Morrison v. Buffalo Board of Education

ADDITIONAL CASES Yamilette Williams, Plaintiff v. Buffalo Board of Education, et al., Defendants; 15-CV-255 DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION In these related breach of contract actions, Plaintiffs Faith Andrea Morrison and Yamilette Williams allege that they were terminated by the Buffalo City School District on the erroneous ground that they did not maintain the proper certification for their positions.¹ Plaintiffs sue the Buffalo Board of Education, Buffalo Public Schools, the City School District of the City of Buffalo, Pamela Brown (then the Superintendent for the District), Darren Brown (then the Talent Management Director for the District), Sharon Belton (a school board member), Mary Guinn (then the deputy Superintendent), Florence Johnson (a school board member), Mary Ruth Kapsiak (a school board member), John Licata (a school board member), Jason M. McCarthy (a school board member), Barbara Seals Nevergold (a school board member), Carl Paladino (a school board member), James M. Sampson (a school board member), and Theresa Harris-Tigg (a school board member).² All individual defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. Currently before the Court are the District’s motions for summary judgment in both actions. No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 145; No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 96. Plaintiffs oppose the motions. For the reasons that follow, the District’s motions are GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs applied for their respective positions in advance of the 2013-2014 school year. Morrison initially applied for the position of Deputy Superintendent with the District, but was offered the position of Chief of School Leadership. No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 103-2

34, 35. Williams applied for, and was offered, the position of Chief of Curriculum, Assessment & Instruction. No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 152-1 36. Morrison signed her employment agreement in early July 2013, and Williams signed hers in early August 2013. No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 103-2 40; No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 152-1 40. Each agreement was for a two-year term. Generally, Plaintiffs could only be terminated for cause after a hearing before a neutral third-party hearing officer. See No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 10-2 at 8; No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 76-2 at 8. However, under Paragraph 13 of the employment agreements, Plaintiffs’ contracts would “immediately become null and void” should Plaintiffs “fail[] to maintain any certifications or qualifications required of his [sic] position (i.e., qualifications required by the Department of Civil Service or State Education Department).” No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 10-2 at 10; No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 76-2 at 10. All the parties involved in the hiring and contracting process were aware that Plaintiffs did not, at the time of hiring, hold the requisite New York certifications to serve in their positions. See No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 103-2 38; No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 152-7 at 30. Under state law, positions like Plaintiffs’ — i.e., those with “responsibilities involving general district-wide administration” — were required to hold a “School District Leader” (“SDL”) certificate issued by the state Education Department. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-3.10(b). This certificate can come in several forms, including a “professional” SDL certificate, a “transitional D” SDL certificate, and an “internship” SDL certificate. See, e.g., id. §§80-5.9,-5.15. While these certificates all qualify the holder to perform the functions of an SDL, they place different levels of oversight and responsibilities on the employing school district. See, e.g., id. §80-5.15(a)(2)(iii) (stating that, in conjunction with transitional D certificate, the school district must provide mentoring to the employee). Consistent with the employment agreements, all parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ continued employment was contingent upon their obtaining the requisite certification. No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 152-3 at 27 (deposition of Williams); No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 146-1 at 2; No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 103-3 at 26 (deposition of Morrison). Once Plaintiffs were hired, Darren Brown, the District’s Talent Management Director, notified Plaintiffs by email that they needed to obtain an SDL certificate to maintain their employment. See No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 146-2 at 2; No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 97-3 at 2. Nevertheless, even without those certifications, Plaintiffs began their jobs at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. The parties do not dispute the nature of, and expectations for, their positions. At their depositions, Plaintiffs agreed that their jobs were high-level positions in the District. As the Chief of Curriculum, Williams was expected to “lead the charge” to ensure “excellent instructional practice in every Buffalo Public Schools classroom.”³ No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 76-2 at 14. She would work “closely with other cabinet members and the Superintendent around issues of instructional quality” and would supervise staff members in the District’s instructional division. Id. Williams would “provide direction” in “instructional best practices in all aspects of K-12 urban education,” would provide “leadership in all academic affairs,” collaborate with other District “divisions and departments to ensure” successful “delivery of instructional programs and services in all schools,” would oversee “the allocation of materials and staff resources for academic departments,” would serve as a “key spokesperson to the Superintendent[,] school board and the community regarding all instructional issues,” would serve as the District’s “representative…in meetings with governmental, legislative and business community meetings,” and would serve as the “primary liaison” to the “Education Department regarding district curriculum matters. Id. at 15. Williams testified that she led new instructional initiatives, managed federal programs, oversaw instructional staff, and coordinated her activities with those of the Superintendent and other chief district officers. No. 15-CV-255, ECF No. 152-3 at 18-20. On occasion, Williams would even “fill in” for the Superintendent when she was unavailable, “attending events or carry[ing] out tasks in her place as a designee.” Id. at 21. As Chief of School Leadership, Morrison would act as a “strategic partner to the Superintendent and other senior leaders,” would “oversee a team of professionals,” and would serve as the District’s “primary supervisor of and support provider for approximately 15 schools.”⁴ No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 10-1 at 11-12. She would be required to evaluate principals’ performance and make tenure recommendations, and would work with school administrators to develop budgets and approve financial plans. Id. at 12. Consistent with the original job posting, Morrison testified that she oversaw “all [of] the principals in [her] region” — which amounted to 27 schools — evaluated school administrators, and “filled in” for the Superintendent at certain events and occasions when she was unavailable. No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 103-3 at 20, 23. Initially, Plaintiffs applied for the wrong certificate, seeking a “School Building Leader” certificate rather than a “School District Leader” certificate.⁵ In December 2013, the District was notified that Plaintiffs had received “School Building Leader” certificates. The District did not take any corrective action in response at that time. In March 2014, the District realized that Plaintiffs had not obtained the correct certificates, and the District and Plaintiffs sought to correct the oversight. No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 97 20. Because the Education Department was unwilling to issue Plaintiffs professional SDL certificates, the parties looked into alternative means of certification. The internship SDL certificate appeared to be a viable option, since, at the time, Plaintiffs were both enrolled in an educational program at SUNY Oswego. After discussions between Darren Brown, SUNY Oswego representatives, and the Education Department, Darren Brown directed Plaintiffs to apply for the internship certificate, though he cautioned that the District had pending questions with “the State regarding this certificate.” No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 98-2 at 2. On March 30, 2014, Plaintiffs received internship SDL certificates. Darren Brown avers that, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ acquisition of the internship certificates, “questions remained regarding what specific duties an individual holding an Internship certificate is able to perform and what obligations would be placed upon the District.” No. 15-CV-800, ECF No. 97 41. Pamela Brown and Darren Brown had conversations with representatives from the Education Department and SUNY Oswego.⁶ Id. From those conversations, they learned, inter alia, that “individuals who hold an Internship certificate…have to be supervised in an internship manner by someone higher up.”⁷ Id. 42. As a result, they believed that the “Internship certificate would not be sufficient to allow [Plaintiffs] to perform the duties associated with [their] position[s].” Id. In his declaration, Darren Brown writes: Plaintiff[s] reported directly to Dr. Pamela Brown, who, as Superintendent of the second largest school district in New York State, would not have been able to supervise [each] Plaintiff as an intern. The Superintendent oversees approximately 18 cabinet members and cannot review the day-to-day operations of each of those cabinet members. The cabinet members themselves must be able to do that.…Plaintiff[s] would have had to make decisions at the executive level, and would be given a lot of leeway on making decisions on [their] own, but with an Internship certificate, [they] would not have been able to do that. ECF No. 97