Biehner v. City of New York

Background

Brittney Biehner, also known as Brittney Reilly, was a probationary special education teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education. The opinion states that she had received satisfactory performance ratings, was denied tenure in 2013–2014, and was allowed to continue as a probationary teacher.

In June 2013, Biehner was accused of forcibly taking a student’s shoe in exchange for allowing the student to borrow a folder. She denied using force. Principal Omotayo Cineus and Assistant Principal Steve Traversiere investigated the allegation, and students provided written statements. Biehner alleged that the investigation did not follow New York City Schools Chancellor regulations or the contract between the teachers’ union and the Department of Education. She stated that she did not learn that the allegation had been sustained until she reviewed her personnel file in October 2018 and later received additional records through a New York Freedom of Information Law request.

Biehner filed this action on October 18, 2019. The amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, defamation, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were barred by statutes of limitations and did not state legally sufficient claims.

Court’s analysis

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and decides whether the complaint is legally sufficient, rather than weighing evidence. The court concluded that the claims failed for limitations or pleading reasons.

For the claims under Section 1983 and Section 1985, the court held that Biehner had reason to know about the investigation and the alleged due-process violations in 2013, when she attended a disciplinary meeting and knew that witness statements had been collected. Because she filed suit in 2019, the court held that the three-year limitations period had expired. The court also held that she failed to state a due-process claim because, as a probationary teacher, she had no property interest in continued employment. Her alleged reputational injury also did not establish the required additional loss for a “stigma-plus” claim, and the court noted that a New York Article 78 proceeding could provide a name-clearing hearing. The court further held that she did not allege a municipal policy or custom supporting liability against the Department of Education and did not adequately allege a conspiracy under Section 1985.

The court held that the defamation claims were untimely because the alleged publications occurred in 2013. It also held that the complaint did not adequately identify defamatory content in fax pages Biehner had not seen, did not establish publication of the fax addressed to her, and did not show that the records sent to her through the information request were published to a third party or contained false statements.

The court held that the contract claims concerning the 2013 investigation were untimely. It did not determine whether the separate denial-of-tenure claim was timely because the complaint did not specify when that denial occurred, but it held that the claim still failed because Biehner was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement between the Department of Education and the union. The court also held that Department of Education regulations were not alleged to be part of Biehner’s employment contract.

The fraud claim failed because Biehner did not plead the alleged misrepresentations, the defendants’ knowledge or intent, or her reasonable reliance with the required specificity. The intentional and negligent emotional-distress claims were untimely and inadequately pleaded; the intentional claim was also duplicative of the defamation claim, and the court stated that such a claim could not be brought against the City or the Department of Education. The negligence claim was likewise untimely and did not identify an injury separate from the alleged defamatory statements.

Finally, the court dismissed the City of New York because the complaint made no specific allegations against the City and instead directed its allegations at the Department of Education and the individual defendants.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case without prejudice to Biehner’s ability to file an amended complaint. If she did not file an amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion, the dismissal would become with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close all pending motions.