Desparois v. Perrysburg Exempted Village School
455 F. App'x 659
6th Cir.2012Background
- Desparois, a Perrysburg Exempted Village School District bus driver, faced allegations of inappropriate conduct toward two female students and was terminated in June 2007.
- The district conducted a meeting on May 22, 2007 where Desparois read the allegations but did not present witnesses; he was placed on paid administrative leave.
- A police investigation followed; Perrysburg issued a termination notice on June 11, 2007, after obtaining the police report.
- Desparois sought a hearing and filed a grievance; an arbitration in February 2008 upheld the termination for just cause.
- Desparois sued in district court alleging due process and free speech violations; the district court granted summary judgment on the merits and allowed amendment to plead §1983, which Desparois pursued but later abandoned.
- The district court later dismissed Desparois’s second amended complaint for raising new theories after the summary judgment stage; Desparois appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly declined to address new due process theories raised after summary judgment | Desparois argues district court erred by considering new theories in opposition to summary judgment. | Perrysburg contends new theories were not in the amended complaint and cannot be raised at summary judgment. | affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion in declining merits review of new theories |
| Whether amendment to plead §1983 due process claim was proper | Desparois sought to amend to make the §1983 claim explicit. | Perrysburg argued amendment was improper as to newly raised theories raised by response to summary judgment. | affirmed; amendment to add new theories at that stage was improper |
| Whether dismissal of the second amended complaint was proper for raising unauthorized claims | Desparois contends he should be allowed to proceed on meritorious theories not previously adjudicated. | Perrysburg argues late, new claims would prejudice defense and were not properly amended under Rule 15(a). | affirmed; late, new claims properly dismissed and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the district court erred by treating the pre-termination process as constitutionally sufficient under Loudermill | Desparois argues notice and opportunity to be heard were inadequate. | Perrysburg argues the process met due process requirements and post-termination review provided full due process. | not reached on merits; court affirmed without addressing merits |
| Whether the record supports denying Desparois’s summary judgment motion and granting Perrysburg’s | Desparois contends there were triable issues of fact as to due process violations. | Perrysburg argues no genuine disputes of material fact and proper application of Loudermill and Farhat | affirmed; no error in grant of summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-termination due process requires notice and hearing)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2004) (post-termination procedures can supply due process)
- Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887 (6th Cir. 2006) (pleading standards at summary judgment avoid new theories)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. WM Music Corp., 508 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2007) (non-movant may not raise new theories in response to summary judgment)
- Tucker v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Emp’ts, 407 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2005) (do not expand claims in response to summary judgment; amend per Rule 15)
- In re Hood, 319 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2003) (waiver and notice requirements for appellate arguments)
- Willecke v. Kozel, 395 F. App’x 160 (6th Cir. 2010) (bare request to amend in brief opposing summary judgment not treated as motion)