246 F. Supp. 3d 502
D. Mass.2017Background
- Pamela Higgins worked for Concord, MA Recreation Department for decades and became Acting Recreation Director in March 2015; she had positive evaluations before late 2015.
- In July 2015 Higgins’s husband was diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer; she informed supervisors and later completed FMLA paperwork and took leave to attend his medical appointments.
- After she sought the Recreation Director position and engaged in protected FMLA leave, supervisors Hodges and Whelan initiated an internal investigation, pressured Higgins to give false reasons for withdrawing from consideration, and presented a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) that she signed under threat of termination.
- Higgins was later accused of violating the LCA, given the choice to resign or be terminated, placed on administrative leave, and resigned on February 23, 2016; she alleges the LCA and subsequent discipline were retaliatory and coerced.
- Procedurally, Higgins sued alleging (1) FMLA retaliation, (2) deprivation of procedural and substantive due process, and (3) breach of contract; the Town moved to dismiss; the court denied dismissal as to Counts One and Two and granted dismissal without prejudice as to Count Three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of LCA / waiver of claims | Higgins alleges LCA was coerced and procured as retaliation, so waiver is invalid | LCA contains explicit waiver of claims and appeals, barring suit | Court: Cannot resolve on 12(b)(6); alleged coercion and retaliation make enforceability a fact question — denial of dismissal on this ground |
| FMLA retaliation | Higgins: she took FMLA leave, then was subjected to adverse action (forced LCA, removal, resignation) causally linked to leave | Defendants: resignation was voluntary; no causal connection beyond timing | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges protected conduct, adverse action (resignation in lieu of termination), and causal connection — FMLA claim survives |
| Procedural due process (property interest / hearing) | Higgins: Town charter and prior practice gave an expectation of continued employment; LCA and forced resignation stripped process | Defendants: She voluntarily signed LCA and resigned; she failed to pursue post-deprivation remedies; LCA waived rights | Court: Allegations that LCA was coerced and used to strip pre-deprivation process suffice to plead a property interest and inadequate process — claim survives to discovery |
| Substantive due process (conscience-shocking conduct) | Higgins: defendants manufactured discipline, coerced LCA, and concocted breach to remove her — conduct shocks the conscience | Defendants: Employment disputes and bad faith do not meet the high bar for substantive due process | Court: Allegations are sufficiently severe and specific at pleading stage that a reasonable factfinder could find conscience-shocking conduct — claim survives |
| Qualified immunity (Hodges & Whelan) | Higgins: statutory and constitutional rights were violated and clearly established | Defendants: Their conduct was not objectively unreasonable and rights were not clearly established in context | Court: Cannot resolve on motion to dismiss; factual development required though law on FMLA and public-employee due process was sufficiently established to defeat dismissal now |
| Breach of contract (Count Three) | Higgins: alleges defendants breached an implied employment contract by forcing resignation without a hearing | Defendants: Claim is vague; no specific contract obligations alleged | Court: Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead the contract obligations with sufficient specificity; leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies Twombly and limits conclusory allegations)
- Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 755 F.3d 711 (FMLA retaliation principles)
- Orta-Castro v. Merck, 447 F.3d 105 (elements of FMLA retaliation claim)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interest and due process basics)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (public-employee right to pretermination hearing)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 813 F.3d 27 (clarifies FMLA protections and clearly established law)
- Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263 (qualified immunity analysis at pleading stage)