Minkley v. Eureka City Sch., Case No. 17-cv-3241-PJH

KALA MINKLEY, Plaintiff, v. EUREKA CITY SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-3241-PJH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 29, 2017

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART

Defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims asserted against them in the first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) came on for hearing before this court on August 16, 2017. Plaintiff Kala Minkley appeared by her counsel Peder J. Thoreen and Jennifer W. Bezoza. Defendants appeared by their counsel Nicholas R. Kloeppel. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it in part as follows.

BACKGROUND

This is a case arising out of a dispute between plaintiff Kala Minkley and her former employer, the Eureka City Schools Board of Education, which resulted in her termination. Named as defendants are the Eureka City Schools; the Eureka City Schools Board of Education ("the District" or "the Board"); District Superintendent Fred Van Vleck ("Van Vleck"); Director of Student Services Laurie Alexander ("Alexander"); and the five members of the Board - Lisa Ollivier ("Ollivier"), Wendy Davis ("Davis"), Mike Duncan ("Duncan"), Susan Johnson ("Johnson"), and Fran Taplin ("Taplin"). The individual defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.

Plaintiff was a special education teacher who began her employment with the District at the start of the 2015-2016 school year, at Grant Elementary School. FAC ¶¶ 2, 17. During that time period, she was classified by the District as a "probationary" teacher, pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code § 44915. FAC ¶ 2. Plaintiff alleges that her job performance was exemplary. FAC ¶ 18.

Plaintiff asserts that starting in October 2015, and continuing through May 2016, she was attacked (and injured) by two of her students "multiple times a week for at least thirty to ninety minutes at a time," with the most severe assaults occurring on October 16, 2015, and January 26, February 12, April 5, April 7, April 27, May 10, and May 23, 2016. FAC ¶¶ 19-21. She alleges that "[d]uring these attacks, the students hit, punched, shoved, kicked, bit, scratched, pulled her hair, and head-butted her [and that they] also flipped over desks, destroyed school property, threw heavy objects (such as backpacks, chairs, and rocks) at [plaintiff] and made specific threats to her life." FAC ¶ 20. She claims that these students also attacked/ threatened other students. FAC ¶ 24.

Plaintiff complained to District administrators as well as to school psychologists and the Eureka Teachers Association ("ETA") that her classroom was not an appropriate placement for the two students who were engaging in violent behavior, whom she considered to be in need of greater support and services. See FAC ¶¶ 22, 26-65. She asserts that she filed "at least seventeen 'Reports Regarding Attack, Assault, or Physical Threat of a Teacher or Paraprofessional,'" that she "continually told her supervisor, [Grant School] Principal Martin Goddi, about these students' harmful behavior[,]" and that she eventually began reporting the attacks to the Eureka Police Department. FAC ¶ 22.

In early December 2015, ETA President David Dement wrote to the Board on behalf of plaintiff and other bargaining unit members explaining that escalating violence at Grant School was resulting in classroom and school disruption, lockdowns, physical and verbal assault of students and teachers, and loss of teaching and learning time. FAC ¶ 30. Plaintiff claims that he also presented this information to Van Vleck at a meeting onDecember 8, 2015. FAC ¶ 30. At the December 10, 2015, Board Meeting, Mr. Dement addressed the Board's questions and concerns, and Alexander allegedly assured the Board that the District was addressing those issues and the students' needs. FAC ¶ 30.

Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts, the violence continued to escalate in January 2016. FAC ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Dement asked elementary teachers to communicate directly with the Board regarding the unsafe teaching and learning conditions in their schools, and that he compiled the teachers' responses without their names in one document, which he sent to the Board on January 13, 2016. FAC ¶ 31. This document included two responses from plaintiff. FAC ¶ 32.

In the first response, plaintiff noted the absence of a plan for safety at the school, and the lack of a Crisis Prevention Intervention ("CPI") team, which she had repeatedly requested be organized. She stated that "this makes it very dangerous for me and the other adults at my school to come to work" and that "[m]y students are in serious danger every day because my school has no CPI team[,]" adding that "[a]ll of our students deserve a free and appropriate public education" and that "[t]he students who are dealing with dangerous behavior problems need more services." FAC ¶ 32. In the second response, which was also sent to Principal Goddi, Alexander, and School Psychologist Jessie Burns, plaintiff detailed a recent incident with one of the two students, and again emphasized the need for a functioning CPI team on the school campus. FAC ¶ 32.

