Case Law Smith v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

Smith v. School Dist. of Philadelphia

Document Cited Authorities (62) Cited in (220) Related
MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

I. FACTS

Marvin A. Smith ("plaintiff") is the father of two children who in the fall of 1997 were enrolled at George Washington Carver High School of Engineering and Science ("Carver"), a "magnet" public high school located at 17th and Norris Streets in North Philadelphia. See Complaint at ¶¶ 24, 36. Plaintiff was concerned that racism at Carver was affecting his children and other African American students at the school. As a result, on January 1, 1998, he wrote a letter to Carver's Principal, Ella Travis, calling for certain changes to be made at Carver.1 See Complaint at ¶¶ 37-38; Appendix, Exhibit A.

The focus of plaintiff's letter was his view that "the white/Jewish teachers" at Carver were racist and discriminated against African-American students, who constituted the majority of pupils at the school. The following excerpt is provided as representative of the letter's content:

Dear Mrs. Travis:

* * * * * *

The white/Jewish teachers at [Carver] are generally guilty of the following offenses:

(1) Failing to motivate our African-American children to be the best they can be. Too many white/Jewish teachers have low expectations of our children. Racial Discrimination! Racism!

(2) Failing miserably to provide the kind of high quality, interesting and stimulating learning experiences which would assist students in being successful. Racism!

(3) Failing miserably to and honor the cultural and ethnic value of African-American History Month by assigning the majority African-American student body the task of reporting on the movie Shindler's List, instead of an African-American assignment. That was blatant disrespect and insensitivity! Racism!

(4) Failing miserably to recognize the majority African-American student body by allowing a teacher to tell African-American students that affirmative action should be eliminated! This is another blatant example of white/Jewish teachers misleading our children. Racism!

(5) Failing miserable to regularly and effectively inform the students of the many false representations of this racist country, and the many, many violations of its own [C]onstitution. Acute racial discrimination, rampant violations of its citizens' human rights are also issues neglected in the curricula and the classroom. Why aren't African-American students taught to protest, boycott, and demonstrate against these American atrocities?

* * * * * *

We want these uncaring racist white/Jewish people to take their flawed and ineffective show back to the suburbs where they live! They are systematically destroying our children's spirit and killing their will. This racist system must be stopped by whatever means necessary and possible before additional generations of our children are lost.

* * * * * *

Since these white/Jewish people have been our traditional enemy, why are they so eager to accept the "teaching positions" at schools where African-Americans are predominantly enrolled? They are not there because they love or care about our children! They are there because oppressors need to oppress! We must stop the oppressors and the oppression!

* * * * * *

We — African-Americans — must control the educational institutions that are ours! If we fail to effectively control OUR INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING we are surely doomed to continue our lives depending on white/Jewish people and following their directions. We must be the master of our fate and absolutely must be the captain of our soul!

I am amenable to meeting with you, at your earliest convenience, to discuss the contents [of] this letter,

MARVIN A. SMITH (signed)

In June, 1998, nearly six months after plaintiff wrote the letter, plaintiff was elected by a vote of parents of Carver students as president of Carver's Home and School Association. See Complaint at ¶ 40. At or about the same time, plaintiff was appointed to serve on the Advisory Panel at Carver; plaintiff does not specify in the Complaint his role on the Advisory Panel, when he was appointed to that position, or who made the appointment. See Complaint at ¶ 44.

Soon after plaintiff assumed these roles, he began advocating for the removal of certain Carver staff members. Plaintiff circulated petitions calling for the termination of selected administrators and teachers at the school, including defendant Steven Miller, Carver's Assistant Principal, and defendant Avi Barr, a teacher at Carver and the building representative for the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Local # 3. See Complaint at ¶ 41. One such petition, dated December 1, 1998, was written in the form of a letter. See supra note 1; Appendix, Exhibit B. Following is an excerpt from that document:

Dear Mrs. Travis:

We, the parents, Guardians and Friends of students enrolled at [Carver] hereby demand the termination, resignation or transfer of Steven Miller from his position as the assistant principal at Carver. He is a major divisive and negative force at Carver.

* * * * * *

We, the Parents, Guardians and Friends of students of Carver have regularly observed Steven Miller's acute inhospitality. He walks through Carver — where Our Precious Children are enrolled — and acts like Parents, Guardians and Friends of Carver are invisible. He simply ignores us! That is completely and absolutely unacceptable! Steven Miller is extremely uncomfortable around Parents, Guardians and Friends of Carver. He is hostile, mean spirited, and downright disrespectful of Parents, Guardians and Friends of students enrolled at Carver.

* * * * * *

We, the Parents, Guardians and Friends of students enrolled at Carver also very strongly demand the termination, resignation or transfer of ... Avi Barr....

We, the Parents, Guardians and Friends of students enrolled at Carver demand that Steven Miller, the Carver [A]ssistant [P]rincipal, be terminated, transferred or asked to resign ...

