Donovan v. Pittston Area School District
218 F. Supp. 3d 304
M.D. Penn.2016Background
- Donovan was hired in 2009 as Principal in Charge of Curriculum for K–12 and in August 2012 the Pittston Area School Board voted to reassign her to Intermediate Center Principal; she alleges this was a demotion.
- Donovan kept the same salary and benefits and continued full-time employment; she claims only that responsibilities and prestige decreased.
- District counsel informed Donovan she was entitled to a hearing; Donovan (through counsel) expressed interest in a hearing, but no hearing was held.
- Donovan did not appeal to the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education or otherwise pursue the administrative remedy available under the School Code.
- The remaining claim is a § 1983 procedural due process claim (Count II) against five board members in their individual capacities alleging denial of a hearing prior to demotion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donovan had a constitutionally protected property interest in her specific position such that a demotion required due process | Donovan contends the reassignment was a demotion implicating a property interest in her prior position | Defendants argue Donovan retained continued employment, salary, and benefits thus had no property interest in a particular position | Court held no property interest: demotion without loss of pay/benefits does not implicate Fourteenth Amendment property interest |
| Whether Donovan had a protected liberty interest (stigma-plus) | Donovan asserted deprivation of liberty in briefing but offered no evidence of stigmatizing, false public statements | Defendants argued Donovan waived the claim and in any event provided no stigma-plus proof | Court found claim waived; on merits Donovan failed to show stigma-plus (no false public statements or loss of employment) |
| Whether available state administrative remedies rendered federal due process claim unavailable because she failed to use them | Donovan relied on federal court for relief despite conceding a statutory appeal to the Secretary of Education existed | Defendants argued Donovan failed to pursue the statutory de novo appeal remedy under the School Code, which would provide adequate process | Court held the School Code remedy is adequate; Donovan’s failure to exhaust/avail that process defeats the federal due process claim |
| Whether Donovan received the minimum process required (if a protected interest existed) | Donovan argued she received no hearing and thus was denied procedural due process | Defendants pointed to pre-meeting notice and Donovan’s opportunity to speak as meeting minimal Loudermill protections | Court noted even if property interest existed, Donovan received notice and an opportunity to present her side; in any event she had available post-deprivation administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (recognition that property interests in employment are created by state law)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination hearing requirements for public employees with property interests)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (Court has not extended due process protections to discipline short of termination)
- Ferraro v. City of Long Branch, 23 F.3d 803 (demotion/transfer without loss of pay/benefits does not implicate property interest)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (transfers or changes in duties at same salary do not constitute Fourteenth Amendment property deprivations)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (plaintiff must use available state processes unless they are unavailable or patently inadequate)
- McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446 (post-deprivation hearing before an impartial tribunal is required to satisfy due process if available)