Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Ex-Manheim Township School District Superintendent alleges he was target of baseless harassment claims

Lawsuits
Stephentohanlon

O'Hanlon | The O'Hanlon Law Firm

LANCASTER – The former Superintendent of Manheim Township School District claims he was the subject of baseless allegations of gender and age-based harassment leveled against him by other employees of the District.

John Nodecker of North Wales filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on June 2 versus Donna Prokay of Mount Joy, Bill Murry, Mark Anderson and Manheim Township School District of Lancaster, Kathy Setlock of Landisville, plus John/Jane Does 1-3.

“On July 1, 2014, plaintiff became Superintendent of defendant Manheim Township School District. When plaintiff became Superintendent in 2014, plaintiff initiated an entry plan to account for numerous perceived issues of dysfunction, including but not limited to, a $1.6 million budget shortfall passed by the School Board. Following plaintiff’s employment and for the remainder of same, all defendants initiated and perpetuated false claims of gender-based and age-based harassment leveled at plaintiff,” the suit says.

“Internal and external investigations were conducted and all of the allegations were deemed to be without merit. Plaintiff had always maintained his innocence and continues to do so. Nonetheless, because of the bad faith exhibited by all defendants toward plaintiff, on Jan. 26, 2016, plaintiff and defendant Manheim Township School District executed a separation agreement and plaintiff left his employment in exchange for financial consideration. No disciplinary actions or charges had ever been made by the District concerning the plaintiff, including gender/age-related harassment. A review of the plaintiff’s personnel file confirmed this.”

In December 2016, the plaintiff says he received a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Education connected to an educator misconduct complaint that was initiated by the individual defendants, acting under the consent and authority of the District. According to local ordinances, the plaintiff would not be able to accept any settlement if he had engaged in any of the harassment, which he says was falsely alleged and deemed to be unfounded.

“Plaintiff had to expend considerable legal resources in defending the false allegations that were brought by all defendants to the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the investigation all severely hindered plaintiff’s prospects for gaining alternative employment. In March of 2021, the Pennsylvania Department of Education informed plaintiff that there was no cause found as to the false allegations initiated and continued by all individuals acting under the imprimatur of defendant Manheim Township School District. From December of 2016 until March of 2021, all defendants continued to make false allegations against plaintiff and failed to withdraw false allegations against plaintiff, meaning that there was a continuing violation of the rights alleged,” the suit states.

“Despite plaintiff submitting right-to-know requests to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, it has refused to release documentation as to its baseless investigation, meaning that plaintiff is still in the process of discovering the full extent of all allegations against plaintiff and made by defendants. The Pennsylvania Department of Education denied plaintiff’s right-to-know request on Aug. 27, 2021. Defendant Manheim Township School District has failed to adequately hire, train and supervise its defendant employees and board members as described herein. Each and every individually-named defendant herein engaged in willful misconduct and acted outside of the scope of his or her employment and/or elected office when he or she engaged in the conduct as alleged herein and, as a result, no individually-named defendant is entitled to any form of immunity.”

For counts of libel, breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus such reasonable costs and equitable relief as the Court may allow.

The plaintiff is represented by Stephen T. O’Hanlon of The O’Hanlon Law Firm, in Philadelphia.

The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-22-03308

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News