Blough v. Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-02025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Blough v. Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School, Judge Gardephe granted dismissal of Blough’s federal claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.
Jillian Blough’s federal constitutional claim was dismissed, her request to amend was denied, and her related state and city claims were left without supplemental federal jurisdiction; the defendants obtained dismissal of the motion-targeted claims and closure of the case.
What happened
Jillian Blough sued Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School and its principal, Richard Burke, under a federal civil-rights law. She alleged that Burke fired her because she was married to her husband, Brian Blough, and thereby violated her constitutional right to maintain her marriage. She also asserted related claims under New York State and New York City law.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended granting the motion, finding that Blough had not alleged facts showing that Burke fired her specifically to interfere with her marriage or that the firing was likely to end the marriage. The court also noted that financial strain, added work, parenting responsibilities, and a delayed adoption were not enough to state this constitutional claim.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted the recommendation in relevant part, granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed Blough’s federal claim, denied leave to amend, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state and city claims, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Blough v. Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School · No. 1:21-cv-02025
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Jillian Blough brought an action under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School and Richard Burke, identified as the School’s principal and Blough’s supervisor. She alleged that Burke terminated her employment because she was married to Brian Blough, who had previously worked at the School and later became the principal of another school. Blough alleged that the termination placed financial and other strain on her marriage, including additional work for her husband, increased parenting responsibilities for her, and delays affecting an adoption the couple was pursuing.
The amended complaint also asserted claims under the New York State Constitution and the New York City Administrative Code. The parties stipulated to dismissal of Blough’s Section 1983 First Amendment claim before the court decided the defendants’ motion addressed in this order.
Motion and Report and Recommendation
The defendants filed a motion labeled as one for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Because they had not filed an answer to the amended complaint, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses construed the motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. Judge Moses recommended granting the motion.
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full fresh review of every issue.
Analysis
Judge Moses had concluded that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that the School and Burke acted under color of state law, a requirement for a Section 1983 claim. The district court expressly declined to adopt that portion of the recommendation because the parties had not briefed the issue and it was unnecessary to resolve the motion.
The court instead addressed whether Blough adequately pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the right to intimate familial association. The court recognized that the husband-wife relationship is protected, but explained that a plaintiff must allege deliberate state action specifically intended to interfere with the family relationship. The court also relied on authority stating that the challenged action generally must have the likely effect of ending the protected relationship; conduct that merely creates stress or strain is insufficient.
The court agreed with Judge Moses that Blough’s allegations did not plausibly show that Burke fired her in order to harm or interfere with her marriage. Alleging that Burke fired her because of her relationship with her husband was not the same as alleging that he fired her to damage that relationship. The court further found that the alleged financial strain and related family adjustments did not show that the termination was likely to end the marriage.
The court also agreed that amendment would be futile. Before Blough filed her amended complaint, the court had explained deficiencies in her constitutional claim, including the need to plead facts showing a specific intent to interfere with her relationship with her husband. The amended complaint did not correct those deficiencies, and Blough acknowledged in opposing dismissal that she could not allege that the defendants’ conduct had ended her marriage.
After dismissing the federal claim, the court agreed with Judge Moses that there was no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the claims under the New York State Constitution and New York City Administrative Code.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation as set forth in the order, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied Blough leave to amend, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The order was issued by Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.