Joseph Schrader v. Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Education and St. Croix Education Administrators' Association

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: September 13, 2022
• Docket: SX-2016-CV-413
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

JOSEPH SCHRADBR ) ) 91mm ) CASE NO sx 2016 CV 00413 v ) GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ; 2022 v1 Super 79 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and ST ) CROIX EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS ) ASSOCIATION ) ) Defendants ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

1] 1 Before the Court is Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Education’s (“DOE”) Motion to Dismiss, filed September 8, 20l6, Plaintiff Joseph Schrader’s Response filed November 16 2016 Defendant DOE 3 Reply filed July 7 2017 and Defendant DOE’s Addendum to Motion to Dismiss, filed December 20, 2019 DOE seeks dismissal pursuant to V I R Civ P 12(b)(6) ' alleging that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive remedies available to him pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA‘) between DOE and Defendant St Croix Education Administrators’ Association (‘ STXEAA”), of which Plaintiff is a member For the reasons that follow, DOE’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied

BACKGROUND

1| 2 Plaintiff is employed by DOE as an Assistant Principal and is a member of the STXEAA, which represents all public school administrators employed with DOB DOE and STXBAA are parties to the CBA with an effective date of October 1, 2006 and an expiration date of September 30, 2010, which has since been renewed on a year to year basis

' The Motion was filed prior to the March 31 2017 effective date of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and is based upon Fed R Civ P 12(b)(6) than applicable pursuant to Super Ct R 7 Substantivelyidentical V] R Civ P 12(b)(6) applies here as the Count does not find that its application is infeasible or would work an injustice See Vl R Civ P l l(c)(2)(B) Schrader v CV] Department ofEducauon and St Croix BAA SX 2016-CV 004l3 Memorandum Opinion and Order 202! VI Super 79 Page 2 of 8

13 The CBA provides that ‘First preference to qualified members of the Association bargaining unit shall be considered in the filling of acting and temporary administrative position s within the bargaining unit ’2 Article V of the CBA includes a mandatory Grievance Procedu re for the determination of a complaint submitted by an employee (1) that there has been a violation or misinterpretation ofthe provisions of this Agreement, or (2) that he has been treated unfairly or inequitany by reason of any act or condition which is contrary to established policy or practices governing or affecting employees ‘ DOE and STXEAA agreed by the CBA that delineat ed steps including informal discussion then written grievance to the member’s immediate supervis or, appeal to the Superintendent then appeal to arbitration are the procedures [that] shall be the means of settlement of all grievances arising under this Agreement ”“ 114 Plaintiff holds both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in vocational education and had been employed by DOE for twenty years at the time he filed his Verified Complai nt, sewing as Assistant Principal of both Central High School and the St Croix Career and Technic al Education Center at the St Croix Educational Compiex (‘CTEC”) Plaintiff had also served both as a General Motors certified master technician and as an auto/diesel instructor on the high school, technical school and college levels for over ten years 5 1] 5 In a February 5 2014 letter to then Superintendent Gary MoIloy, certain CTEC teachers and staff requested Plaintiff’s removal as Assistant Principal, alleging various acts of unprofessional conduct, including exhibiting poor leadership and communication skills, lack of respect for faculty and staff failure to actively participate in social activities with faculty and students in an effort to build school culture and climate, misdirecting mechani cal and building trade instructors from participating in common core workshops, and failure and refusal to participate with the accreditation team etc " 1] 6 On or about April 19 2015 Plaintiff applied for the position of CTEC Principa l In late April 2015, while Plaintiff‘s application was pending, Assistant Commiss ioner Charmaine

2 DOE Motion to Dismiss Exhibit A CBA Article VI, Section 16 3 Id , Article V, Section I ‘ CBA Article V Sections 1 5 (emphasis added) 5 Verified Complaint, fl 8 12 ‘ Id 1 l6 Schrader v 0V! Department ofEducation and Sr Cram 5AA SX 20 I 6 CV 004]} Memorandum Opinion and Order 202] VI Super 79 Page 3 of 8

