12 F. Supp. 3d 274
D. Mass.2014Background
- Dobelle was hired as President of Westfield State University (WSU) under a contract that limited removal (required cause and notice) and entitled him to certain benefits; he alleges constructive discharge after being placed on administrative leave and resigning.
- In 2010 he self-reported improper credit-card reimbursement practices; Rubin & Rudman (WSU counsel) investigated and issued a report clearing him of wrongdoing related to international travel and ethics concerns.
- In 2012–2013 Trustee John Flynn initiated a separate, largely secret audit by O’Connor & Drew (O&D); drafts of O&D’s report were kept from the full Board and leaked to media, producing adverse publicity and public inquiries.
- Commissioner of Higher Education Richard Freeland publicly demanded explanations, withheld funding, and pressured the Board; the Board later placed Dobelle on administrative leave and ordered further investigation; Dobelle resigned claiming constructive discharge.
- Dobelle sued individual trustees, state officials, Rubin & Rudman, O&D, and others asserting: tortious interference with contract; § 1983 claims (First Amendment retaliation, procedural and substantive due process, stigma-plus); negligent misrepresentation (O&D); defamation (Cox/Rubin & Rudman); and civil conspiracy.
- The court granted motions to dismiss by Rubin & Rudman, Cox, and O&D; it denied the State Defendants’ motion except as to dismissal of the substantive due process claim, allowing the case to proceed mainly on tortious-interference and related constitutional claims against Flynn, Queenin, Freeland and Scheibel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (Sept. 25 whistleblower letter) | Letter raised public‑concern issues (waste, misconduct); Board/State officials retaliated, motivating his removal | Speech asserted only conclusorily, was personal, sent by counsel, and not public; insufficiently pleaded | Claim plausibly pleaded; denial of dismissal as to First Amendment retaliation (survives 12(b)(6)) |
| Procedural due process — property interest (constructive discharge) | Employment contract created protected property interest; Board’s secret investigations, public shaming, leave, and removal pressure forced involuntary resignation | He resigned voluntarily; paid administrative leave is not a deprivation; no constructive discharge shown | Pleading suffices to allege constructive discharge; claim survives 12(b)(6) |
| Substantive due process (shock the conscience) | Board and state actors acted maliciously and coercively (funding threats, secret probes) | Allegations are not conscience‑shocking; conduct falls short of extreme abuse | Dismissed: facts not sufficiently egregious to state substantive due process claim |
| State law claims against Rubin & Rudman and O&D (defamation, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, conspiracy) | Their statements/reports were false, defamatory, negligent, and part of conspiracy to oust Dobelle | Their conduct was not false or improper as pleaded; no plausible allegation they induced breach or joined conspiracy | Rubin & Rudman and O&D dismissed: defamation (insufficient falsity/defamatory meaning), negligent misrepresentation (pleading conclusory), tortious interference and conspiracy (no plausible intentional inducement or agreement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for motions to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (distinguishing conclusory legal allegations from factual allegations under Rule 8)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public‑employee speech on matters of public concern analysis)
- Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 663 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2011) (First Amendment retaliation elements and causation standard)
- Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1988) (constructive discharge analysis for due process deprivation)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputation alone does not trigger Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest; "stigma‑plus" doctrine)