Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ronald Heneghan v. Northampton Community College

August 1, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stengel, J.

Ronald Heneghan has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court‟s July 11, 2011 memorandum and order granting defendants‟ motion for summary judgment. He claims this Court improperly failed to consider relevant precedent set forth in McDaniels v. Flick, 59 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1995). Because McDaniels does not support Mr. Heneghan‟s contention that there is a genuine dispute whether his procedural due process rights were violated, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.


Mr. Heneghan was a professor at Northampton Community College ("the College") who was granted tenure by the Board of Trustees only to have that decision revoked before it could take effect. Because the facts are set forth in detail in this Court‟s memorandum and order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the College and its Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Elizabeth Bugaighis, I will repeat only those facts relevant to the instant motion.*fn1 Mr. Heneghan seeks reconsideration of this Court‟s ruling only insofar as it granted summary judgment in the College‟s favor on his procedural due process claim.

For purposes of the arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration, it bears repeating that Mr. Heneghan‟s case is indeed unique: instead of being denied tenure, or being fired at some point during his career as a tenured employee, Mr. Heneghan was initially granted tenure by the Board of Trustees in February of 2009 only to have this decision quickly revoked after allegations surfaced that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct with students and behaved rudely to his colleagues. This, as admitted by College officials, had never happened before at the College. After Mr. Heneghan first received notice in March of 2009 that his tenure appointment had been rescinded, he filed a notice of appeal citing Article IV ¶ C of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") entered into between the College and the American Federation of Teachers ("the Union"), the union of which he was a member. Under Article IV ¶ C, faculty members who are denied tenure after teaching for six years at the College are entitled to appeal that denial before the College‟s Board of Trustees. Mr. Heneghan didn‟t quite fall into this category, since after six years of teaching he had actually briefly been granted tenure before the decision was rescinded. He was granted an appeal, and he appeared for a hearing before the Board of Trustees on May 7, 2009, where he implored its members not to rescind his tenure appointment. They rescinded it nonetheless.

Mr. Heneghan was accompanied to the hearing by Shelly Snyder, a Union representative. He stated that his conversations with her gave him the impression that after the Board denied his appeal, he had no further recourse. Heneghan Dep. Session 1, 125:24-126:4. She allegedly told him that appeal to the Board of Trustees under Article IV ¶ C was his "only avenue" for appeal of the rescission. Id. at 126: 2-4. Indeed, Ms. Snyder testified that she thought appeal to the Board had been the proper route for Mr. Heneghan to take. Snyder Dep. 24:14-16 ("I thought that the contract language under Article 4 ¶ C was pretty clear as to what his status was as an employee with the Community College.").

However, in the CBA, there is another section under which College employees may file grievances about College actions. This section, which appears at Article XIV of the CBA, provides that "a grievance is a complaint arising out of the interpretation, application, or violation of one or more of the express provisions of this Agreement." CBA Article XIV ¶ A(1). Under this Article, a grievant shall "present a grievance at the lowest administrative level having authority to dispose of the grievance within fifteen (15) College days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the grievance[.]" CBA Art. XIV, ¶ D. The College‟s administrative representative has fifteen days to submit a written response to the grievant, and if the employee‟s grievance is not resolved by the response, the grievant may appeal to the President of the College. Id. Following appeal to the President, the grievant, may, through the Union, submit the matter to arbitration. Id.

Mr. Heneghan learned on May 10, 2009 that the Board had voted not to reinstate his tenure. On May 13, 2009, despite his claimed belief that he had no further recourse to appeal its decision, he filed a Union grievance under procedures set forth in the CBA. He used the College‟s official grievance report form. Ex. 8 to Def.‟s Motion for Summary J. He sought a grant of tenure and a ruling that he could "continue in his current position as Associate Professor of Communications/Theatre." Id. Mr. Heneghan‟s grievance was denied by Helene Whitaker, the College‟s Vice-President of Administrative Affairs, on the same day he filed it. Id. The form itself contains a further section to be filled out as the grievant proceeds to step two of the process, appeal to the President or a designee. There is no record that Mr. Heneghan proceeded to the second step, or that he submitted the matter to arbitration under the third step. Mr. Heneghan testified that the decision not to proceed to the second step was made by the Union. Its decision was communicated to him by Mario Acerra, who told Mr. Heneghan in an email that the executive committee had done an investigation of his case and decided not to proceed. Heneghan Dep. Session 1, 168:15, 169:2-6. Mr. Heneghan stated that Mr. Acerra gave him the opportunity to call and ask questions, but that he did not do so and did not ask anyone else from the Union why it had not appealed the initial grievance denial. See id. at 169:170:23.

