Meyers v. Kishimoto

PAUL F. MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINA KISHIMOTO, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS;NATASHA DURANT, EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES;JENNIFER ALLEN, CHIEF TALENT OFFICER; KEVIN McCASKILL,DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL DESIGN AND PROGRAMMING; MILLY RAMOS,LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER; JANET SERANNO, STAFFING SPECIALIST;and CITY OF HARTFORD, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:14 - CV - 535 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JULY 1, 2015

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul F. Meyers brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut common and statutory law for wrongful termination of his tenured school teacher position in the Hartford Public Schools District by the City of Hartford. In his original Complaint, he named as defendants six individuals employed in supervisory positions in the City of Hartford Public Schools and the City of Hartford (herein collectively "Defendants").¹

In summary, Plaintiff alleges that in 2013, he taught physical education at Hartford's Simpson-Waverly School, located at 55 Waverly Street in Hartford, Connecticut. Doc. 1 ("Complaint"), ¶ 16. On April 25, 2013, while teaching a physical education class in the gymnasium - an area Plaintiff describes as "separated from the rest of the school" without "other faculty, security and staff" accessible - Plaintiff "noticed disruptive behavior by a student who was interfering with other students playing basketball." Id., ¶¶ 16-23. After Plaintiff intervened to prevent a fight among the students, the disruptive student allegedly "punched Plaintiff numerous times, including in the head, while [he] tried to retrain [sic] and control" the student. Id., ¶ 24. According to Plaintiff, although the student was "not injured in the incident," id., ¶ 25, and the Principal's interviews with other student witnesses confirmed that the student at issue was "disruptive" and "violent," id., ¶ 26, an anonymous complaint was filed against Plaintiff with the Connecticut Department of Families & Children ("DCF") on April 29, 2013, id., ¶ 27. An investigation by DCF followed. Id.

"[O]n May 7, 2013 Defendants placed Plaintiff on administrative leave, 'pending the outcome of allegations against [him] of inappropriate conduct.'" Id., ¶ 34. On August 29, 2013, DCF investigator Melissa Bahre determined that Plaintiff committed "physical abuse" and "neglect" against the disruptive student. Id., ¶ 29. Plaintiff was then placed on the DCF "Child Abuse and Neglect Registry." Id., ¶ 30. In addition, "[o]n or about September 12, 2013, despite know[ledge] that the DCF process was still ongoing," Defendants initiated termination proceedings against Plaintiff pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151(d), which addresses termination of a tenured teacher's employment. Id., ¶¶ 39-41, 49. On September 19, 2013, Defendants informed Plaintiff that he was subject to termination for "Insubordination," "Moral Misconduct," and/or "Other due and sufficientcause," which are grounds for terminating a tenured teacher under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151 (d), (2), (3), & (6). Id., ¶¶ 41, 50. "After Plaintiff notified Defendants that he was not subject to termination until a final determination of the DCF investigator[']s 'findings," which he had chosen to appeal, Defendants ceased his termination proceeding.² Id., ¶ 45.

Defendants thereafter allegedly sought to terminate Plaintiff's employment "based on his certification with the Connecticut [State] Department of Education ('CSDE')" by falsely claiming that he was not certified by the CSDE.³ Id., ¶¶ 46-47. On August 26, 2013, Plaintiff had completed and submitted Connecticut Department of Education Form ED 179, "Application For Continuation Of Professional Educator Certificate." Id., ¶ 54. However, defendant Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent of Hartford Public Schools, "or her designee," did not sign the related Form ED 126 to verify Plaintiff's service until September 11, 2013. Id., ¶ 55. Moreover, the signed ED 126 was allegedly not received by CSDE "until more than 45 days later, on October 25, 2013, the day the Plaintiff was terminated for failure to be certified." Id., ¶ 56. Plaintiff alleges that "[i]t was the lack of Form ED 126 that was the basis for the CSDE 'notifying' Defendants that [Plaintiff's] certification application was incomplete." Id., ¶ 57. Citing the expiration of Plaintiff's certification on October24, 2013, defendant Natasha Durant, Executive Director of Human Resources for Hartford Public Schools, wrote to Plaintiff that "[r]egretfully, the Hartford Public Schools is [sic] forced to separate your services immediately as a physical education teacher at Simpson Waverly School." Id., ¶ 58.

