Catania v. United Federation of Teachers

Background

Patricia Catania was the principal of Middle School 224, a public school in New York City. She alleged that the United Federation of Teachers and four of its representatives conspired with teachers at the school to get her removed and replaced with a Black principal. According to Catania, the defendants and teachers created and publicized a false narrative that she opposed teaching Black history, organized protests, made media statements, filed complaints, and harassed her. She alleged that the campaign led the Department of Education to plan her removal and forced her to resign in June 2019.

Catania sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Section 1983 provides a claim for violations of federal constitutional rights by someone acting under state authority. Section 1985 addresses certain conspiracies to deprive people of equal protection or equal rights. Catania alleged violations of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to plead a constitutional violation, state action, or a conspiracy.

Court’s Analysis

First Amendment retaliation. The court held that Catania did not adequately plead that she engaged in protected speech. Her statements criticizing a teacher’s lesson plans were made as part of her duties as principal, including supervising and disciplining teachers. The court therefore concluded that the statements were not protected by the First Amendment, even though the subject of public-school education can involve a matter of public concern. The court also found that Catania’s general allegation that she had previously spoken publicly about school matters lacked enough facts to support a retaliation claim.

Fourteenth Amendment due process. The court held that Catania did not adequately plead a protected property interest in continued employment as principal. It reasoned that, under New York law, a probationary principal could be removed at any time and that Catania had not identified a statute, contract, collective bargaining agreement, or established practice guaranteeing continued employment absent good cause. The court rejected her reliance on an alleged permanent appointment process because that allegation was not included in the second amended complaint and, in any event, the cited appointment regulation did not provide termination protections.

The court separately considered Catania’s claim that public accusations of racism harmed her reputation in connection with her forced resignation, a theory sometimes called a “stigma-plus” claim. The court concluded that she had adequately alleged the reputation-related injury and a sufficient connection between the public statements and her resignation. But it held that she was not denied due process because New York provided an Article 78 proceeding, a state-court process for challenging administrative decisions. The court said that process could have allowed her to challenge whether her resignation was coerced, seek to clear her name, and pursue available relief. Its availability defeated the due-process claim even though Catania did not use it.

Equal protection. The court held that Catania did not adequately allege intentional race or sex discrimination by the defendants. Her repeated assertions that the defendants wanted to replace a white principal with a principal of color were treated as conclusory allegations rather than supporting facts. The court also declined to attribute a teacher’s statement about getting a Black principal to the union and its representatives because Catania did not allege that the named defendants shared that discriminatory motive or even heard the statement.

Section 1985 conspiracy. Because Catania had not adequately pleaded a constitutional violation or a race-based discriminatory motive, the court held that her section 1985 conspiracy claim also failed. The court did not reach whether the defendants had adequately been alleged to be state actors or whether they formed a conspiracy with the school’s teachers.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the second amended complaint. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court scheduled a teleconference to address whether Catania should receive leave to file a third amended complaint and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.