Stridiron v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District

Background

Darren J. Stridiron and Matthew A. Stridiron, who represented themselves, sued Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Carole Mineo, Phil Howard, Lisa Marie Spindler, and Roberto Padilla. The surviving claims were First Amendment retaliation claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a New York assault claim brought by Matthew.

The dispute arose partly from Matthew’s class ranking at Newburgh Free Academy. The District initially identified Matthew as the sole valedictorian, but later found that two grades from the school’s Main Campus had not been included in the calculation. After recalculating the grades, the District designated Matthew and another student as co-valedictorians. Matthew later obtained changes to grades from AP Computer Science and a SUNY Orange course, but the court found that the record did not show that the co-valedictorian designation harmed his college enrollment, scholarship, or other benefit.

Darren also claimed that defendants retaliated against him for protected speech by threatening possible removal from the Board and removing him from the Policy Committee. The record showed that he remained a Board member, continued to vote, speak to the press, and participate in public Board meetings. The parties also disputed events at Matthew’s SUNY Orange graduation, where Cassie Sklarz stood near Matthew during an interview and argued with the reporter, and Ari Fishkind touched Matthew’s arm and attempted to pull him away.

First Amendment retaliation claims

The court granted summary judgment on Darren’s claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a material issue. The court held that the conduct supported by admissible evidence did not amount to an adverse action—that is, an action likely to deter an ordinarily firm person from exercising constitutional rights. Darren was not removed from office, was not denied the opportunity to vote, continued to participate in Board proceedings, and continued speaking publicly. His removal from one committee and the possible consideration of removal proceedings did not, on this record, substantially interfere with his ability to serve or express his views.

The court also held that Darren had not shown that Matthew’s designation as co-valedictorian was caused by Darren’s speech. The administrators who recalculated the grades were not shown to have shared the alleged hostility of other Board members, and there was no evidence that Board members influenced the class-ranking decision. The court found that the initial sole-valedictorian designation was an innocent mistake and that timing alone was insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The court separately granted summary judgment on Matthew’s First Amendment claim. To the extent Matthew sought to assert injury from retaliation against his father, the court held that he lacked standing because Darren could assert his own rights and there was no identified obstacle preventing him from doing so. On Matthew’s own claim, the court found no identified protected speech that could have caused the co-valedictorian decision. Matthew’s interview occurred after that decision. The court also found no evidence that defendants chilled Matthew’s speech: he continued communicating with school personnel, gave a valedictorian speech, completed the interview, promoted the resulting article, and later wrote a book.

The court further concluded that being named co-valedictorian rather than sole valedictorian did not constitute the required concrete harm on this record. Matthew gave the valedictorian speech, his college prospects and enrollment were not affected, and there was no evidence that his scholarship was affected. The court characterized disappointment, hurt feelings, and the claimed ordinary stress as insufficient to establish the required injury.

State-law assault claim

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Matthew’s assault claim because discovery was complete, the parties and court had invested substantial resources, and New York’s assault law was settled. Under that law, civil assault requires an intentional act or threatening gesture that places another person in reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As to Sklarz, the court found evidence that she stood close to Matthew and verbally argued with the reporter, but no evidence that Matthew felt threatened or that she made physical movements creating a reasonable fear of bodily harm. The court therefore found no assault for which the District could be liable based on her conduct.

As to Fishkind, the court noted evidence that he touched Matthew’s arm, but found no evidence establishing an employment or agency relationship between Fishkind and the District. Because the District could not be held responsible for Fishkind’s conduct without such a relationship, the assault claim failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court stated that both First Amendment retaliation claims failed as a matter of law and must be dismissed, and that Matthew’s assault claim also failed as a matter of law and must be dismissed. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for defendants and close the case.