Hobson Johnson, Superintendent Coleen Williams and other administrators conducted a meeting with various CTEC teachers and staff, without Plaintiff‘s participation, that included a discussion of the February 5 2014 letter 7 1| 7 In mid May 2015 Plaintiff interviewed for the CTEC Principal position By June 15, 2015 letter, Superintendent Williams advised Plaintiff that he had not been selected, but that then Acting Principal Myrle Hendricks had been selected as Principal The June 15, 2015 letter also advised Plaintiff that he would be reassigned from his position at CTEC to the Assistant Principal position at John H Woodson Junior High School, which does not provide vocational occupational education 8 By correspondence dated June 16 2015, Principal Willard S John of St Croix Educational Complex informed Plaintiff that, based on his investigation, the petition to remove Plaintiff as CTBC Assistant Principal had “no merit” and that he “cannot recommend that it be considered or held against [Plaintiff] in any way "° ‘8 Subsequently, Plaintiffcomplained to STXEAA requesting that the Union file a grievance on his behalf regarding DOE’s failure to promote him to CTBC Principal '0 He also lodged complaints regarding his involuntary transfer to John H Woodson Junior High School as well as DOE’s failure to reimburse him for travel expenses and purchases made for DOE in addition to compensation for work he had previously completed

19 On June 22 2015 STXBAA filed two grievances with DOE on behalf of Plaintiff each subsequently followed by a demand for arbitration one in response to the D013 3 involuntary transfer of Plaintiff to Woodson; and the other related to DOE’s failure to compens ate Plaintiff for work completed and for reimbursement of expenses The Union, however, declined to file a grievance regarding DOE’s failure to promote Plaintiff to CTEC Principal 1‘

V 10 The Verified Complaint, filed July 20 2016 alleges two causes of action against DOE in Count I, for breach of the contract of employment and the CBA by failing to promote Plaintiff to Principal of CTEC; and in Count II for violation of Plaintiff‘s due process rights by failing to

WT”— 3 Id 1‘} 20 23 9 STXEAA Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 7 ‘° Verified Complaint, 1] 25 ” SCBAA Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavit of Rosa White '11 12 16 Schrader v 0V1 Department ofEda 0110» and SI ( rot: EA 4 SX 2016 CV 00413 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI Super 79 Page 4 of 8

provide him notice and an opportunity to be heard at the April 2015 meeting regardi ng the February 2014 letter Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendants‘ actions, he suffered defamation in his employment loss of income loss of benefits loss of employability, loss of reputation, mental anguish, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life continuing into the foresee able future '2

DISCUSSION 1} II By its Motion DOE challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff‘s Verified Compla int pursuant to V I R Civ P 12(b)(6), for its ‘ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ” The Virgin Islands ‘is a notice pleading jutisdiction,’ and a plaintiff must meet the notice pleading standard in VI R Civ P 8(a)(2) to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion See Mills Willia ms v Mapp 67 V I 574 585 86 (V I 2017) (citations omitted) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2) eliminated the former plausibility standard applicable prior to adoption of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure) By the language of Rule 8 a trial court is to ‘apply an approa ch that declines to enter dismissals of cases based on failure to allege specific facts which if establi shed plausibly entitle the pleader to relief M1118 Williams 67 V 1 at 585 (citing V I R Civ P 8 Reporter’s Note) ‘5 12 Under the notice pleading regime a plaintiff must provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief VI R Civ P 8(a)(2) Rule 8(a)(2) eliminates the former Twomny plausibility standard of federal practic e and instead permits a complaint so long as it “adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it 1d (citing Brathwazte v H D V I Holdmg ( o 2017 V 1 LEXIS 76, at *3 (V 1 Super 2017))

i 13 To state a claim for breach of contract in Count 1 Plaintiff must set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief To establi sh a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate (1) an agreement, (2) a duty created by that agreement, (3) a breach of that duty and (4) damages Phillip v Marsh Monsan to 66 VI 612 621 (V1 2017) (citations omitted) To the extent that Plaintiffs Verified Complaint adequately alleges facts that put DOE on notice that he claims the existence of the foregoing element s, the pleading will be accepted