For her part, Ms. Whitaker explained that she, as a representative of the College, denied Mr. Heneghan‟s initial grievance because she believed that his situation fell under the proscribed procedures for a faculty member who is denied tenure. See Whitaker Dep. 30:4-21. She understood that grievance procedures applied to professors terminated from their employment with the College. See id.


"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.‟" Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max=s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). A court should grant a motion for reconsideration "if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion . . .; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max=s Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677 (quoting N. River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)).


In its initial summary judgment opinion, this Court identified the proper standard for review of Mr. Heneghan‟s claim as the one set forth in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Memorandum at 10-12. Loudermill establishes that, if a public employee has a legitimate interest in continued employment (and this Court found that Mr. Heneghan did), he is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story before his employment is terminated. Mr. Heneghan argued in his opposition to the College‟s motion for summary judgment that, as part of his procedural due process protections, he was instead entitled to a pre-deprivation formal hearing before a neutral hearing officer. Pl.‟s Resp. to Def.‟s Motion for Summ. J., 7 ("[T]he only issue is whether there was an adequate pre-deprivation hearing. Here, there was not, since a hearing before a neutral hearing officer was required, and none was provided."). He cited one case, Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 (1982), for this proposition.

In the instant motion, Mr. Heneghan cites a new case and fundamentally alters his argument: he now insists, relying on McDaniels, that "since the pre-deprivation process was not impartial . . . the only way for Defendants to escape liability is if the Court is correct that Plaintiff had available a post-deprivation remedy in the union grievance process." Pl.‟s Mem. in Support of Mot. For Reconsideration, 3 (emphasis added). In other words, where in his initial briefing Mr. Heneghan claimed that his pre-deprivation procedures were inadequate, he now claims his post-deprivation procedures were lacking.

McDaniels involved the discharge of a tenured professor, Frank McDaniels, from the Delaware County Community College ("DCCC"). Following a trial in which the jury found against DCCC and awarded McDaniels substantial damages for violation of his procedural due process rights, DCCC filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law in its favor. The District Court denied the motion and the Third Circuit reversed. After school officials initiated an investigation into charges that he had threatened and sexually harassed a student, McDaniels was afforded a pre-termination hearing during which a school official explained the charges against him and allowed him to respond. Id. at 451-52. Subsequently, McDaniels was terminated from his position and told of his post-termination rights, which included having his action heard through a grievance procedure as provided under the terms of his union‟s collective bargaining agreement, or having a hearing before a committee of the College‟s board of trustees. Id. at 452. He appealed to the President of the College, but did not appeal the President‟s adverse decision to the board. Id. at 453. He did not pursue the matter in state court. Id. Rather, he began arbitration proceedings as provided under the collective bargaining agreement and then filed a federal action while they were pending. Id.

The Third Circuit re-affirmed that Loudermill provides the proper standard to assess the adequacy of pre-termination procedures afforded to a public employee. McDaniels, 59 F.3d at 456. It then addressed McDaniels‟ argument that he should have been allowed to present evidence at trial that the pre-termination procedures he was afforded were "a sham" because the officials who conducted his initial interviews were not impartial. Id. at 458-59. The court ultimately rejected this argument. First, it observed that there is a key distinction between pre- and post-termination procedures in public employment cases:

Although due process requires an impartial decisionmaker before final deprivation of a property interest, [Schweiker, 456 U.S. at 195], it is not clear that strict impartiality is required at each stage of the process. In situations as the one at hand, there are two stages, pretermination and post-termination, but normally the post-termination proceedings conclusively determine the employee's status. The pretermination hearing merely serves as "an initial check against mistaken decisions -essentially, a determination of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.