42 F. Supp. 3d 403
E.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Firestone, a kindergarten teacher at Munsey Park Elementary in the Manhasset District, alleges sexual harassment and failure to protect against her supervisor and a district employee arising from emails and an assault.
- Berrios, a district custodian on Workers’ Compensation leave, allegedly sent two suggestive emails to Firestone in February–March 2010; the March 4 assault occurred in Firestone’s classroom.
- Dr. Kendall was the school principal and allegedly had authority over staff and employment conditions; plaintiffs allege she failed to take timely corrective action after Firestone reported the emails.
- Plaintiff initially filed state-law claims in Nassau County Supreme Court; after removal, amended claims included Section 1983, Title IX, and NY Executive Law § 296 claims, with some dismissed or withdrawn.
- Justice Parga of the state court permitted amendments and analyzed the merits of the proposed federal and state-law claims, assessing Monell liability, personal involvement, and Title IX viability; the court left some claims viable and others dismissed.
- The federal case was removed; the court treats Justice Parga’s findings as the law of the case for certain issues, while allowing reexamination of others, and the caption now reflects Firestone as the sole plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case applicability | Firestone argues Parga’s decisions on §1983 and §296 claims bind review. | Kendall contends law of the case should not bar reconsideration on a 12(c) motion with new evidence. | Law of the case applies to §1983 and §296 determinations; some issues may be reconsidered to the extent explained. |
| Dr. Kendall’s personal involvement in §1983 claim | Firestone alleges Kendall’s knowledge and inaction violated the Equal Protection Clause. | Kendall asserts no personal involvement; she merely acted after receiving emails. | §1983 claim against Kendall dismissed for lack of sufficiently pled personal involvement (dismissed without prejudice). |
| Aiding & abetting under NY Exec. Law § 296 against Kendall | Firestone asserts Kendall aided and abetted discriminatory conduct. | Kendall contends aiding/abetting claim is not properly stated against her. | Aiding & abetting claim against Kendall not stated; the court declines to consider it against Kendall. |
| Punitive damages against Kendall | Firestone seeks punitive damages for Kendall’s alleged conduct. | Punitive damages require egregious conduct; Kendall’s actions do not meet standard. | Punitive damages against Kendall dismissed. |
| Cross-claims for indemnification/contribution by Kendall | Kendall seeks indemnification/contribution from municipal defendants for state-law claims. | No federal indemnification right under §1983; state-law contribution/indemnification requires viable separate duties. | §1983 cross-claim for indemnification/contribution dismissed; state-law indemnification/contribution analysis shows Kendall not entitled; cross-claims granted/denied consistent with analysis (indemnification barred; contribution unavailable due to duty requirements). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusion that mere legal conclusions are insufficient)
- DiLaura v. Power Auth. of N.Y., 982 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992) (law-of-case and standard-setting considerations in prior decisions)
- Scottish Air Int’l., Inc. v. British Caledonian Group, PLC, 152 F.R.D. 18 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (law-of-the-case concepts in ongoing litigation)
- Torah Soft Ltd. v. Drosnin, 224 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (law-of-the-case application to pre-removal state court decisions)
- City of Charleston, S.C. v. Hotels.com, LP, 520 F. Supp. 2d 757 (D. S.C. 2007) (law-of-the-case and consistency in subsequent stages)
- Morpurgo v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, 697 F. Supp. 2d 309 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (supervisory liability considerations under Iqbal)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 239 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2001) (five-prong framework for supervisor liability before Iqbal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (rejection of broad supervisory-liability categories)