Valvo v. Department of Education of the City of New York

Background

Michele Valvo sued the Department of Education of the City of New York (DOE) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) concerning her termination as a paraprofessional educator. The termination followed an anonymous report about Valvo’s conduct while assisting a student at P.S. 23 on January 25, 2018. DOE suspended Valvo without pay, investigated the report, held a disciplinary hearing, and terminated her. DOE also placed her in an internal “problem code” database that made her ineligible for further DOE employment.

Valvo challenged the termination through the union grievance process. Her initial grievance was denied, and a later grievance proceeding upheld the termination. UFT declined to pursue a further grievance and arbitration on her behalf. Valvo did not pursue a proceeding under Article 78 in New York state court.

Claims and Legal Standards

Valvo asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of procedural due process, and claims under New York State and New York City law. DOE and UFT moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over some claims and that the complaint did not state valid claims.

For purposes of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly supported relief. The court also considered documents referenced in the complaint and in Valvo’s possession.

RICO Claims

The court dismissed Valvo’s RICO claims against DOE and UFT. RICO requires, among other things, a person and a separate enterprise involved in a pattern of racketeering activity. The court agreed that DOE and UFT could qualify as “persons” under RICO’s broad definition, but concluded that Valvo had not alleged a qualifying enterprise.

The complaint did not allege that DOE and UFT formed or belonged to an unnamed third-party organization or that they operated as a single continuing unit. The court also noted decisions holding that a municipality cannot form the criminal intent required for RICO liability. Because the complaint did not allege a RICO enterprise, the court held that the RICO claims failed.

Procedural Due Process Claims Against DOE

The court also rejected Valvo’s due process claims against DOE. The court concluded that the documents relied on in the complaint established a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment because the applicable paraprofessional contract provided that discharge should be based on “good and sufficient reason.”

The court found no protected liberty interest based on Valvo’s placement in DOE’s internal problem-code database. Reputation alone does not create a protected liberty or property interest, and the court concluded that the internal database was not sufficiently public to future employers to support such a claim.

The court further held that DOE provided adequate procedures concerning Valvo’s termination. Before termination, Valvo received notice of the charges, access to evidence from the investigation, and an opportunity to submit her own written statement. After termination, she participated in grievance proceedings with UFT representation and had opportunities to challenge the factual basis for the termination. The court concluded that these pre- and post-termination procedures satisfied constitutional requirements.

Procedural Due Process Claims Against UFT

The court rejected Valvo’s due process claims against UFT. The complaint did not allege that UFT employed or terminated Valvo or interfered with her participation in a constitutionally required proceeding. Instead, the complaint and related documents showed that UFT advocated for Valvo during the termination process.

The court held that the Constitution did not require UFT to pursue a further grievance or arbitration under its private agreement with Valvo. It also rejected any suggestion that UFT’s decision not to pursue that grievance established a conspiracy between UFT and DOE, because the complaint’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to support a claim under Section 1983 against UFT.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state claims in the same case—over Valvo’s New York State and New York City claims. The court stated that the case was at an early stage and that the usual considerations favored declining jurisdiction after the federal claims were dismissed. The state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions and the case.