Meyers v. Kishimoto

217 F.Supp.3d 563

Paul F. MEYERS, Plaintiff,

v.Christina KISHIMOTO, Natasha Durant, Jennifer Allen, Kevin McCaskill, Milly Ramos, Janet Seranno, City of Hartford, and Jill Cutler Hodgman, Defendants.

3:14–cv–00535 (CSH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed November 17, 2016

James S. Brewer, Attorney at Law, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Lori A. Mizerak, Corporation Counsel's Office, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

Nicole C. Chomiak, Nuzzo & Roberts, Cheshire, CT, for City of Hartford.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge

Plaintiff Paul F. Meyers brings this action against Defendant the City of Hartford and various individuals (collectively, "Individual Defendants").¹ Plaintiff alleges that he was improperly terminated as a physical education teacher at the Simpson Waverly School in Hartford, CT.

Specifically, Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Individual Defendants in their official and individual capacities based on violations of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights (Count One),² a state law negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants (Count Two), a state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants (Count Three), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of Hartford based on violations of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights (Count Four), a state law claim pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52–557n against the City of Hartford based on the negligence of its employees (Count Five), a state law indemnification claim pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7–465 against to the City of Hartford based on the actions of its employees (Count Six), and aiding and abetting state law claims against Defendants (Count Seven). Defendants move for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims. This Ruling resolves that motion.

I. Factual Background

The following facts are derived from the parties' submissions pursuant to D. Conn. Local Rule 56(a) (referred to herein as "Defs. Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement," "Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement," and "Pl. Statement of Disputed Facts"); uncontroverted deposition testimony; and the exhibits attached to the parties' respective memoranda of law (respectively, "Defs. Ex." and "Pl. Ex."). Docs. 37, 41, 45, and 48. The facts recounted in this Part are undisputed or indisputable. All reasonable inferences have been drawn in Plaintiff's favor. The relevant period of time is from April 2013 to February 2014.

Defendants in this action are the City of Hartford, Christina Kishimoto, Kevin McCaskill, Jill Cutler Hodgman, Milly Ramos, Natasha Durrant, Janet Serrano, and Jennifer Allen.³ Each of the Individual Defendants was employed by the Hartford Board of Education ("HBOE"). Christina Kishimoto was the Superintendent during the relevant period. See Pl. Ex. 10 (Deposition of Defendant McCaskill ("McCaskill Dep.")) at 11:15–17. Kevin McCaskill was the Director of School Design, and for the 2012–13 school year, he was also a Director of Secondary Schools. Id. at 10:13–24. He reported to the Chief Operating Officer of Hartford Public Schools, Dr. Donald Slater, during that period. Id. at 9:9–14. His job was "reform work," which he described as giving the schools a thematic approach to their curriculum and to their personnel and professional development. Id. at 9:20–10:1.

Jill Cutler Hodgman was the Chief Labor and Legal Officer for the HBOE during the relevant time period. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 39.⁴ In that capacity, she was responsible for the termination of employees of the HBOE pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10–151 and the placement of employees on administrative leaves of absences during pending investigations. Id. ¶¶ 40–41. Milly Ramos was a Labor Relations Specialist who reported directly to Defendant Hodgman. Id. ¶ 33. She worked on a regular basis with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), coordinating investigations with DCF, and investigating employee misconduct for the HBOE. Pl. Ex. 9 (Deposition of Defendant Hodgman ("Hodgman Dep.")) at 31:3–32:9. Natasha Durrant was the Executive Director of Human Resources for the HBOE. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 45. Janet Serrano was a Staffing Specialist for the HBOE, but was not the assigned specialist for Plaintiff's school, Simpson Waverly, during the relevant time period. Id. ¶¶ 36–37. Jennifer Allen was the Chief Talent Officer for the Office of Talent Management during the relevant period. See Am. Cmplt. (Doc. 30) ¶ 10; Pl. Ex. 10 (McCaskill Dep.) at 24:2–6.

