true all material allegations of the complaint and construes the complaint in favor of the complaining party.' ” Goldberg v. UBS AG , 660 F.Supp.2d 410, 417 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (quoting Kendall v. Employees Ret. Plan of Avon Prods. , 561 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir.2009) ). Constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to show the following: (1) she suffered an “injury in fact”; (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” exists; and (3) a federal court decision will “likely” redress the injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The Town Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her First Amendment retaliation claim against them because she fails to establish the second prong of the standing requirement. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“Town Defs.' Mot.”) or ECF No. 31 at 5.) In particular, the Town Defendants claim that Plaintiff has standing only...