MEREDITH v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Dismiss. It is further Ordered that (1) Count IV for a violation of substantive d ue process is dismissed as to all Defendants, and (2) Plaintiff's official-capacity claims against Defendants Cornwell, Welch, Shreckengost, and Young are hereby dismissed. Defendants' Motions are denied in all other respects, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY MEREDITH,
)
Case No. 3:18-cv-105
)
Plaintiff,
)
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON; JEFFERSON
COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH
SERVICES; CYNTHIA CORNWELL;
JOANNA WELCH; BRANDY
SHRECKENGOST; ALLEN H. RYEN,
Ph.D.; NATALIE YOUNG;
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Introduction
Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos.
17, 21.) Defendants County of Jefferson, Jefferson County Children and Youth Services (the
"Agency"), Cynthia Cornwell, Joanna Welch, Brandy Shreckengost, and Natalie Young
(collectively the "County Defendants") jointly filed one Motion to Dismiss. 1 (ECF No. 17.)
Defendant Allen H. Ryen, Ph.D filed a separate Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21.) These Motions
Counsel for the County Defendants failed to comply with the Practices and Procedures of this Chambers.
See Practices and Procedures of Judge Kim R. Gibson, https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/JGPractices-Procedures.pdf. First, the County Defendants' brief exceeds the page limit. Section II(B) of Judge
Gibson's Practices and Procedures provides that "briefs should not exceed 25 pages." The County
Defendants filed a 50-page brief (ECF No. 18) without seeking leave of Court to file additional pages.
Nevertheless, the Court considered the entirety of the County Defendants' brief when deciding the instant
Motions. The County Defendants also filed a 51-page Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17), independent of its
50-page brief. The Court considered only the brief in support, not the contents of the Motion. Counsel is
advised that a motion should contain a short statement of the relief sought and that the brief in support
should contain legal argument. Second, the County Defendants filed a reply brief (ECF No. 26) without
seeking leave of Court. Section II(B) of Judge Gibson's Practices and Procedures provides that "reply briefs
... are not to be filed without leave of Court."
1
are fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 18, 24, 25, 26, 31) and are ripe for disposition. The Court held oral
argument on Defendants' Motions on January 17, 2019. (See ECF No. 36.) For the reasons that
follow, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
II.
Background
Plaintiff alleges the following facts in her Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15), which the
Court considers true for purposes of deciding the instant Motions.
A.
Plaintiff's Employment at Jeff Tech
From 2010 until September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Mary Meredith worked as a tenured math
teacher at Jeff Tech-a public vocational and technical school in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.
(Id. 'I[ 10.) Plaintiff possesses a Level II Teacher's Certification and is therefore eligible to teach
high school math under Pennsylvania law. (Id.)
B.
Jeff Tech's Principal Files a Child-Abuse Complaint Against Plaintiff
On September 26, 2016, Jeff Tech's Principal, Melissa Mowery, called the Pennsylvania
Child Abuse Hotline and reported Plaintiff for alleged child abuse. (Id. 'I[ 11.) Plaintiff alleges
that Mowery reported the child-abuse allegation based on a complaint from M.S.-the mother of
A.C., a 17-year-old Jeff Tech student who Meredith allegedly abused. (Id. 'I[ 12.)
On September 16, 2016, M.S. informed Mowery that she was withdrawing her son from
Jeff Tech because of an incident involving her son, A.C., and Meredith in the school's hallway.
(Id. 'I[ 29.) This incident allegedly occurred on September 13, 2016. (Id. 'I[ 31.) M.S. informed
-2-
Mowery that her son "had a diagnosis" after the incident. (Id. <[ 29.) M.S. also informed Mowery
that Meredith had previously filed a civil lawsuit against M.S. (Id. <[<[ 29-30.)
Plaintiff describes the September 13, 2016 incident involving A.C. and Meredith as a
"completely mundane exchange." (Id.<[ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that A.C. went to his locker between
classes in violation of school rules. (Id. <[ 33.) Plaintiff and another math teacher informed A.C.
that he was not permitted to access his locker between classes. (Id. <[ 32.) This 40-second
interaction was captured on the school's security cameras. (Id.<[ 34.)
After this interaction, A.C. submitted a written complaint to Principal Mowery. (Id.<[ 35.)
When Mowery received A.C.'s complaint, she did not report Meredith for abuse. (Id. <[ 36.)
Rather, Mowery called the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline three days later-on September 16,
2016-the date that M.S. contacted Mowery and stated that "her son had a diagnosis." (Id.<[ 38.)
Plaintiff notes that A.C. was hospitalized for a mental injury sometime in May of 2016, but that
he was not diagnosed with a psychological condition as a result of that incident. (Id. <[ 39.)
Plaintiff alleges that Mowery' s report to the Pennsylvania Child Abuse Hotline "was
nothing more than a rehash of an earlier report made by A.C.'s mother." (Id.<[ 40.) Mowery did
not provide any details about A.C.'s diagnosis. (Id.)
C.
Previous Issues Between Plaintiff, M.S., and A.C.
Plaintiff alleges that the September 2016 incident was not the first dispute between
Plaintiff and M.S. Plaintiff alleges that M.S. had embarked on a months-long campaign to attack
Meredith and "ruin her life." (Id. <[<[ 48-49.)
In April of 2016, M.S. filed an abuse report against Meredith with the Agency. (Id. <[ 49.)
M.S. alleged that Meredith had inappropriately disciplined A.C. (Id.) The Agency "screened out"
-3-
M.S.' s abuse report and closed the case without thoroughly investigating M.S.' s allegations. (Id.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?