Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

8/9/2019 Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

1/172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DR. SUSAN M. KEGERISE, :Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:v. :

: No.: 1:14-CV-00747-W

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP :SCHOOL DISTRICT, : JURY TRIAL DEMAND:

CAROL L. KARL, :In her Individual and Official Capacities :

:JESSE RAWLS, SR., :

In his Individual and Official Capacities ::

MARK Y. SUSSMAN, :In his Individual and Official Capacities :

Defendants :

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND NOW, comes, Plaintiff, Dr. Susan Kegerise, by and through h

Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P., co

Defendants, the Susquehanna Township School District, School Direct

Karl, School Director Jesse Rawls, Sr., and School Director Mark Y. S

their official and individual capacities, as follows:

Introduction

1. Plaintiff is the duly appointed Superintendent of S

T hi S h l Di t i t h i h ld th iti i J 6 201

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1


2/172

performance, discrimination on the basis of race and sex, and microman

members of the School Board of Directors and the Board as a whole.

3. As a result, Plaintiff brings the instant action seeking a

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and other re

wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment in violation of

Constitutional, Federal Statute, Pennsylvania statute and the ter

employment contract.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, is an adult individual an

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 10 Meadowo

Hummelstown, PA 17036. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Kegerise h

Superintendent of STSD.

5. Defendant, Susquehanna Township School District

“STSD”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with geographic boundaries entirel

County of Dauphin and the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since F



3/172

6. Defendant, Carol L. Karl, is an adult individual residing w

and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board.

7. Defendant, Jesse Rawls Sr., is an adult individual residing w

and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board, an

of the Board from 2011-2012.

8. Defendant, Mark Y. Sussman is an adult individual resi

STSD and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Bo

9. At all times relevant hereto, STSD acted and/or failed to ac

through the Board.

Jurisdiction and Venue

10. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pur

U.S.C. §1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursua

11. Venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is proper pur

U.S.C. §1391(b) because Dauphin County is the location of all defenda

location of the actions giving rise to this complaint.

Background



4/172

13. Dr. Kegerise served as a Principal in Central Dauphin Sch

from 1995 until 2006.

14. In 2004, Dr. Kegerise was named Principal of the Y

Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Princip

15.

This accolade was honored by resolution of the Pennsylva

House of Representatives and the Dauphin County Commissioners.

16. While employed by the Central Dauphin School District, D

received numerous positive comments from not only parents of studen

staff that worked directly for her.

17. Dr. Kegerise was Assistant Superintendent of STSD from

2010.

18.

Dr. Kegerise was promoted to Superintendent by the Boar

Directors by contract to begin on January 6, 2010 and conclude on Janu

19. Dr. Kegerise is at least 40 years of age.

20.

Dr. Kegerise is qualified for the position of Superintende

STSD.

21. During her term as Superintendent, Dr. Kegerise has admi



5/172

22. In the final year of the initial contract as Superintendent

Rawls was President of the Board of School Directors.

23. The School Code provides that a current superintendent’

continue for another three-to-five years if the Board does not take offic

action during the last year of the term at least 150 days in advance of th

term to notify the superintendent that another or other persons will be con

that position. 24 P.S. §10-1073.

24. Defendant Rawls, as Board President from December

December 2012, did not re-negotiate a new contract with Dr. Kegerise

days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerise’s contract.

25. Defendant Rawls, as Board President, did not provide

termination prior to 150 days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerise’s con

26. Dr. Kegerise is an ex-officio member of the Board by virt

Superintendent.

27.

On or about March 5, 2012, Defendant Rawls, as Board

called a meeting of the Board, without informing Dr. Kegerise, whereupo

voted on the hiring of an interim solicitor.



6/172

from discussion due to a family member of Rawls’ being a possible witn

Defendant Rawls refused to recuse himself, the Board (including Dr

could not receive a full briefing on the matter due to Rawls’ refusal. In

the request for recusal, Defendant Rawls threatened legal action.

29.

On or about September 25, 2012, Defendant Rawls approa

High School Principal Ralph Lovelidge and attempted to have a conver

him which was critical of STSD central administration.

30. Defendant Rawls also approached a Union official to sugge

file a grievance against STSD regarding a personnel issue.

31. STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection

rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.

32.

The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign p

applicants.

33. The rubric awards points for factors such as certificat

experience, education level, job related skills, interview performance and

34. Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocate

demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even exp



7/172

36. In the same conversation, Defendant Rawls relayed to Dr. K

she would pave the way for an African American male to replace her a

is what his friend Major Poteet did in the Harrisburg School District.

37. Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted

applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for r

38. On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applic

and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy

Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and v

physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented up

two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.

39. On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted agains

of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that

American should have been hired for the position instead.

40. On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted

hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the

41. Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the

subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observ



8/172

42. Defendant Rawls, as a member of the STSD School Boar

stated to Dr. Kegerise that she would pave the way for an African Am

male to be hired as Superintendent.