‘1 Verified Complaint 1” 31 34 35 37 40 Schrader v GVI Department ofEducation and S! Crop: 5AA SX 20 [6 CV 00413 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI Super ‘79 Page 5 of 8

1[ 14 The Verified Complaint asserts the existence ofthe CBA, benefitting Plaintiff as a member of STXEAA By the CBA, Plaintiff alleges that DOE had a duty to follow provisi ons of the V I Code and Board of Education rules and policies in filling position vacancies, a duty that DOE breached by failing to promote Plaintiff to CTEC Principal when that position became available, despite the fact that he alone met the relevant criteria to fill the position Plainti ff alleges damages as a result of the breach, thereby providing a short and plain statement of his breach of contract claim, sufficient to put DOE on notice of the claim against it

1[ 15 Plaintiff asserts in Count II that Defendant DOE violated his due process rights by its failure to provide him notice and an opportunity to be heard at the April 2015 meeting called to discuss the February 2014 letter of Plaintiff’s CTEC colleagues relating to his unprofessional conduct as CTBC Assistant Principal, which violation resulted in damages to Plaintiff 1] 16 The Fourteenth Amendment to the U S Constitution and Section 3 of the Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act of 1954 provide procedural protection of a person’s proper ty interests “For such a procedural due process claim to succeed a plaintiff must establish that ‘(l) he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’ s protection of life, liberty, or property, and (2) the procedures available to him did not provid e due process of law Fleming v Cruz 62 V I 702 713 (V I 2015) (citing 1123 v deJongh 55 V I 1251 1256 57 (3d Cir 2011))

1 17 To succeed on his claim alleging a violation of his procedural due process rights Plaintiff must prove that he had a property right in attaining a promotion to become Princip al of CTEC and was deprived of that right as a result of DOE’s failure to provide him an opportunity to be heard in response to the February 2014 letter In the Virgin Islands it is well established that that a regular government employee has a property interest in continued employment See lies v deJongh 55 VI at 1261

1 18 Plaintiff claims that he “sought to be heard ” but that DOE “improperly and unreasonably deprived [him] of the Opportunity to properly respond and rebut the Februa ry 2014 letter and its false accusation ”’ ‘ with the result that he was passed over for promotion The Verified Complaint adequately alleges facts that provide a short and plain statement of Plainti ff's claim sufficient to

‘3 Verified Complaint fl 18 19 Schrader v 0V] Department of Edueanon and Sr Crow 5AA SX 2016 CV 004l3 Memorandum Opinion and Order 202] VI Super 79 Page 6 of 8

