Janet Donovan v. Pittston Area School District
16-4221
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- In 2009 Pittston Area School District hired Janet Donovan as Principal in Charge of Curriculum (K–12); in 2012 she was reassigned to Intermediate Center Principal for 2012–2013 with the same salary and benefits but different duties.
- Donovan considered the reassignment a "demotion" and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights.
- The School District moved for summary judgment, arguing Donovan had no property interest in a particular job (only in continued employment) and that she failed to pursue state remedies (a demotion hearing and administrative appeals).
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the School District; Donovan appealed to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo, focusing on whether Donovan had a constitutionally protected property interest in her specific pre‑demotion position and whether state procedures provided adequate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donovan had a constitutionally protected property interest in her specific pre‑demotion position | Donovan: statutory protections (including requirement of a hearing before demotion) imply an entitlement to the particular position | Pittston: Pennsylvania law protects continued employment/tenure, not a right to a particular job assignment | Held: No — only an interest in continued employment, not in a particular position |
| Whether reassignment/demotion that leaves salary/benefits unchanged constitutes a deprivation requiring § 1983 due process protection | Donovan: change in title and duties amounted to a demotion triggering due process | Pittston: mere change in duties without termination or loss of pay is a management decision not actionable under § 1983 | Held: Not a deprivation; Third Circuit follows precedent refusing to federalize routine assignment decisions |
| Whether available state remedies satisfied due process | Donovan: argued she was denied protected interest and thus procedural protections were inadequate | Pittston: Pennsylvania provides hearings and administrative appeals for nonconsensual demotions which Donovan did not use | Held: Even assuming arguable injury, Pennsylvania’s post‑deprivation procedures are adequate and Donovan failed to avail herself of them |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Donovan: disputed factual and legal conclusions about entitlement and process | Pittston: no genuine dispute of material fact on entitlement or exhaustion of state remedies | Held: Summary judgment for Pittston affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interest requires legitimate entitlement)
- Ferraro v. City of Long Branch, 23 F.3d 803 (3d Cir. 1994) (change in duties without termination not a § 1983 deprivation)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (transfers/assignments that do not terminate employment do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of a procedural due process claim require showing a property interest and inadequate state procedures)
- Biliski v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 574 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2009) (state law defines whether a legitimate entitlement/property interest exists)