Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schools
426 N.J. Super. 449
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Filgueiras hired as a gym teacher at Newark Public Schools in Sept 2005; at-will contract terminable with 30 days’ notice.
- He lacked a mentor under the district’s alternate-route program; mentoring was inconsistent and inadequate.
- Numerous mentoring and instructional-plan deficiencies were noted; administration pressured him to submit lesson plans.
- In Oct–Nov 2005, formal critiques and discipline notices addressed failure to submit plans and other conduct.
- June 2006 incident with a student led to DYFS investigation (unfounded) and transfer considerations; DOE certification renewed.
- Dec 27, 2006, termination letter issued; he remained on payroll until Jan 26, 2007; later unemployment and civil actions pursued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRA substantive due process claim requires a property interest | Plaintiff argues liberty interest protected under CRA. | Defendants contend non-tenured status negates property interest. | Substantive due process claim dismissed for lack of property interest. |
| Whether alleged reputational harms support substantive due process under the CRA | Plaintiff argues reputational injury merits CRA protection. | Court should apply stigma-plus limits; no constitutive due process breach. | No cognizable substantive due process claim; reputational injury alone insufficient. |
| Whether CEPA policy and exhaustion rules bar the claim | Plaintiff contends no exhaustion requirement bars CRA claim under policy. | Defendants argue exhaustion/waiver applicable and do not permit substantive due process. | Not essential to resolve; issue treated as lack of cognizable claim under CRA. |
| Whether the trial judge should have granted involuntary dismissal/JNOV based on evidence | Evidence supported due process claim under CRA. | No substantial evidence of egregious conduct; standard misapplied. | End-of-case involuntary dismissal appropriate; judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Portiz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (basis for protecting reputation interests in state constitution)
- East Park High School, 314 N.J. Super. 149 (App.Div. 1998) (protects reputation interests when DYFS findings unfounded; procedural due process)
- Rivkin v. Dover Twp. Rent Leveling Bd., 143 N.J. 352 (199/up) (identify state actor and protected rights for §1983-like claims)
- Morgan v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 268 N.J. Super. 337 (App.Div.1993) (non-tenured employee lacks protected property interest in employment)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (establishes property interest standards for employment)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir.2006) (stigma-plus requires additional rights to be deprived for substantive due process)
- In re Allegations of Sexual Abuse at East Park High School, 314 N.J. Super. 149 (App.Div.1998) (reputation and welfare considerations in governance of schools)