put DOE on notice that he claims a due process violation depriving him of a proper ty right in the promotion to CTEC Principal At this stage, Plaintiff need not establish his claim by evidentiary proof, but must only assert it sufficiently by a short and plain statement showm g that he is entitled to relief See V I R Civ P 8(a)(2) Plaintiff has done so here with regard to Count II i 19 Apart from the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims as pled, DOE moves for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against DOE, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the CBA The CBA provides that the grievance proced ure contained therein shall be the means of settlement of all grievances arising under the Agreement “As a general rule, individual employees are required first to utilize the methods of redress provid ed by a collective bargaining agreement, as agreed upon by the employer and union, before instituting a court action Staflbrd v Hess 0:! VJ Corp 1998 V I LEXIS 10 * l6 17 (V I Super 1998) 1] 20 Either by design or gross oversight DOE falsely argues that “Plaint iff‘s union has concurrently filed a grievance and requested arbitration on the same issue he now presents to the Court’ " Plaintiff did complain to STXEAA seeking the filing of a grievance on his behalf regarding DOE’s failure to promote him to CTBC Principal, “the same issue he now presents to the Court The Union did file two grievances on Plaintiff's behalf Howev er, those grievances, as presented with DOE’s Motion, relate to different issues '5 As to the issue before the Court, STXBAA specifically declined to file such a grievance ‘6 1] 21 Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, “Plaintiff complained to his union, Defendant St Croix Educational Administrators’ Association Inc and requested the union file a grievance on his behalf, which the union arbitrarily and capriciously failed to do ' Plaintiff attempted to exhaust E "‘ DOE Motion to Dismiss, at 3 '5 STXEAA (l) demanded arbitration by letter of July I3, 2015 relative to ‘ Correspondence from you to Joseph Schrader dated May 15, 2013 informing him that he is being involunt arily transferred to the John H Woodson Junior High School for school years 20l$ 2016 to help strengthen the pre Vocational courses at that school and (2) submitted Grievance on June 24 2015 regarding Plaintiff‘s work complet ed during summer 2013 for which Mr Schradet was never compensated Additionally Mr Schrader is also owed monies for purchasing materials and for travel reimbursement to St Thomas Match 20l5 ASE testing for which Plaintiff was not reimbursed DOE Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B '6 ‘The Union did not file a grievance on Schrader s behalf when he was not given the principal 5 position because after a review of the CBA, a thorough investigation and consultation with the Union 5 Counscl the Union concluded there was no basis to file a grievance We informed member Schrade r that we could not file a grievance and the basis for our decision STXEAA Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavi t of Rosa White,'J1 16 I7 '7 Verified Complaint ‘3 25 Schrader v 0V] Department ofEducation and SI Crmx 5AA SX 20l6 CV 004B Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI Super 79 Page 7 of 8

his administrative remedies prior to filing this hybrid action in which he couples his breach of contract claim against DOE with his claim of STXEAA’s “refusal and failure to represent Plaintiff" '3 (breach of its duty of fair representation) See Joseph v Bureau ofCorrections 54 V I 644 653 54 (V I 2011) Staflordv Hess 011 V1 Corp 1998 V I LEXIS 10 *l6 17

$1 22 Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to avail himself of all administrative remedies where the Union breached its duty to fairly represent him “Under general principles of labor law, an employee 5 only remedy for a breach of contract by an employer is the grievance and arbitratio n procedure provided by his collective bargaining agreement However, when that employee has no control over his grievance during the arbitration process and the union representing the employee breaches its duty to fairly represent him, the employee by necessity has a cause ofaction to pursue his rights under the contract in such an instance, an employee may bring suit against both the employer and the uni0n ’ Gomez v Government of Virgin Islands, 882 F 2d 733, 737 (3d Cir 1989) (citations and internal quotation omitted) “In the ‘hybrid’ suit, the plaintiff will have to prove that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement in order to prevail on the breach ofduty of fair representation claim against the union and vice versa ” Burns v Salem Tube Inc 381 Fed Appx 178 181 (3d Cir 2010) (quoting Felice v Sever 985 F 2d 1221 1226 (3d Cir 1993) (citing DeICostello v Teamsters 462 U S 151 165 (1983))

1] 23 Pursuant to the notice pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2) Plaintiff has pied a hybrid claim for breach of contract and violation of his due process rights against DOE and for breach of the duty of fair representation against STXBAA, sufficient to withstand DOE’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘9

'3 Id 1126 ’9 Both Count I (Breach of Contract) and Count ll (Violation of Due Process Rights) of the Verified Complaint allege wrongs of both Defendants Although not set forth in a separate count (see V I R Civ P 8(a)(2); lO(b)), Plaintiff did complain that he requested that the Union file a grievance on his behalf, which it arbitrarily and capriciously failed to do (Verified Complaint 1 25). a sufficient short and plain statement of his claim to put STXEAA on notice of his claim of breach of its duty of fair represcntation Schrader v GVI Department ofEducation and 31 Crow 5AA SX 2016 CV 00413 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI Super 79 Page 8 of 8

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant DOB 8 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and DOE shall file its Answer to Plaintiff‘s Verified Complaint within 30 days of the date hereof

//

DATED September / 5 2022 £2 [9/4 42* DOUGH“ A BRADY JUDG’E

ATTE8T TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

By /W fCourt Clerk