Susquehanna Township School District lawsuit

8/13/2019 Susquehanna Township School District lawsuit

1/70

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and :MARK Y. SUSSMAN :

Plaintiffs, :: CIVIL ACTIONv. :

:THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP : NO.SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, :THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL :DISTRICT and DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, :SUPERINTENDENT :OF THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP :SCHOOL DISTRICT IN HER OFFICIAL AND :

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES :Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN

(collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against the

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Board),

the SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT (STSD), and DR.

SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin

Defendants from violating Plaintiffs Constitutional rights and to nullify an

Employment Contract (Contract) between the Board and Dr. Kegerise. Plaintiffs

contend that the terms, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the

Contract violates their rights under the First Amendment to the United States

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ & 4A -B


2/70

2

Constitution, and also violates federal and state law and in support thereof, aver the

following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendants Board and Dr.

Kegerise have entered into an employment contract (Contract) and that its terms,

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement violate Plaintiffs rights under the

Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and

violates the Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101 (Act). A

true and correct copy of the Contract is appended hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and

enforcement, violates:

a. Plaintiffs rights to free speech under the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

b. Plaintiffs rights to perform their constitutional and

statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and laws of

the United States and Pennsylvania.

3. Express terms of the Contract violate the plain language of the

Act and the Contract expressly cedes to Dr. Kegerise powers, duties, and

responsibilities conferred upon the Board under state law, in violation of the Act,

Plaintiffs constitutional rights, and the Delegation Doctrine.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ - 4A -B


3/70

3

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to nullify and declare invalid the

Contract, permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Contract, uphold

Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution and enjoin Defendants from

committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory

rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to

STSD.

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD,

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Board is comprised of nine members elected by the

voters of Susquehanna Township.

8. Defendant STSD is the public school system for Susquehanna

Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

9. Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as

superintendent of STSD. Dr. Kegerise is being sued in her official and individual

capacities.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ ( 4A -B


4/70

4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which conveys

subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

11. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a).

12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)

because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the

events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

THE FACTS

14. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant

superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act.

15. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new

Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half

years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ C 4A -B


5/70

5

16. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all

power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested

in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of

this AGREEMENT . (Emphasis added.)

17. Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: Criticisms, complaints,

and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of

School Directors as appropriate.

18. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of

Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful

direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers,

residents, and taxpayers.

19. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been

employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf

and with her knowledge and approval.

20. It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013

and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled

monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings

Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ > 4A -B


6/70

6

21. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the

front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

22. Although public meetings of the School Board are normally

held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board

meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High

School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those

related to this litigation.

23. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of

STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the

front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out

for intimidation.

24. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended

board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and

did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

25. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence

the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ / 4A -B


7/70

7

26. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff

Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.

Kegerise by STSD.

27. In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to

look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

28. In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting

on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal

attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any

special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and

demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February

22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

29. Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this correspondence

as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both

privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr.

Rawls.

30. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.

Kegerise, and STSD Solicitor Paul Blunt, and informed them that in response to an

inquiry from a reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the

board was taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations,

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ 0 4A -B


8/70

8

Ferguson stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would

implore you to do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment.

31. Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you

choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.

32. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.

Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this

correct?

33. Several additional emails followed, including one where

Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township

High School athletic director.

34. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the

school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails

violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually

interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr.

Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the

Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

35. In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with

and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and

with her knowledge and approval.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ . 4A -B


9/70

9

36. Discovery will show whether other Board members or other

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.

37. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and

claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in

private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is

appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.

38. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify

the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

39. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by

midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following

Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortuously [sic] interfering with

Dr. Kegerises Contract.

40. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis

repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true

1 May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;" .= )>!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ B 4A -B


10/70

10

and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2

41. In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written

correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately

retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on

the written correspondence.

42. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr. Kegerise

with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as

the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.

43. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his

personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly

with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be

provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material

breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the

2 The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.

It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email

when it clearly was written after.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &, 4A -B


11/70

11

Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.

44. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the

same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made

public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted

that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,

specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must

cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to

Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as

Exhibit G.

45. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to

threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents,

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls,

Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him.

46. Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about

Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not

use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents.

47. As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the

relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ && 4A -B


12/70

12

48. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to

STSD.

49. In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized

the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contractual prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the firstinstance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents maymake sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized

to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations roles.It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt.

