Colombo v. Palo Alto Unified School District and others

Background

Peter Colombo alleged that Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and three district officials violated his procedural due-process rights and retaliated against him after PAUSD received an allegation that he had raped a former middle-school student during the 2001–2002 school year. PAUSD reported the allegation to law enforcement and placed Colombo on paid administrative leave. After criminal charges were filed, he was placed on unpaid leave. The charges were later dismissed.

PAUSD began an independent investigation in August 2023. Colombo’s teaching credentials were renewed in October 2023, and he returned to paid administrative leave. The investigation concluded in May 2024 without substantiating the allegations. For the 2024–2025 school year, PAUSD placed Colombo in a certified teacher-on-special-assignment position. The position did not change his seniority, tenure, or compensation. The court stated that no physical-education teaching position was available at the relevant middle school that year. For the 2025–2026 school year, Colombo worked as a physical-education teacher at another district middle school.

After an earlier order dismissing some claims, the remaining claims were: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of procedural due process based on a property interest in a position similar to Colombo’s tenured teaching role; a “stigma-plus” due-process claim against Don Austin and Lisa Hickey; and retaliation claims against PAUSD under Title VII, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Title IX.

Motions and New Theory

The court considered summary-judgment motions by Trent Bahadursingh and Don Austin, by PAUSD and Lisa Hickey, and Colombo’s motion for partial summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision before trial that is appropriate when no genuine dispute exists about facts that could affect the result.

Colombo attempted to assert a new malicious-prosecution theory under § 1983 in the summary-judgment briefing. The court had previously denied permission to add that theory and ruled that Colombo could not raise it for the first time at the summary-judgment stage. The court barred the argument and admonished Colombo to follow its orders, stating that it would consider sanctions if he continued violating court orders.

§ 1983 Due-Process Claims

The court granted qualified immunity to Austin, Bahadursingh, and Hickey on Colombo’s § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages claims unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

For the property-interest due-process claim, Colombo alleged that the special-assignment position deprived him of a property right in a position of the same nature and rank as his tenured teaching role. The court found that Colombo had not presented evidence that the individual defendants had a role in, or a causal connection to, his appointment to that position. The court also noted that Colombo did not respond to the defendants’ arguments on that point. Because the evidence did not show a constitutional violation, the court granted qualified immunity on that claim without reaching the separate question whether the right was clearly established.

For the stigma-plus claim, Colombo alleged that statements by Austin and Hickey caused both reputational harm and loss of a tangible interest. The court assumed, without deciding, that Austin’s statements were stigmatizing, but found that Colombo had not shown that Austin’s statements directly caused his leave or job assignments. As to Hickey, the court found that Colombo conceded an argument that her statement to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing was not publicly disclosed. The court further stated that notifying another public agency about alleged criminal conduct did not itself constitute public disclosure. Even assuming public disclosure, the court found that Colombo had not shown that Hickey’s statement caused the loss of a constitutionally protected interest.

The court therefore granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claim under both the property-interest and stigma-plus theories, granted the individual defendants qualified immunity, and denied Colombo’s motion for partial summary judgment on those claims. The individual defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit, and Colombo’s § 1983 claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Retaliation Claim

The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim against PAUSD. It found that Colombo had established an initial showing of retaliation: he engaged in protected activity by filing the lawsuit, experienced adverse employment actions including the delayed investigation and special assignment, and could rely on the timing of those events to support a causal connection.

PAUSD offered non-retaliatory reasons for withholding the investigative report and assigning Colombo to the special-assignment position. PAUSD said the investigation was not governed by district regulations or Title IX policies requiring release of its findings, and that the assignment resulted from the lack of an available physical-education position that school year. But the court found that PAUSD had not provided a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the approximately nine-month duration of the internal investigation, from August 2023 through May 2024.

Accordingly, the court granted Bahadursingh and Austin’s motion for summary judgment; granted in part and denied in part PAUSD and Hickey’s motion for summary judgment; and denied Colombo’s motion for partial summary judgment. The only remaining claim was Colombo’s retaliation claim against PAUSD based on the duration of the internal investigation.