Plaintiff contends that Van Vleck wrote to Mr. Dement, discouraging him from presenting the teachers' complaints to the Board at the January 14, 2016, meeting, stating that such a presentation at the public Board meeting would "create more negativity about why parent [sic] shouldn't send their children to Eureka City Schools." FAC ¶ 33. The Board did allegedly discuss the safety issues at the January 14, 2016 meeting, but plaintiff claims that Van Vleck, Alexander, and Principal Goddi again assured the Board that the District was addressing the safety and special education issues. FAC ¶ 34.

Plaintiff asserts that she also complained that the District was violating specialeducation and non-discrimination law with respect to the maintenance of individualized educational program ("IEP") files, failure to hold timely manifestation determination review meetings, lack of effective Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Protocols, and failure to forward behavior emergency forms. See FAC ¶¶ 39-41, 61.

In February 2016, Ms. Minkley reported to the Humboldt County Office of Education, which administers the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment ("BTSA") induction program, that the District was not maintaining a safe environment and was not appropriately supporting her and her students with disabilities. FAC ¶ 37. Pat Self, the County Coordinator for the BTSA program, promised to reach out to the District on Ms. Minkley's behalf. FAC ¶ 37.

According to plaintiff, the placement of one of the two troubled students was changed from her class to a conference room in the school on April 17, 2016. FAC ¶ 51. On April 20, 2016, Alexander offered plaintiff a preschool teaching position in the Autism Classroom at Winzler's Children's Center, which she accepted. FAC ¶ 53.

Approximately a week later, on April 27, 2016, after plaintiff returned from a visit to the Emergency Room where she had been treated for an injury caused one of the students, she urged Principal Goddi to place the student in an interim alternative educational setting for 45 days, which is permitted under special education law (even if his conduct was a manifestation of his disability) because of the severity of his attacks. FAC ¶ 54. She claims that Principal Goddi never responded to her request. FAC ¶ 54.

On April 28, 2016, plaintiff wrote to Principal Goddi and Ms. Burns stating her belief that the remaining student needed "a more restrictive placement and that home and hospital instruction would be most appropriate[,]" and advising that it was not safe for this student to be in her classroom, and that "he is not accessing his education here . . . ." FAC ¶ 55. At this student's April 2016 IEP meeting, she again voiced her concern that the student's placement was inappropriate, but alleges that she had been warned by Alexander (through Ms. Burns) not to do so. FAC ¶ 56. Plaintiff claims that the District did not adequately address her concerns expressed in these communications. FAC ¶ 57.

Plaintiff asserts that on May 19, 2016, on the advice of Ms. Burns, she sent an email to Mindy Fattig, Director of the Humboldt-Del Norte SELPA, stating, "[M]y student is still not accessing his education. We are not able to assess him on goals at this point, but I have no doubt that he is regressing in all areas. Because of this, it seems to me that he is inappropriately placed . . . This boy is not getting the education he is owed. I hope you can help because I have exhausted all other options . . . ." FAC ¶ 60. Ms. Fattig allegedly informed plaintiff that she would discuss the situation with Van Vleck. FAC ¶ 60.

Plaintiff also complained to Ms. Fattig that the District had not forwarded emergency behavior forms that she had filled out during the school year to SELPA, "as it was required to do by state regulations, as indicated on the form." FAC ¶ 61. Plaintiff claims that she had previously expressed her concern to Alexander that the District had not been forwarding these forms to SELPA as required. FAC ¶ 61.

Plaintiff alleges that on May 24, 2016, one of her students was involved in "a credible threat . . . to kill himself and the school's custodian by slitting the custodian's throat and watching him bleed to death," and that she again complained to "District administrators" in a series of emails on behalf of herself and her students. FAC ¶ 62. Plaintiff asserts that when the District failed to provide assurance that the dangerous student would not be returned to her class the following day, she wrote a letter to the parents of her other students on her home computer, advising them that she was not being supported in her work, and warning them of the danger posed by the...