The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN JONES, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint ("the Motion") (doc. 24) filed by Defendants
Schuylkill County Area Vocational-Technical School Authority,
James Monaghan, Gerald Achenbach, and James S. Fogarty
(collectively "Defendants") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on June 30, 2005.
For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion will be granted
in part and denied in part.
The plaintiff, John J. Coreia ("Plaintiff" or "Coreia")
initiated this action by filing a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on November 5, 2004 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
28 U.S.C. § 1342, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and invoking
the Court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). On January 24, 2005 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint, which was briefed by the parties. On March
24, 2005, we issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint as Plaintiff attached factual allegations to
his submission that were not contained within the four corners of
his complaint. (See Rec. Doc. 19).
Defendants filed the instant Motion on June 30, 2005, which has
been briefed by the parties. The Motion is therefore ripe for
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept the
veracity of a plaintiff's allegations. See Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also White v. Napoleon,
897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65
(3d Cir. 1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added
that in considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to
state a claim argument, a court should "not inquire whether the
plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are
entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Furthermore,
"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also District Council 47 v. Bradley,
795 F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that he was employed
by Defendant Schuylkill County Area Vocation-Technical School
Authority ("VOTEC") as a machine trades technology teacher and
was forced to resign effective August 21, 2003. (Am. Compl. ¶
11). His active contracted employment with Defendant VOTEC ended
on or about June 9, 2003. Id. On or about August 15, 2003
Plaintiff was approached by Defendant James Monaghan
("Monaghan"), Director of Education at Schuylkill County VOTEC
and Plaintiff's supervisor, who stated that he was going to send
in the application for Plaintiff to get his emergency teaching
certificate ("ETC"). Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff asserts that he then
gave Monaghan the signed application and money order, assuming
that Monaghan was going to mail the items. Id.
On or about August 18, 2003, Monaghan told Plaintiff that his
application had been denied and gave Plaintiff his application
and money back. Id. ¶ 13. "Monaghan never mentioned to
Plaintiff that he was going to lose his job and Plaintiff
continued to enter his classroom after this date." Id.
Plaintiff noticed that the date of the application and the date
on the denial letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Education were the same. Id.
Two days later, on August 20, 2003, at approximately 11:30
a.m., while Plaintiff was working in his classroom, Monaghan told
Plaintiff that he had to submit a letter of resignation or he was
going to be terminated. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff's decision had to
be made by 3:00 p.m. that day. Monaghan told Plaintiff that if he
was terminated, he would lose all the course credits he had
earned toward his teaching degree and never be able to teach in
Pennsylvania again. Id. Plaintiff asked Monaghan if he could
give his answer after he had an opportunity to speak with the
education department's attorney; however, Monaghan responded that
he could not and stated that Plaintiff had until 3:00 p.m. on
August 20, 2003 to either resign or to be terminated by Monaghan.
Id. ¶ 15.
Plaintiff alleges that he immediately contacted Edward E.
Demyanovich ("Demyanovich"), the president and union
representative of Plaintiff's union of the Pennsylvania State
Educational Association, the Schuylkill County Area Vocational
Technical School Educational Association ("Schuylkill County
AVTSEA") as of June 2002, to seek his union's representation in a
grievance process. Id. ¶ 24. Demyanovich was working in his
classroom in preparation for the new school year and attempted to
contact Martin Herring ("Herring"), the union's attorney in
Philadelphia. "Attorney Herring was not available until the next day, and therefore Demyanovich contacted his more senior
past union contacts and other representatives for advise [sic].
Based upon his contacts and/or lack of contacts, he stated to
Plaintiff that `Jim [Monaghan] being the director of education
must know what he is talking about . . . [that Plaintiff would
loose al [sic] his credits from Temple University and would never
be able to teach in Pennsylvania again] . . . and that we must
trust his judgment.'" Id. ¶ 25.
After speaking with Demyanovich, Plaintiff explained to
Monaghan that the union attorney would not be available under the
next day and asked that Monaghan wait until the next day. Id. ¶
26. The said request was denied and Plaintiff was again told that
if he did not resign before 3:00 p.m., that he would be
terminated that day. Id. ¶ 27. In addition, Plaintiff alleges
that requests to meet or discuss the termination with Dr. Gerald
Achenbach ("Achenbach"), Monaghan's immediate director, were
unsuccessful on August 20, 2003. Achenbach directed Monaghan to
terminate Plaintiff or to have him resign that date by 3:00 p.m.
Id. ¶ 28.
A letter of resignation written by Monaghan was given to
Plaintiff to sign. With no viable options, Plaintiff signed the
letter of resignation. Id. ¶ 16. The following day, Herring and
the Schuylkill County AVTSEA regional Unit-Serve Representative,
Janet Kuykendall ("Kuykendall") told Demyanovich that because
Plaintiff resigned, he was no longer a union member and no
grievance could be pursued on his behalf. Id. ¶ 29.
Plaintiff states that he never received a verbal or written
reminder from anyone regarding the amount of time he had to
receive his Vocational I Certificate. Id. ¶ 17. Moreover,
during his relevant time of employment, Plaintiff asserts that he
was working for Defendants pursuant to an "internship
certificate." On the back of this certificate, it states that it
is valid for a three year period from the date of issuance and
does not indicate a date of expiration. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff was
taking classes at Temple University toward his teaching
We initially note that Plaintiffs' claims are brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of alleged constitutional
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process ...