PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has remanded a lawsuit between a disappointed bidder on a request for proposal agreement and the School District of Philadelphia to state court, rejecting the plaintiffs' federal constitutional arguments.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Michael M. Baylson remanded the case brought by John M. Weathers, Richard Dido, David Taylor and the 21st Century Partnership for STEM Education (21PSTEM) to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
The School District of Philadelphia’s Office of Procurement Services (OPS) issued Request for Proposal 567 (RFP-567) on Nov. 9, 2017, which asked bidders to propose coaching and professional development programming for first- and second-year school principals.
21PSTEM timely responded to the RFP, spending over 100 hours preparing its response. At some point in the first quarter of 2018, the District awarded the RFP-567 contract to The New Teachers Project (TNTP).
After 21PSTEM was allegedly denied a debriefing session explaining why they had lost out on the bid, they did not respond to any District RFPs since RFP-567. The plaintiffs then headed to court.
On May 30, 2018, Weathers, Dido and Taylor, all Philadelphia residents and taxpayers, initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against the District, the School Reform Commission and TNTP to challenge the contract award to TNTP. Two of the individual plaintiffs worked for 21PSTEM, while the third was a math professor.
An amended version of the suit later dismissed TNTP as a defendant, requested both declaratory and injunctive relief to require the District to comply with its own RFP requirements and added a Section 1983 claim arguing that the District’s denying 21PSTEM a debriefing violated the U.S. Constitution.
On those grounds, the District removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 14, 2018.
21PSTEM claimed that the District denied it a debriefing session in retaliation for its bid protest and lawsuit over the District’s procurement practices, eventually leading the school District to move for summary judgment before Baylson.
21PSTEM had brought its federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which imposes liability on those who interfere with U.S. citizens’ federally-protected rights.
In order to win on a Section 1983 claim against a political subdivision such as the District, 21PSTEM must make two showings. First, it must show an actual violation of its constitutional rights and second, it must show that that violation can be attributed to the District under the principles of Monell.
Baylson agreed that the First Amendment does not protect 21PSTEM’s conduct; the District’s alleged retaliatory conduct, delaying debriefings during the pendency of bid protests and litigation, is not “retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights,” and even if 21PSTEM’s constitutional rights were violated, Monell does not allow that violation to be attributed to the District.
“Neither the lawsuit nor the bid protest related to a matter of public concern. Neither, therefore, was protected by the 1st Amendment. And because the 1st Amendment protects neither, 21PSTEM cannot make out a 1st Amendment claim,” Baylson said.
The suit also alleged the District violated 21PSTEM’s rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
“As this Court has previously noted, the Pennsylvania Constitution may protect more speech and petitioning activity than the United States Constitution does. Thus, resolving 21PSTEM’s federal constitutional claims does not resolve its state constitutional claims,” Baylson said.
“This Court had original jurisdiction over 21PSTEM’s federal law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute. Because the state law claims in this case were closely related to the federal law claims, this Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the former. Now, none of the claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction survive.”
Baylson said the appropriate action to take was to remand the action to state court.
“The only remaining claims here are state constitutional claims. Generally, a state court is better positioned to decide state constitutional claims than a federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction,” Baylson concluded.
“Because the only remaining claims are better resolved by a Pennsylvania court than this Court, this Court will decline to exercise continued supplemental jurisdiction over Count Four. Having declined jurisdiction over Count Four, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and must remand this matter to state court.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-03982
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com