Wilcoxon v. Red Clay Consolidated School. Dist. Bd.

437 F.Supp.2d 235

Richard WILCOXON, Plaintiff, v. RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION and Janay Freebery, Defendants.

No. CIV.05-524 SLR.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

June 30, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jeffrey K. Martin, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Barry M. Willoughby, Young, Conoway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE, Counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Wilcoxon ("plaintiff") filed the present action on July 22, 2005, alleging claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution against Red Clay Consolidated School District ("District") and Janay Freebery ("Freebery") (collectively called "defendants").¹ (D.I. 1 at ¶ 1) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages. (Id.) Presently before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's First Amendment, wrongful termination, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and defamation claims.² (D.I.7) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331, § 1343, § 1367 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. at ¶ 5) For the following reasons, the court denies defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation and wrongful termination claims. The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs defamation claim.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began his employment with defendant District in October of 2002. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 6) He was employed as a Physical Education and Health teacher at Skyline Middle School in Pike Creek, Delaware. Id.) Throughout the fall and winter of 2002, plaintiff team-taught³ with a longterm substitute teacher who was filling in for defendant Freebery. (Id. at ¶ 7) Defendant Freebery returned from sabbatical in early 2003 and began team-teaching with the plaintiff. (Id.) Upon returning to work, plaintiff alleges that defendant Freebery was frequently tardy or absent during class time.⁴ (Id. at 119)

In the fall of 2003, plaintiff and defendant Freebery continued to team-teach. (Id. at ¶ 11) They conducted the Student Leader Program each morning and jointly taught physical education and health classes. (Id.) Once again defendant Freebery arrived late almost every day and on some occasions did not arrive until morning duty was over., (Id. at ¶ 12) Furthermore, she frequently left the classroom during regular class time, forcing plaintiff to cover her portion of the class. Id.) According to plaintiff, defendant Freebery's reasons for leaving class were not legitimate⁵ and, in October of 2003, plaintiff confronted defendant Freebery to inform her that it was unfair for her to continually impose her class responsibilities on him. (Id. at ¶ 13, 15)

Shortly thereafter, plaintiff learned from other teachers that defendant Freebery had told members of the staff and administration that plaintiff was "difficult to work with." (Id. ¶ 16) Plaintiff sought advice from Linda Filer and Tom Karpinski, two senior members of the teaching staff. (Id. at ¶ 17) Plaintiff was counseled to keep a written journal of dates and times when defendant Freebery was absent, as well as other pertinent information about defendant Freebery's conduct. (Id. at ¶ 18) Plaintiff believed that the journal would protect him from any discipline in the event that a student was injured while defendant Freebery was absent from the class. (Id.) Plaintiff took Ms. Filer and Mr. Karpinski's advice and began recording defendant Freebery's absences and actions in a journal which was kept locked in his office. (Id.)

On December 15, 2003, plaintiff was ill and reported off from work. (Id. at ¶ 19) That day, acting Assistant Principal Rumford entered plaintiff's office to locate plaintiff's student list for the substitute.⁶ (Id. at ¶ 19-20) The student list was never located but Mr. Rumford did locate the journal and gave it to defendant Freebery, who subsequently turned it over to Acting Principal Basara.⁷ (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rumford called plaintiff and informed him of these events. (Id. at ¶ 20)

When plaintiff returned to work the next morning, he was required to meet with Ms. Basara to discuss the journal. (Id. at ¶ 23) Plaintiff explained his reasons for keeping the journal but was verbally reprimanded by Ms. Basara.⁸ Id.) Ms. Basara also demanded to know the identity of those who advised him to keep the journal. Id.) Fearing that Ms. Basara would retaliate against Ms. Filer and Mr. Karpinski, plaintiff only revealed Ms. Filer's name. Id.) Later that day, plaintiff and Ms. Filer met with Mr. Rumford to ensure that Mr Rumford would not reveal Ms. Filer's identity to defendant Freebery. (Id. at ¶ 24)

On December 17, 2003, Ms. Basara called plaintiff into her office in order to find out the identity of the other staff member who advised him to record defendant Freebery's absences. (Id. at ¶ 25) Ms. Basara informed plaintiff of the numerous ways that she could ascertain the information and also stated that they would have to determine how plaintiff and defendant Freebery could finish out the rest of the year working together. Id.) When plaintiff questioned why Ms. Basara limited her statement to "the rest of the school year," Ms. Basara replied, "[Y]ou're not tenured are you?"⁹ Id.)