By letter "dated November 5, 2013, CSDE requested an updated Form ED 179 from Plaintiff." Id., ¶ 62. Then, one month after Plaintiff was terminated for lack of certification, "[o]n November 29, 2013 CSDE notified Plaintiff that because he was listed on the DCF registry his request for recertification was denied." Id., ¶ 63. From January 14, 2014 to the present, "after the final determination of DCF clearing Plaintiff of any misconduct, he has been duly certified to teach by the CSDE." Id., ¶ 64. The Department of Education Commissioner signed Plaintiff's certification, which became valid for the "period from October 25, 2013 to October 24, 2018," extinguishing the Hartford School Board's stated reason for Plaintiff's termination, i.e., his "expired" certification. Id., ¶ 59. Nonetheless, despite their knowledge that Plaintiff has been cleared of the DCF charges and recertified, "Defendants, jointly and severally, have refused to reinstate Plaintiff to his position." Id., ¶ 65.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants ultimately discharged him for lack of certification because he would have had procedural safeguards, including a hearing, had they pursued the theory that he should be terminated under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151 for alleged misconduct (i.e., the incident which gave rise to the DCF charges). Id., ¶¶ 46-47. Section 10-151 provides that "[w]ithin twenty days after receipt of written notice by the superintendent that contract termination is under consideration, such teacher may file with the local or regional board of education a written request for a hearing." Id., ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Plaintiff further alleges that on September 20, 2013, upon learning of Defendants' intention to terminate him due to the DCF charges, Plaintiff's unioncounsel had in fact notified Defendants that Plaintiff requested "a private hearing before a single impartial hearing officer chosen by the teacher (Plaintiff) and the Superintendent," pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151(d). Id., ¶ 52.

By avoiding a hearing and terminating Plaintiff based on lack of certification, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, inter alia, acted under color of law and violated his federal and state constitutional rights, including his property right in his tenured employment. Id., ¶¶ 72-77. In so doing, Defendants allegedly inflicted upon Plaintiff "great humiliation, pain, embarrassment, anxiety, stress, emotional mental upset, and loss of sleep, lost revenue, and attorney's fees." Id., ¶ 71.

In filing this action, Plaintiff has included the following eight causes of action in his Complaint: Count One (Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against all Defendants; Count Two (Public Policy Wrongful Termination) against all Defendants; Count Three (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) as to all Defendants; Count Four (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) as to all Defendants; Count Five (Deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) as to the City of Hartford; Count Six (Liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n) as to the City of Hartford; Count Seven (Indemnification under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465) as to the City of Hartford; and Count Eight (Aiding and Abetting) as to all Defendants.

II. PENDING MOTION - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 24]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his Complaint [Doc. 24] pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. As Plaintiff explains in the papers supporting his motion, when he "filed [the original Complaint] on April 21, 2014," he "cit[ed] various violations against the named defendants and a claim under Monell [v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658(1978)], against the City of Hartford for, inter alia, denying plaintiff his Due Process and Property rights under the United States Constitution."⁴ Doc. 24-1, at 1. Since that time, Plaintiff represents that he "has learned of additional documents, facts, occurrences and events that predate the filing of the original Complaint and that provide [him] with additional grounds for relief against the Defendants." Id., at 2. In particular, he has "learned through discovery that Jill Cutler Hodgman ("Hodgman")[,] the Chief Labor and Legal Officer [of the Hartford School District,] was directly involved in the various acts of violation of the [P]laintiff's [c]onstitutional rights as set forth in the Amended Complaint." Id.; see also Doc. 24-2 (proposed "Amended Complaint"). After additional discovery, including production of documents and consultations with witnesses and counsel "involved in the underlying labor litigation," Plaintiff asserts that "it is clear that Hodgman was a decision maker regarding the complained of deprivation of [his] [c]onstitutional rights." Doc. 24-1, at 2. He thus concludes that "Hodgman is a necessary defendant in this case."

Despite the expiration of the permissible time period to respond, D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)(1), no Defendant has objected or responded to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. The Court resolves Plaintiff's unopposed request to amend his Complaint herein.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Rules 15 and 21, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Plaintiff herein seeks to amend his Complaint by, inter alia, adding a new defendant, Hodgman, pursuant...