LANCASTER – A Manheim Township School District employee denied claims that she and others committed gender and age-based harassment against the former District Superintendent.
John Nodecker of North Wales first 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 said.
“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 said 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 stated.
“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.”
UPDATE
Defendant Setlock filed preliminary objections in the case on June 28, arguing the allegations were pled improperly.
“The instant preliminary objections take aim at such erroneous, bald legal conclusions, and the plaintiffs’ improper attempt to seek punitive damages in all counts without the proper factual allegations; omissions to the court by failing to attach the separation agreement, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, failure to properly assert factual basis towards each defendant, his failure to separate each cause of action as per each defendant and most importantly, the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety due to movant’s immunity and plaintiff’s bar to all claims via clear, specific release language in the agreement,” according to the objections, in part.
“In conjunction with the movant’s government and sovereign immunity, Movant also has immunity from defamation suits under the ‘High Public Official Absolute Privilege.’ The doctrine of absolute privilege for high public officials exempts certain individuals from all defamation statements made in the course of said individual’s duties or powers and within their jurisdiction, even if the statements are made with actual malice. At the time of the alleged defamatory statements, movant was the Director of People Services for Manheim Township School District. In conjunction with movant’s governmental, sovereign, and high public official immunity, plaintiff released any and all related claims he may have had regarding defamation according to the terms of the Separation Agreement, which he intentionally omitted from his pleading.”
Setlock says that “since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a factual basis for actual malice required to nullify movant’s immunity and all counts stem from the exact same alleged defamatory remarks, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed due to movant’s sovereign and governmental immunity, and the terms of the release language set forth in the Separation Agreement plaintiff intentionally elected NOT to attach to his pleading, and otherwise withhold from this Court.”
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 are represented by Lisa M. DiBernardo and Harrison N. Hagelgans of BBC Law, in Lancaster.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-22-03308
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com