In or about December, 1998 the Philadelphia Board of Education, chaired by President Floyd Alston, unanimously passed a resolution condemning plaintiff and calling upon Carver's Home and School Association to remove him from his post as its president.2 The Board's resolution, reproduced in its entirety, was as follows:

The Philadelphia Board of Education and Superintendent deplore and condemn the actions of Mr. Marvin Smith, President of the Home and School Association at George Washington Carver High School. Mr. Smith has chosen to express his concerns about Carver High School through a most inflammatory letter to the principal. This letter contained not only prejudicial statements but, was clearly racist and anti-Semitic. In both spirit and word it offends us personally, the entire School District community and all those we serve. In light of these facts, the Board calls upon the Home and School Council to act swiftly and appropriately by removing Mr. Smith as President of the Carver Home and School Association. Furthermore, the Board and the Superintendent are resolved that Mr. Smith shall have no official standing in the School District of Philadelphia from this point forward.

At or about the time this resolution was passed, plaintiff was removed from his position on Carver's Advisory Panel. See Complaint at ¶ 44. In addition, on December 9, 1998, Carver's Home and School Association sent a letter to Carver's parents informing them that they had removed plaintiff as its president. See Complaint at ¶ 46.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 11, 1998 plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) demanding compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs in excess of $10 million. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action. The School District of Philadelphia, School District Superintendent David Hornbeck ("Hornbeck"), the Philadelphia Board of Education, Board President Floyd Alston ("Alston"), Avi Barr ("Barr"), and Steven Miller ("Miller") (collectively the "School District defendants") are named in all seven counts.3 Plaintiff sues all non-institutional defendants in their individual and official capacities. See Complaint, at ¶¶ 1; 47-53.

On February 4, 1999 the School District defendants filed an Answer to plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 11). The Answer contained several affirmative defenses, including the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Also on February 4, 1999, the School District defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The School District defendants argue in their motion that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed a response to the School District defendants' joint motion. It is this motion that is presently before the Court.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review in a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is identical to that for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).4 See Byrd v. Robison, et al., 1997 WL 14495, at *3 n. 1 (Jan. 14, 1997 E.D.Pa.) (citing Turbe v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir.1991).

In considering such motions, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged by the non-moving party as well as all reasonable inferences that may be derived from those facts....

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2010
Mzamane v. Winfrey
"...on its face must "specifically identify what allegedly defamatory statements were made by whom and to whom." Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000) (noting that under Pennsylvania procedural law a complaint, on its face, must specifically identify the allegedly ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2001
Chatterjee v. School Dist. of Philadelphia
"...619 (1971) (holding that plaintiff had stated a federal cause of action under Fourth Amendment) with Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000) (holding that claims under the U.S. Constitution are not cognizable where § 1983 provided an adequate, alternative r..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Bamont v. Pa. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
"...Martin v. City of Reading, 118 F. Supp. 3d 751, No. 12–3665, 2015 WL 4601120, *11 (E.D.Pa. July 31, 2015).123 Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 427 (E.D.Pa.2000).124 Halterman v. Tullytown Borough, No. 10–7166, 2011 WL 2411020, *7 (E.D.Pa. June 14, 2011).125 See Hoy v. Angel..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2002
Freedom Bapt. Church of Del. v. Tp. of Middletown
"...under § 1983. See, e.g., Chatterjee v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 170 F.Supp.2d 509, 517 (E.D.Pa.2001); Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000). To plead a proper § 1983 claim, plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to show or permit the inference of (1) ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2008
Thompson v. Wagner
"...Nevertheless, his federal constitutional claims are actionable only pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith v. School District of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000). That statutory provision Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, o..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2010
Mzamane v. Winfrey
"...on its face must "specifically identify what allegedly defamatory statements were made by whom and to whom." Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000) (noting that under Pennsylvania procedural law a complaint, on its face, must specifically identify the allegedly ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2001
Chatterjee v. School Dist. of Philadelphia
"...619 (1971) (holding that plaintiff had stated a federal cause of action under Fourth Amendment) with Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000) (holding that claims under the U.S. Constitution are not cognizable where § 1983 provided an adequate, alternative r..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Bamont v. Pa. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
"...Martin v. City of Reading, 118 F. Supp. 3d 751, No. 12–3665, 2015 WL 4601120, *11 (E.D.Pa. July 31, 2015).123 Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 427 (E.D.Pa.2000).124 Halterman v. Tullytown Borough, No. 10–7166, 2011 WL 2411020, *7 (E.D.Pa. June 14, 2011).125 See Hoy v. Angel..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2002
Freedom Bapt. Church of Del. v. Tp. of Middletown
"...under § 1983. See, e.g., Chatterjee v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 170 F.Supp.2d 509, 517 (E.D.Pa.2001); Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000). To plead a proper § 1983 claim, plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to show or permit the inference of (1) ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania – 2008
Thompson v. Wagner
"...Nevertheless, his federal constitutional claims are actionable only pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith v. School District of Philadelphia, 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 430 (E.D.Pa.2000). That statutory provision Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, o..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex