Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—E.D. Pa.: Teacher, transferred following social media fallout, cannot advance property interest, reputation claims, (Feb 7, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

His transfer came after he had made comments about female students to his sixth-grade health class.

A former school teacher for the Downingtown Area School District was unable to move forward with his claims against the district alleging he was deprived of a property interest in continued public employment and a liberty interest in his reputation, ruled a federal district court in Pennsylvania. However, his state-law claims against the school district and his claims for defamation and tortious interference against an individual parent were allowed to proceed. A social media kerfuffle had ensued once parents had learned of the teacher’s transfer, and he ultimately ended up resigning rather than return to the classroom (Suniaga v. Downingtown Area School District, No. 20-2283 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2025)).

The individual who brought this action worked for 24 years as a health and physical education teacher. In 2014, he accepted a position at the Marsh Creek Sixth Grade Center where he was tasked with implementing the school’s “wellness” curriculum. In April 2019, he started a unit on human growth and development, covering issues of puberty and sexual health.

Inappropriate comments. On May 6, 2019, Marsh Creek’s principal received an email from a parent alleging that the teacher had made inappropriate comments during class. The parent asserted that the teacher had displayed a picture of their daughter on a board and asked students to observe how she had “developed.” Additionally, the parent claimed that the teacher had asked female students about their shaving habits, commented on their height and weight, and remarked to a student, “you used to be cute.”

Administrative leave. The following day, the principal met with several students and the parent regarding the allegations. The principal told the school’s HR director that he believed the allegations were credible. The HR director placed the teacher on administrative leave with pay, pending further investigation. On May 13, the principal informed school parents that “allegations have been made that your child’s Wellness teacher has made inappropriate comments to students in a class” and that he had been placed on administrative leave.

Teacher’s side. During a May 29 hearing, the teacher presented his side of the events. He denied having directed the class to observe the development of female students, asserting that he had pulled language directly from the class textbook which prompted students to: “[l]ook at any group of teens and you will probably see big differences between individuals.”

As for the shaving comment, the teacher explained that after showing students a diagram on body hair development, a male student had asked why his legs had hair but some of his female classmates did not. The teacher responded that it was common societal practice for girls to shave their legs and then asked how many of the female students shaved their legs.

With regard to the “cute” comment, the teacher asserted that he was entering grades into his computer when the student for whom he had just entered a grade had walked into his room. He referenced the photo that accompanied the student’s profile in his gradebook and remarked: “Look at you, you were so cute in the picture.”

Ultimately, the school district’s superintendent suspended the teacher for 30 days without pay.

Transfer, outrage. In mid-August 2019, the superintendent, in an effort to give the teacher a fresh start, transferred him to Beaver Creek Elementary. News of the transfer sparked outrage on social media. The district attempted to get ahead of the controversy, informing parents that an investigation had uncovered nothing untoward and that a second adult would be placed in his classes at the beginning of the year. The outrage continued.

On August 19, an email from “Concerned Beaver Creek Parents” alleged that the teacher had been suspended from Marsh Creek for “making inappropriate comments about his female students’ breast development in front of the class.” On August 20, the superintendent met with 40 Beaver Creek parents. On August 23, the superintendent again decided to place the teacher on administrative leave with pay.

Email. After the teacher was placed on leave, Beaver Creek’s principal sent an email to parents referencing “new allegations from people with firsthand information.” Other allegations, she noted, were second-hand accounts and “general in nature.” Any witnesses or victims were instructed to contact the district’s HR director.

Investigation, resignation. Another investigation found insufficient evidence to support the allegations leveled against the teacher. He was directed to return to school on November 7. However, the teacher informed the district that, per the advice of his health care provider, he was unable to return to work. He ultimately resigned on his position on June 30, 2020.

Subsequently, the teacher filed this lawsuit against the school district and several of its officials alleging that he was deprived of a property interest in continued public employment as well as a liberty interest in his reputation. He also asserted state-law claims for defamation, false light, tortious interference, and conspiracy. In addition, he asserted claims against some of the parents for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false light, tortious interference, and conspiracy.

Property interest. First, the court determined that the teacher possessed a property interest in not being suspended without just cause. Having established that fact, the court directed its attention to whether the teacher was afforded sufficient process before he was twice placed on administrative leave with pay.

Marsh Creek suspension. With regard to the teacher’s first suspension following the alleged inappropriate comments, the court observed that the fact the teacher was suspended with pay weighed strongly against his claim, but that alone did not extinguish the claim. However, the court did note that additional factors weighed in the school district’s favor.

Here, the school district had received multiple allegations that the teacher had made inappropriate comments toward female students. Those allegations, if true, could constitute a “significant hazard,” explained the court. After a preliminary investigation, the principal believed the claims were credible. Although some of the allegations proved false or misleading, it was reasonable, given the district’s strong interest in promoting student safety, to place the teacher on paid leave pending an investigation. In addition, the district held a post-deprivation hearing on May 29. Accordingly, the decision to place the teacher on paid leave without a pre-deprivation hearing did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, said the court.

Beaver Creek suspension. The teacher’s second suspension following his transfer to Beaver Creek was a closer call. Many of the allegations came via social media, observed the court, and a prompt hearing may have quickly discredited most of the meritless claims. By late August, the controversy had been percolating for more than three months, and officials should perhaps have had procedures in place to more effectively manage and address allegations, said the court. Nonetheless, the court noted the reality of the situation and the fact that the beginning of the school year presents its own challenges.

Although it would have been preferable to conduct a pre-deprivation hearing, given the district’s strong interest in ensuring student safety and upholding public confidence, and the fact that the teacher had been disciplined following the Marsh Creek incident, the court could not conclude that the teacher had suffered a constitutional violation. As such, summary judgment was granted against his property interest claim.

Reputational harm. Turning to the teacher’s allegations that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his reputation because the emails sent by the school principals created a false and defamatory impression, the court explained that reputation alone is not an interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Damage to one’s reputation must be accompanied by the deprivation of some additional right or interest.

Marsh Creek email. One week after the teacher was placed on administrative leave from Marsh Creek, the principal sent an email to parents informing them of the investigation. The principal properly classified the reports as allegations and noted that action would be taken if an investigation found inappropriate comments had been made. The email did not imply that the teacher had been accused of anything more than making inappropriate comments. Accordingly, the teacher was unable to show that he had suffered the deprivation of an additional right or interest and could not establish a liberty interest claim with regard to this communication.

Beaver Creek emails. In an effort to address the concerns of Beaver Creek parents, the school principal sent several emails regarding a “supervision plan” for the teacher’s upcoming school year. The emails contained no false statements and the principal had an obligation to address parents’ concerns, explained the court. In addition, the emails properly referred to the reports as allegations, rather than facts, and did not imply the existence of undisclosed, defamatory facts. Because the emails could not reasonably be deemed defamatory, the teacher could not claim he was deprived of a protected liberty interest, said the court.

State-law claims. Next, the court addressed the teacher’s state-law claims against the school district. The district did not specifically address these claims. Although the district may have assumed that these claims rose and fell with the federal claims, in the absence of a specific motion, the court did not feel compelled to rule in the abstract.

Tort claims. Finally, the court considered the various tort claims the teacher had asserted against one of the parents involved in the controversy. Specifically, the teacher’s claims centered around a comment the parent had made online stating that: “He is a threat to all students and needs to be listed on Megan’s law to protect our young. Shame on any district who offers him a position.”

IIED. The statement in question did not rise to the level of being extreme or outrageous enough to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, said the court, and summary judgment was granted against this claim.

Defamation. As to the teacher’s claim for defamation, the statement could reasonably be interpreted that the teacher had sexually abused his students. The statement referenced the teacher by name, identified him as a threat, and advocated not only for adverse employment consequences but also for his placement on a sex offender registry, observed the court. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the post implied the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts, the motion for summary judgment against this claim was denied.

False light. There was no evidence that the parent doubted the truth of her statement, explained the court, and as such the teacher’s false light claim failed as a matter of law.

Tortious interference. Regarding the teacher’s claim for tortious interference, the court determined that the post could reasonably be construed as an attempt to harm the teacher’s existing contractual relationship with the school district and to prevent the teacher from finding employment in another district. As such, the court allowed this claim to proceed.

The case is No. 20-2283.

Judge: McHugh, G.

Attorneys: Jeffrey P. Hoyle (The Law Offices of Jeffrey P. Hoyle) for Leo Suniaga. Michael I. Levin (Levin Legal Group) for Downingtown Area School District. Paul C. Troy (Kane Pugh Knoell Troy & Kramer) for Michael I. Levin.

Companies: Downingtown Area School District

Cases: IndividualRights PublicEmployees StateLawClaims TortClaims PennsylvaniaNews