Later that day, plaintiff was unexpectedly called into another meeting. (Id. at ¶ 26) In attendance were defendant Freebery, Mr. Rumford and Ms. Basara. Id.) During the meeting, defendant Freebery repeatedly demanded to know the identities of the staff members who advised him to keep the journal. Id.) When he refused to reveal Ms. Filer and Mr. Karpinski, defendant Freebery accused plaintiff of saying inappropriate things to her and threatened to file a sexual harassment complaint against him."¹⁰ Id.)

After school concluded that day, plaintiff again met with Mr. Rumford and Ms. Basara to complain about defendant Freebery's false accusations and threats. (Id. at ¶ 31) In the course of the meeting, plaintiff noted that defendant Freebery had never voiced concern over anything that plaintiff had said prior to the discovery of the journal. Id.) When he inquired into what he said that offended defendant Freebery, he received no answer but "both Mr. Rumford and Ms. Basara indicated that [defendant] Freebery was not uncomfortable with anything [plaintiff] had said until the journal was found." Id.) Ms. Basara also assured plaintiff that he was not in trouble. Id.) Plaintiff then informed Ms. Basara that defendant Freebery frequently brought up the topic of sex in the course of their conversations. Id.)

On January 22, 2004, plaintiff received a letter in his school mailbox at 11:30 a.m. stating that he needed to report to Ms. Basara's office for an after-school meeting. (Id. at 1133) Plaintiff was not informed of the topic of the meeting or who would be present. Id.) When he asked Ms. Basara whether the meeting warranted union representation, she informed him that "it might." Id.) Plaintiff requested that two union representatives attend the meeting but they were unable to because of the short notice. Id.) When plaintiff informed Ms. Basara of his inability to secure union representation, she informed him that he was still required to attend because she had already arranged for other individuals to be present.¹¹ (Id. at 1134)

At the meeting, Ms. Basara presented plaintiff with a disciplinary letter concluding that he had made inappropriate comments about defendant Freebery. (Id. at 35) Because plaintiff disagreed with the conclusions in the letter, plaintiff refused to sign it. Id.) He then informed Ms. Basara that before the meeting proceeded any further, he wanted to have union representation present. Id.) Ms. Basara refused his request and instructed him not to leave until he received two other disciplinary letters. Id.) The second disciplinary letter referred to plaintiffs failure to ina class list or bell schedule in his emergency lesson plans.¹² (Id. at ¶ 36) When plaintiff asked to see the lesson plans, he was informed that they did not have them. (Id.) The third disciplinary letter referenced plaintiff's failure to sign up for after-school bus duties. (Id. at ¶ 37) As a result, other teachers and administrators had to make up for his absences.¹³ (Id.)

On February 22, 2004, plaintiff filed with the Delaware Department of Labor a Charge of Discrimination, alleging gender discrimination.¹⁴ (Id. at ¶ 46) On February 25, 2004, plaintiff met with Anthony Orga, Director of Secondary Education for the District. (Id. at ¶ 43) Plaintiff informed Mr. Orga of the events that had transpired between himself and Ms. Basara, defendant Freebery and Mr. Rumford. (Id.) He also expressed concerns about his treatment by defendant District. (Id.) After the meeting, plaintiff wrote Mr. Orga a number of letters following up on the topic. (Id.) He never received a response. (Id.)

On April 21, 2004, Ms. Basara entered plaintiff's classroom and informed him that she was going to conduct an unannounced observation.¹⁵ (Id. at ¶ 48) After the observation, plaintiff immediately contacted Mr. Orga because he felt that Ms. Basara's objectivity was tainted due to her knowledge that he had filed a Charge of Discrimination against defendant District. (Id. at ¶ 50)

Plaintiff received negative results from Ms. Basara. (Id. at ¶ 51) This was the first negative observation plaintiff had ever received. (Id.) Plaintiff again contacted Mr. Orga expressing his misgivings about Ms. Basara's objectivity. (Id. at ¶ 54) He also carbon copied the Superintendent of defendant District requiring that the letter be stricken from his personnel file. (Id.) In response, Mr. Orga informed plaintiff...