SCRANTON – The Scranton School District and an elementary school principal have defended their choice to put a paraprofessional on a personal safety plan in the course of her work, after they say the plaintiff had inappropriate physical contact with a student.
Brittney Lee first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 18 versus Scranton School District and Isaac Tripp Elementary School Principal Shannon Rucker. All parties are of Scranton.
“In 2014, plaintiff was hired by defendant SSD as a paraprofessional at Isaac Tripp Elementary School. In this position, plaintiff worked in the autistic support classroom. Plaintiff’s duties included, but were not limited to, working one on one and in small groups with children who have autism, keeping the children safe, assisting with feeding and changing diapers. Plaintiff was a model employee. Plaintiff currently holds that position. In addition to being an employee of defendant SSD, plaintiff’s children attend Isaac Tripp. Plaintiff’s older child graduated from Isaac Tripp in June 2022, but her younger daughter is currently a student. Plaintiff and her daughter enter and exit the school together each day and see each other periodically throughout the day,” the suit said.
“In addition to being a paraprofessional at Isaac Tripp, plaintiff is also a very involved parent. Plaintiff was a member of the Parent Teacher Association until the entire PTA Board resigned in early February 2023. In her role as a PTA member and parent, plaintiff made complaints to defendant Rucker about her cancellation of Isaac Tripp’s Halloween Parade and Christmas party. Defendant Rucker’s attitude towards plaintiff changed immediately after she made these complaints. In or around November 2022, plaintiff put an evergreen tree in her classroom for decoration. On Dec. 1, 2022, defendant Rucker sent two representatives from the union to tell her to take the tree down, as it was in violation of her directive. Plaintiff contacted her union president, who advised that plaintiff may continue to have an evergreen tree in her classroom and that this was not in violation of any SSD policy. On or about Monday, Jan. 30, 2023, Tim Wolff, Director of Human Resources for defendant SSD, advised plaintiff that a report was made that there may have been some inappropriate physical contact with a student.”
The suit added Wolff further advised that a Childline report would be filed, an investigation would be completed, and that she would be suspended until further notice, pending the [completion of the] investigation.
On Feb. 2, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Youth & Family Services then sent a letter to plaintiff, advising that they were conducting an investigation.
“On Feb. 14, 2023, defendant Rucker contacted plaintiff to set up a union meeting for the following day, Feb. 15, 2023. At the meeting, Wolff advised that based on video footage and witness statements, it was determined that plaintiff did aggressively grab one of the autistic support children and move him to a cafeteria table. This was not true. Plaintiff merely stopped a student from fleeing the cafeteria, as she had been taught during numerous trainings provided by defendant SSD. The instant was captured on video, and the video supports plaintiff’s version of events, proving that she did nothing wrong. On or about Feb. 24, 2023, OYFS completed their investigation and determined the allegations were unfounded. OYFS relayed this to defendant SSD via letter and phone call. Plaintiff’s version of events is supported by the OYFS investigation and results. Upon her return to work on Feb. 21, 2023, plaintiff was subject to a ‘Safety Plan’,” the suit stated.
“The Safety Plan alleges that she grabbed a student by the arm, pointed her finger in his face yelled at him, and aggressively grabbed another student twice – an allegation which had never before been made and which is wholly untrue. Defendant SSD has not made any further mention or elaborated on the allegations in the Safety Plan regarding a second student. The Safety Plan requires that plaintiff is not to be left alone in the school at all, must be escorted to/from the classroom, and is not allowed in the cafeteria, among other unnecessary and over-burdensome restrictions. The Safety Plan was updated on Feb. 23, 2023 to state the need to be escorted to and from specials. The Safety Plan does not mention an end date to the restrictions. As plaintiff is no longer allowed to do morning or lunch duty, she is also missing out on extra pay. Plaintiff’s minor child must watch her mother be escorted around the building every day, and they are not allowed to enter or exit the building alone. The plan is so demeaning, restrictive, oppressive and invasive that it requires that she be escorted to and from the bathroom.”
UPDATE
The defendants motioned to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on June 20.
According to the defense, Lee had not shown either Monell liability was tied to the District, nor did she adequately plead her claims of retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.
“Lee’s allegation that she engaged in speech protected under the First Amendment when she complained about the cancellation of a Halloween parade and a Christmas party to the school principal, defendant Lee, is one example of the type of threadbare recitals that are insufficient to state a claim because she has provided no factual information about when she made the complaints, where she made them or how she made them and what, if any, concern to the general public the complaints were. The defendants respectfully suggest that there is nothing about Lee’s complaints, as averred, which is that two school social events were cancelled by defendant Rucker, that would make Lee’s speech on these two items matters of public concern or matters of concern to society,” per the motion to dismiss, in part.
“Lee avers that she made these complaints as a parent and a member of the school’s parent teacher association, which suggests that they are concerns that are personal to Lee and her child, and that they might be concerns to other children and parents at the school, but these averments, without more, do not support an inference that they are matters of public concern or matters of concern generally to society. Making speech as a concerned parent of a child in attendance at the school is not necessarily the same as speaking as a public citizen on a matter of general concern or concern to society. Lee’s allegation that the defendant Scranton School District is liable for the retaliatory action consisting of the requirements of the safety plan is another bare allegation because she does not include any information as to what, if any, policy, practice or custom of the school district generated the safety plan issued to Lee.”
For counts of Monell liability and First Amendment retaliation, the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief ordering that her safety plan be terminated, compensatory damages for back pay, lost future earnings, pain and suffering and humiliation and attorney’s fees, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1988.
The plaintiff is represented by Curt M. Parkins and Jennifer Kapp of Comerford Law, in Scranton.
The defendants are represented by John E. Freund III of King Spry Herman Freund & Faul, in Bethlehem.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00648
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com