Plaintiff was a physical education teacher at Simpson Waverly School in Hartford, CT and had been employed by the Hartford schools since 1998. See Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 1; Defs. Ex. 1. Plaintiff had a five-year certification from the State of Connecticut to teach Physical Education, Pre–K through Grade 12 that expired on October 24, 2013. Defs. Ex. 2. On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in an incident with a disruptive student at Simpson Waverly during a physical education class. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 4; Pl. Ex. 6 at 2–4. An anonymous complaint was thereafter filed with DCF against Plaintiff. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 5. Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation, effective May 7, 2013. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 6; Defs. Ex. 3. Initial efforts to take a required investigatory interview with Plaintiff regarding the incident were unsuccessful. See Defs. Ex. 20. Defendant Ramos sent a letter rescheduling the interview, reiterating that it is was mandatory and stating that failure to attend "may result in disciplinary consequences and unpaid leave." Id.

After completing the investigation, in or around late August 2013, DCF substantiated a finding of physical abuse and neglect against Plaintiff and placed Plaintiff on DCF's central registry. See Pl. Ex. 5 (Affidavit of Paul F. Meyers ("Meyers Aff.")) ¶¶ 15–17; Pl. Ex. 6 at 1. Shortly thereafter, on September 12, 2013, Plaintiff was informed that termination of his employment was under consideration by letter from Defendant Kishimoto. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 12; Defs. Ex. 7. Plaintiff's union counsel followed up with Defendant Kishimoto by letter requesting a statement of reasons for Plaintiff's termination. Pl. Ex. 5 (Meyers Aff.) ¶ 38. After Plaintiff received this statement, Plaintiff's union counsel requested a hearing pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10–151, Connecticut's tenure statute for teachers, by letter on September 20, 2013. Id. at ¶¶ 39–42.

While the DCF investigation was still pending, on July 9, 2013, Defendant Serrano emailed Plaintiff to inform him that his teaching certificate would expire on October 24, 2013 and that the Connecticut State Department of Education ("CSDE") had indicated that he had not yet submitted the renewal or re-certification paperwork. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 7; Defs. Ex. 4. Defendant Serrano warned in this email that "[f]ailure to submit your application and all appropriate documentation in a timely manner will impact your employment status with the district." Defs. Ex. 4 (emphasis in original). Defendant Serrano also informed Plaintiff that if his "application require[d] the signature of the Superintendent or her designee" he could send it to her and she would email him "so that [Plaintiff] can pick it up and deliver to the [C]SDE." Id.

A CSDE brochure from October 2012 on certification advises that a teacher, such as Plaintiff, "should apply to continue your certificate no earlier than six months and no later than six weeks before the date of expiration of your professional educator certificate." Defs. Ex. 15a at 2.⁵ The CSDE emphasized that the "application must be received in our office BY the expiration date" and "[p]ostmarks are NOT considered." Id. (emphasis in original). The CSDE informed applicants to "allow 10–12 business days for mail to reach the [CSDE] office." Id. at 1. The CSDE brochure also detailed the process to continue or renew an expiring certificate, which required a teacher to apply online, or submit by paper (1) an Application Form, ED 179, and (2) if the teacher worked under the prior certificate, a Statement of Professional Experience Form, ED 126, in order to verify successful service as a teacher. Id. at 2. An Application Form, ED 170, could also be submitted instead of an ED 179 if a teacher was unsure of what forms to submit. Id. at 1. Throughout the brochure, the CSDE reiterated that submitting an application (ED 179 or ED 170) prior to the expiration of a certificate would mean that the "certification is considered in process, pending materials and final evaluation," thus, as long as the application was received prior to the expiration of a teacher's certification, it would be considered timely and additional forms (presumably forms such as the ED 126) could be submitted later. Id. at 1–2. The CSDE noted that the "quickest and easiest" way to apply was online and that a teacher could also check the status of existing applications online. Id. at 2.

On September 11, 2013, Defendant Serrano informed Plaintiff that his form ED 126 had been completed and was available for pick-up. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 11; Defs. Ex. 6. A day later, on September 12, 2013, Victoria Hajdasz, another HBOE employee in the Office of Talent Management, reminded Plaintiff that his certification was going to expire on October 24, 2013 and that he needed to submit his paperwork to the "state dept. of certification." Pl. Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement ¶ 13; Defs. Ex. 8. On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff responded to Ms. Hajdasz's email asking her about the status of his "paperwork" and stating that he had submitted it "a few weeks ago." Defs. Ex. 8. He emailed Defendant Serrano with a similar message inquiring about an update on his "paperwork" on the same day. Pls. Ex.11 (Deposition of Defendant Serrano ("Serrano Dep.")) at...