496 F.Supp.3d 683
D. Mass.2020Background
- Salah Khelfaoui was hired as Lowell Public Schools superintendent in July 2015 and signed a contract in May 2017 running through June 30, 2020, terminable for "good cause."
- A new 2018 Lowell School Committee (LSC) composition and Mayor William Samaras reduced Khelfaoui's support on the committee; disputes arose over a challenged bussing contract and a compliance/forensic audit.
- Mayor Samaras met Khelfaoui for lunch on July 9, 2018 and allegedly pledged to support him; Khelfaoui withdrew from an external superintendent search on July 11 and publicly said he would remain.
- On July 13 and July 18, 2018 the LSC moved to suspend and terminate Khelfaoui (the termination vote passed as amended to await an independent audit); he was placed on paid administrative leave.
- A forensic audit was commissioned but not completed before Khelfaoui’s November 14, 2018 termination hearing; he alleges he received inadequate notice, could not access personnel to prepare, and that some LSC members had predetermined to terminate him.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved to dismiss Counts II (breach of implied covenant), III (intentional misrepresentation against Mayor Samaras), and IV (§1983 procedural due process). Court: Count II dismissed by plaintiff’s assent; Counts III and IV survive the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of implied covenant (Count II) | Contract implied-covenant claim based on termination process | Claim conceded by plaintiff | Dismissed (plaintiff assented) |
| Intentional misrepresentation (Count III) | Samaras told Khelfaoui he would support him to induce him to stay; Khelfaoui reasonably relied and suffered detriment | Statements were vague, future-oriented, non‑actionable promises and too indefinite for reliance; failed Rule 9(b) particularity | Denied dismissal — pleadings sufficiently allege time/place/content, materiality, and reasonable reliance for Rule 9(b) at this stage |
| Procedural due process (Count IV, §1983) | LSC deprived Khelfaoui of property interest without adequate notice/hearing (sham proceedings, predetermined vote, hearing before audit completed, blocked contact with staff) | Provided adequate notice and hearing consistent with contract and law; no due process violation | Denied dismissal — factual record insufficient at 12(b)(6); merits to be resolved on fuller record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pretermination notice and opportunity to respond required)
- Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo, 414 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2005) (application of Loudermill in First Circuit)
- Alt. Sys. Concepts v. Synopsys, Inc., 374 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2004) (Rule 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud claims)
- Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (treat well-pleaded allegations as true on 12(b)(6))
- Bolen v. Paragon Plastics, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 221 (D. Mass. 1990) (present intent to perform a future act can be a material misrepresentation)
- Barrett Assocs., Inc. v. Aronson, 346 Mass. 150 (Mass. 1963) (present intent regarding future acts is provable fact)