24 F. Supp. 3d 136
D. Conn.2014Background
- Grasson and the Board of Education of the Town of Orange entered a 2004–2009 pupil transportation contract with a 90-day intent-to-cancel provision and just-cause termination by Board vote.
- Grasson allegedly engaged in conversations with kindergarten students about keeping secrets and the bus being a magic bus; Board investigated after receiving complaints.
- Superintendent James suspended Grasson with pay pending Board review; the Board later voted to terminate for just cause and withhold compensation during the 90-day notice period.
- Board minutes and termination letter state termination was for just cause and within the 90-day window, but Grasson contends notice or grounds were not properly disclosed or heard publicly.
- Grasson was not afforded a personal hearing before an impartial tribunal; his termination letter stated grounds but he challenges lack of notice and opportunity to respond.
- After termination, the Winkles and the Amity district continued to employ Grasson, and the federal suit seeking §1983 and tort relief was brought in district court with remand to state court for remaining state claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract was terminable only for just cause within the 90-day window | Grasson argues no just cause and mis-timed vote outside 90 days. | Board argues just cause found by majority vote within the 90-day period. | Genuine fact issue on just cause; summary judgment denied |
| Whether withholding 90-day pay constitutes a material breach or safety violation basis | Gras-son contends no material breach justifying withholding pay. | Board asserts safety/material breach grounds allow such withholding during notice. | Disputed facts; summary judgment denied |
| Whether Grasson received proper notice of intent to cancel | Grasson contends the 90-day notice and grounds were not properly disclosed. | Termination letter complied with contract terms describing the notice and board action. | Issue of timing and notice fact-bound; summary judgment denied |
| Whether Grasson state-law contract claim is precluded by lack of a constitutionally protected property interest | Contract entitles continued operation; due process should apply. | Ordinary contracts do not give rise to substantive or procedural due process rights; state-law remedy via contract. | Procedural due process claim dismissed; breach claim remanded to state court |
| Whether the Board's actions deprived Grasson of a protected liberty or property interest via stigma-plus | Stigma from alleged pedophile framing harmed employment prospects. | Grasson employed by other districts; statements did not destroy license to practice bus driving. | Substantive due process dismissed; stigma-plus dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- S & D Maintenance Co., Inc. v. Goldin, 844 F.2d 962 (2d Cir.1988) (public contract rights often not due process protected)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests depend on statute or contract; not all government actions implicate due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process adequacy and the balancing of government interest vs. notice/hearing requirements)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre-termination process and minimal hearing requirements for property interests)
- Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.2004) (liberty interest with stigma in dismissal from public employment; due process implications)