Schulz v. Commack Union Free Sch. Dist.

664 F.Supp.3d 296

Charles SCHULZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMACK UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT;and Commack Union Free School District Board of Education, Defendants.

21-CV-5646 (RPK) (ST)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

Signed March 28, 2023

Howard E. Gilbert, Melville, NY, Jason A. Gilbert, Gilbert Law Group, Melville, NY, for Plaintiff.

Howard Marc Miller, Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, Garden City, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Charles Schulz, formerly a tenured administrator employed by the Commack Union Free School District (the "District"), brings this action alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff principally alleges that defendants unlawfully abolished his tenured position and reassigned him to an untenured post because he opposed the District's decision to remove the book Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi, from the high school English curriculum. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND

Except where otherwise noted, the following facts are taken from the complaint and are assumed true for the purposes of this order.

In 2021, plaintiff was employed as the tenured Director of Secondary English, English as a New Language ("ENL"), and Library in the District. Compl. ¶ 25 (Dkt. #1). His responsibilities included managing the curriculum of the English Department. Id. ¶ 14.

Around June 7, 2021, Jordan Cox, the District's Executive Director of Instructional Service, informed plaintiff that the book Persepolis would no longer be part of the high school curriculum because of its "mature" content. Id. ¶ 13. Cox told plaintiff that the District would announce the decision at a town-hall event the next evening. Ibid.

Because "managing the curriculum of the English Department was part of his core duties," plaintiff "advised the panel that Persepolis provided value to students and should not be removed from the curriculum." Id. ¶ 14. Cox responded that the decision had already been made. Ibid. Plaintiff "accepted the District's decision," but stated "that he was not comfortable being the person to deliver this news" at the town hall because he knew the decision would be unpopular. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. The next day, Cox announced at a "tense and confrontational" town hall that Persepolis would no longer be taught. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

On June 9, 2021, the Superintendent of the District told plaintiff "that his position was being eliminated" effective July 1, 2021, and that he would be moved to a newly created position of Associate Principal. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23. That new position is not tenured or part of the bargaining unit for the Commack Association of School Administrators. Id. ¶ 24. The Superintendent told plaintiff that the District "was going in 'a different direction,' " but did not otherwise explain the decision. Id. ¶¶ 26-27.

On June 11, 2021, plaintiff emailed Cox and the Superintendent of the District. Id. ¶ 31. Excluding salutations, the message states in its entirety, "I would like to meet today to discuss the events of this week. I am available aside from 12:30 to 1:30." Defendants' January 24, 2023 Letter 1 (Dkt. #16); Plaintiff's January 27, 2023 Letter 2 (Dkt. #17).^* Neither the Superintendent nor Cox responded to the email. Compl. ¶¶ 31-32.

On June 17, 2021—about a week after plaintiff was told he was being moved to a new position—Newsday published an article about the removal of Persepolis from the high school curriculum. Id. ¶ 35. The article quoted Cox as stating that the Superintendent "made the decision months ago after consulting with a team of educators that included Cox, curriculum specialists, the director of English, the principal and a teacher." Id. ¶ 35. Immediately after that, it noted plaintiff's disapproval of the decision:

Charles Schulz, who is listed on the district website as secondary school English director, said in an interview Thursday he had argued for keeping the book, which he viewed as a valuable resource. "We know how much the students respond to it, we know how much meaning they take from it, especially when it comes to learning about the world outside Commack and Long Island."

Ibid.

On July 1, 2021, plaintiff's position change became effective. Id. ¶¶ 21, 45, 52. Plaintiff was advised that his new responsibilities would be monitoring home schooling and instruction, registering new entrants, managing state reporting, and assisting in site visits and observations. Id. ¶ 46. According to plaintiff, these duties "have historically and exclusively been performed by tenured administrative employees, including [his] abolished position." Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff further alleges that while some of his former duties were reassigned to others, id. ¶¶ 66-69, "a preponderance of the duties" he "is responsible for" in his new position are the same as those he performed in his former position, id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff asserts the District "incurred higher expenses and/or costs" as a result of the restructuring because of how it reallocated the responsibilities of plaintiff's abolished position. Id. ¶¶ 50, 63.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants' actions are part of a pattern of abolishing positions in order to circumvent tenure protections. Id. ¶¶ 56-85. For instance, plaintiff alleges that the District abolished an Assistant Principal position "without legitimate basis," assigned the Assistant Principal's duties to a new post, and offered the administrator who had held the abolished position yet another job—a new non-tenured position with a one-year contract. Id. ¶ 76.

In 2021, plaintiff filed this lawsuit raising five constitutional claims. First, plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process because defendants deprived him of his property interest in his tenured position without providing a pretermination hearing. Id. ¶¶ 86-109. Second, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by making stigmatizing statements regarding his involvement in the decision to stop teaching Persepolis. Id. ¶¶ 110-25. Third, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by eliminating his tenured position based on his advocacy for Persepolis during a curriculum review panel meeting. Id. ¶¶ 126-54. Fourth, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because they eliminated his position based on his exercise of constitutional rights. Id. ¶¶ 173-81. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his substantive due process rights by eliminating his position. Id. ¶¶ 182-95.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable for these constitutional violations under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), because the decision to eliminate his position was part of an unlawful municipal custom or policy and because the defendant Board is the final policymaker as to certain personnel decisions, including abolishing positions. Compl. ¶¶ 155-72. Plaintiff seeks damages, id. ¶¶ 196-205, and attorneys' fees, id. ¶¶ 206-08. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims. Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 1 (Dkt #13-1) ("Mem. in Supp.").

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "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). The facial "plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement," but it requires a plaintiff to allege sufficient facts to allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ibid. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, a complaint fails to state a plausible claim when, as a matter of law, "the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. 1955, or when, as a matter of fact, "the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

When reviewing the complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all facts alleged in a complaint as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The court, however, is not obligated to adopt "mere conclusory statements" or "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action" that are not "supported by factual allegations." Id. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

DISCUSSION

Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff has adequately alleged that his reassignment was the product of a decision by a final policymaker for the municipality—namely, the Board of Education—as required for the municipal defendants to be held liable under Monell for any constitutional violation stemming from that reassignment. See Compl. ¶¶ 96-97, 159; Jones v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 170 F. Supp. 3d 420, 437-39 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), aff'd, 666 F. App'x 92 (2d Cir. 2016); Lopez v. E. Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-1999 (ADS) (SIL), 2017 WL 2242874, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2017). But as explained below, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any constitutional violation.

I. Plaintiff Does Not Plausibly Allege a Procedural Due Process Violation.

Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that defendants violated his due process rights by abolishing his tenured position without a pretermination hearing. To state a procedural due process claim, plaintiff must plausibly allege that he was deprived of a protected property interest without adequate process. J.S. v. T'Kach, 714...