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.

50. The community survey was never undertaken.

51. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the

recipients constitutional and statutory rights.

52. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance

where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with Board

business or Board members activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of

the Board.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &- 4A -B


13/70

13

53. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt

explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would

be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their

elected positions.

54. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members

they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or

speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.

55. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact thatSues attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are well-founded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity toliability the law provides when they are acting within their roleas Board members. When they are acting as individuals andnot as members of the Board, they are subject to the same riskof liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues indetermining whether a Board member is acting as a Boardmember is whether their actions are in accordance with theadvice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only

protect individual Board members if and when their actions areauthorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing todisavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . .Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or theDistrict unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain

board members] on behalf of the District and Board.56. In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &( 4A -B


14/70

14

It has come to my attention that some of you attended acommunity meeting sponsored and organized by PeterSpeaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-registereffort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attendany meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is ill-advised to attend such meetings precisely because it engendersthe appearance and invites the assumption that you arerepresenting the Board and District.

57. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to

communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address --

[email protected] -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board

members.

58. The official STSD website explains that [w]hen using this

email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the

message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration

may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding

to the School Board.

59. Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has

the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors

or even if an email will be disseminated.

60.

Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emailssent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to

send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account

information or passwords necessary to access the official account.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &C 4A -B
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/70

15

61. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other

Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send

emails from it.

62. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident

Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,

sent an email to [email protected] to ask a question related to a

criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs

handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant

principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled student (the

Sharkey Matter). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener emails

referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit H.

63. The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School Board

members.

64. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or

even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two

Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark

Sussman.

65. Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one

week prior had not been disseminated to the Board.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &> 4A -B
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/70

16

66. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any

member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.

67. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not

allowed to discuss the substance of the email.

68. Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to

threatening letters he had received from the Superintendents personal attorney,

Kutulakis, as well as legal guidance from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.

69. Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldnt

discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wieners

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation

as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors.

70. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have

Wieners email disseminated to the Board.

71. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wieners email,

which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.

72. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute

Wieners email to the Board.

73. On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at

[email protected] , stating in part I was informed that the e-mail had

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &/ 4A -B
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/70

17

not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it] has been as

of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H appended

hereto.

74. Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise

that she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent

the second email.

75. On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or

acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise

and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or

any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I

believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a

response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?] (Emphasis

added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.

76. Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt replied to

Wiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding

information.

77. In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: Contrary to reports by

the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires;

and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &0 4A -B


18/70

18

any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim .

(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.

78. Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had

previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to

District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.

79. At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this

Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wieners

emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails were ever

disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were addressed to

the Board and sent to the official Board email address.

80. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch

supporter of the superintendent and her administration.

81. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as

adversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

82. Board members who are perceived as favorable to the

Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those

Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &. 4A -B


19/70

19

83. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce

numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise.

84. The Contract was approved by a 6-3 vote of the School Board.

85. Plaintiffs first received a copy of the Contract at an executive

session of the board immediately prior to the public meeting where it was adopted.

86. Plaintiffs had approximately 37 minutes to review the proposed

Contract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted on.

87. Plaintiffs voted against entering into the proposed Contract, as

did Board member John Dietrich.

88. Plaintiffs do not know which other Board members may have

received the proposed Contract before Plaintiffs did.

89. Although Kutulakis handled Contract negotiations on behalf of

Dr. Kegerise, Blunt was quoted in local media defining his own role as limited to

reviewing the draft document to insure that it had the changes mandated by the

new law.

90. In an email to the Board dated March 20, 2013, Blunt stated

that to date, my involvement has been limited to reviewing one draft contract

presented to me by Mike Ferguson prior to his presentation of it to Sue and

[Kutulakis].

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;" .= )>!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &B 4A -B


20/70

20

91. Notwithstanding Blunts review of the draft document, the

Contract contains numerous provisions that conflict with the express language of

the Act.

92. Section 5-508 of the Act states in part:

The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school directors in every school district, duly recorded,showing how each member voted, shall be required in order totake action on the following subjects: . . . Appointing ordismissing district superintendents , assistant districtsuperintendents, associate superintendents, principals, and

teachers.24 P.S. 5-508. (Emphasis added.)

93. Section 10-1080(a) of the Act states: District superintendents

and assistant district superintendents may be removed from office and have their

contracts terminated, after hearing, by a majority vote of the board of school

directors of the district, for neglect of duty, incompetency, intemperance, or

immorality 24 P.S. 10-1080.

94. Section 8.00(a) of the Contract states [r]emoval shall only be

proper after a hearing followed by a two thirds (6 members of a 9 member board)

vote of the Board of School Directors for removal. (Emphasis added.)

95. Section 5-514 of the Act states:

The board of school directors in any school district, except asherein otherwise provided, shall after due notice, giving thereasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the rightat any time to remove any of its officers, employes, or

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -, 4A -B


21/70


22/70

22

filing Dr. Kegerise, who controls what information is posted on the website, has

refused to comply.

101. Section 10-1073.1(b) of the Act states: The board of school

directors shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the district

superintendent and assistant district superintendent annually. A time frame for the

assessment shall be included in the contract. 24 P.S. 10-1073.1.

102. Section 7.01 of the Contract calls for an annual performance

assessment of the Superintendent, however the only rating categories allowed

under the Contract are exemplary, good and satisfactory.

103. An exemplary rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 5% stipend, a

good rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 3% stipend and a satisfactory rating

entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 2% stipend.

104. It is believed and therefore averred that the performance bonus

is classified as a stipend in order to avoid calculating the bonus as income which

would subject the bonus to contributions by Dr. Kegerise and STSD to the

Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System.

105. Section 7.01 of the Contract states that in the event no annual

performance review is conducted, Dr. Kegerise is entitled to the 5% bonus for

exemplary performance.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -- 4A -B


23/70

23

106. Since becoming superintendent in 2009, Dr. Kegerise has never

received an annual performance review, notwithstanding the fact that the annual

performance review is mandated by the Act.

107. Section 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) provides that the Contract between a

school district and its superintendent shall [i]ncorporate all provisions relating to

compensation and benefits to be paid to or on behalf of the district superintendent

. . . . 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii).

108. STSD policy provides that a non-resident who attends STSD

shall pay tuition in the amount of $941 monthly for an elementary student.

109. Since 2009, Dr. Kegerises grandchild has been enrolled in

STSD.

110. It is believed and therefore averred that the grandchild does not

and has never resided in the Susquehanna Township School District.

111. It is believed and therefore averred that no one has paid out-of-

district tuition for the non-resident grandchild since she began attending STSD in

2009.

112. In October 2013, Dr. Kegerise informed the Board that her

grandchild attended STSD tuition-free based on a verbal authorization from a prior

school board, some of whose members no longer serve on the Board.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -( 4A -B


24/70

24

113. Authorization for Dr. Kegerises grandchild to attend STSD

tuition-free does not appear in Board minutes dating back to 2009.

114. The benefit conferred on Dr. Kegerise to send her grandchild to

STSD tuition-free is not reflected in the Contract.

COUNT I

Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. 1983;First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual and official capacities

115. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein.

116. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

117. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

118. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times

relevant hereto under color of state law.

119. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise

their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD

parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -C 4A -B


25/70

25

120. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected

School Board members, including Plaintiffs.

121. In addition to examples provided above, Discovery will show

numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been

interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval.

122. Under authority vested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her

contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional

violations be stopped.

123. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional

violations continue.

124. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions and the

actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individual and

official capacities.

125. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or

inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First

Amendment rights of free speech.

126. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or

inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and other costs.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -> 4A -B


26/70

26

COUNT II

Declaratory Judgment Action to Declare the Employment Contract Voidas Violative of The Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101

Plaintiffs v. All Defendants




enforcement, is the vehicle through which Plaintiffs and others constitutional

rights have been repeatedly violated.

129. As stated more fully above, sections of the Contract violate

express language of the Act as follows:

a. Section 8.00(a) violates 24 P.S. 5-508 and

10-1080(a); and

b. Section 8.00 (b)(1) of the Contract violates

24 P.S. 5-514.


enforcement violates 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) which requires that the Contract

state the salary conferred upon a superintendent such as Dr. Kegerise.

131. Notwithstanding a Severability Clause included in the

Contract at Section 15.00, the Contract cannot be modified because in addition to

the express terms of the Contract which violate applicable law, the interpretation,

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -/ 4A -B


27/70

27

implementation and enforcement of the Contracts provisions have been the

vehicle through which Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated.

132. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal terms,

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Contract, Plaintiffs have

incurred attorneys fees and other costs.

COUNT III

Punitive Damages

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity



134. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or should have

known that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in discovery,

constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.

135. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, and/or

wantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the public at

large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights generally and

more specifically as follows:

a. By monitoring correspondence sent to and from

the Board;

b. By withholding correspondence sent to the Board;

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -0 4A -B


28/70

28

c. By delaying correspondence sent to the Board;

d. By repeatedly threatening legal action against

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for

exercising their First Amendment rights;

e. By acting to intimidate individuals, including but

not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising

their First Amendment rights; and

f. By punishing or threatening to punish Board

members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

136. Kegerises continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs

First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious

actions.

137. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive damages be awarded

against Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y.

Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against all Defendants, as

follows:

A. Declaratory Relief against all Defendants;

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4( 567$8 339):93& ;"!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 & 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -. 4A -B


29/70


30/70

CIVIL COVER SHEET

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaint(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF (U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY RIGHTS

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY

PERSONAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS Habeas Corpus: IMMIGRATION

Other:

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity )

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See instructions):

OR OFFICE USE ONLY

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*3 567$8 339):93& ;"


31/70

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants.

(b) County of Residence.

( c) Attorneys.

II. Jurisdiction.

. ; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversitycases.

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.

IV. Nature of Suit.

V. Origin.

VI. Cause of Action. Do not cite jurisdictionalstatutes unless diversity.

VII. Requested in Complaint.

VIII. Related Cases.

Date and Attorney Signature.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*3 567$8 339):93& ;"


32/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


33/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


34/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


35/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" .= )4!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 &)- 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ B 4A -0


36/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" 4A -0


37/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


38/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


39/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


40/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


41/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


42/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


43/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


44/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


45/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" .= )4!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 &)- 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ &B 4A -0


46/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" 4A -0


47/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


48/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


49/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


50/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


51/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


52/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


53/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


54/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


55/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" .= )4!"#$ &'&()*+),-./0)121 34*56$78 &)- 9:;$< &&=->=&( ?"@$ -B 4A -0


56/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;" 4A -0


57/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


58/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*) 567$8 339):93& ;"


59/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*& 567$8 339):93& ;"


60/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*& 567$8 339):93& ;"


61/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:);:3&


62/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:);:3&


63/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:);:3&


64/70

From: "J kutulakis" < [email protected] >Date: May 18, 2013 7:50 AMSubject: CommentsTo: "[email protected] "

Cc: " [email protected] " < [email protected] >

Mr. Sussman:

I hope that this email finds you well. I am out of town and am unable to develop a formal letter,however one will follow.

It has been brought to my attention that you have been making comments about the state of theSusquehanna Township School District including but not limited to statements that its teachersare afraid and the students are out of control. I am informed that you specifically indicating thatthe administration must go as a result.

I write to formally ask that you immediately provide me the names of the teaches with whomyou have specifically discussed this matter.

I also write to inform you that I believe you are tortiously interfering with Dr. Kegerise's contractwith the District. I ask that you immediately retract these statements with whomever you sharedthem and do so in writing, also copying me. I believe an apology to Dr. Kegerise with a formalwritten acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as the District's Superintendentmust also occur. Your retraction must occur by midnight, Saturday, May 19th.

If you are unable and unwilling to follow these requests, I will be taking swift legal action onMonday. If you have retained independent legal counsel, please forward this immediately to thatattorney and provide me his/her contact information. I am copying Solicitor Blunt on this out of

professional courtesy, but do not believe his capacity as the Solicitor covers your conduct as itappears you are acting independent of the Board on this matter. I will defer to him on thecapacity of his representation of you.

I want to be crystal clear. I have individuals who have provided very specific information aboutwhat you have said to them. It is unconscionable to knowingly make such blatantly falsestatements about the Districts outstanding administration. Your failure to correct this situation

by day's end will undoubtedly result a a legal battle.

Thank you in anticipation of you prompt attention to this matter.

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:)5:3& ;"


65/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*, 567$8 339):93& ;"


66/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*, 567$8 339):93& ;"


67/70


68/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*4 567$8 339):93& ;"


69/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:);:3&


70/70

!"#$ &'()*"+*(,((( -./01$2+ 3&4(*5 678$9 33:);:3&

Susquehanna Township School District lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Susquehanna Township School District lawsuit