43. Additionally, Defendant Rawls has publicly referred to Pl

as a “bitch” and that the STSD is run by “three white bitches.”

44. On or about December 12, 2012, the Board met in execut

Dr. Kegerise was asked to leave the meeting because the Board was goin

renewal of her contract. Plaintiff left.

45. In Dr. Kegerise’s absence, the Board, led by Defendant R

than discussing solely the renewal of Dr. Kegerise’s contract, discusse

issues unrelated to the Superintendent’s contract for which the Superin

no conflict of interest and could have been present for discussions.

46. On February 5, 2013, Defendant Rawls visited the Dist

School and High School without giving prior notice to the administratio

47. Pursuant to District Policy 907, Board Members should

directly with district employees due to possible liability and undermi

administration. (See Board Policy 907, attached hereto and marked as E



9/172


10/172


11/172

8.00 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. The Board of School Director

remove Superintendent for cause and terminate this AGREEMEN

to Section 10-1080 and 11-1122 of the Public School.

(a) Due Process. The Superintendent shall, throughout the

this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract for valid a

cause for reasons specified under Section 11-1122 of the Public Scho

However, the Board of School Directors shall not arbitrarily and ca

call for her dismissal without first providing the Superintendent witcharges, adequate notice of a hearing, a fair and impartial hearing,

elements of due process, and the right to appeal to a court of compe

jurisdiction. Notice of the hearing must be in writing and sent by ce

mail to the Superintendent and each member of the Board of Schoo

at least three (3) week prior to the hearing. Removal shall only be p

a hearing followed by a two thirds (6 members of a 9 member board

the Board of School Directors for removal.

(b) Termination for Cause. The Superintendent shall, throu

term of this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract fo

and just cause for the following reasons specified under Section 11-

Public School Code:

(1) The only valid causes for termination of a contract h

or hereafter entered into with a professional employee shall b

immorality, incompetency, intemperance, cruelty, persistent n

mental derangement, advocation of or participating in un-Am

subversive doctrines, persistent and willful violation of the sch

of this Commonwealth on the part of the professional employ

Provided, That boards of school directors may terminate the any professional employee who has attained to the age of sixty

except a professional employee who is a member of the old ag

survivors insurance system pursuant to the provisions of the a

approved the first day of June one thousand nine hundred fif



12/172

Nothing within the foregoing enumeration of causes, shall be

interpreted to conflict with the retirement of professional emp

upon proper evidence of disability, or the election by professi

employees to retire during the period of voluntary retirement

authority of the board of school directors to require professio

employees to retire during said period of voluntary retiremen

compulsion on the part of professional employees to retire at t

attainment of age seventy.

62. Defendants Rawls and Sussman opposed the contract

outvoted 6-3.

63. On October 31, 2013, Defendants Rawls and Sussman, at p

conference on STSD grounds, announced intent to file a Civil Action

against STSD, the Board and Dr. Kegerise seeking to void the cont

Pennlive Article, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C).

64. In October 2013, the following comment was posted after a

Pennlive.com in the comments section under the scre

moderatecommonsense:

Our attorneys are all over this, we only need 5 votes to fire hertakes precedent over this or any board’s actions, so no wor

Rawls, Edwards, Karl along with our two other allies on the bo

Dr. K should get her resume ready, we are firing you. DelG yo

follow Fuller and Butler so you might as well just resign


C 1 14 00747 WWC D 39 Fil d 02/27/15 P 13


13/172

65. On October 31, 2013, the following comment was post

Article on Pennlive.com in the comments section under the sc

DumbandDumber:

Costs? Are you serious? Ok lets talk about costs as in

MILLIONS, MILLIONS, MILLIONS do you think the Shark

the urging of Dr. K, recommended by Dr. K, handpicked b

going to costs us? What about $8o[sic] G’s a year for our wast

friend hire communications director, how much is Dr. K’s neic

And finally how about the $30,000 office equipment in the

office?

Don’t tell me about costs.

The only good thing about the Sharkey hire is we now have leg

fire Kegerise, already looked into and its rock solid legal to nwith no financial reprecussions.

66. It is believed and therefore averred that moderatecommo

DumberandDumber is the username of Defendant Sussman.

67.

On November 1, 2013, Bret Keisling, attorney for Defend

and Sussman, appeared uninvited with Rawls and Sussman at

administration building with multiple reporters and cameras.

68. At all times relevant hereto, Keisling was counsel for Defen

and Sussman and acting with their knowledge and consent.

69. Attorney Keisling yelled at Dr. Kegerise regarding litiga


C 1 14 00747 WWC D t 39 Fil d 02/27/15 P 14


14/172

70. When District Solicitor Paul K. Blunt, Esquire, indicat

Kegerise was his client and Keisling may not speak to her, Keisling i

demand and continued to yell at Dr. Kegerise in a loud and aggressive t

71. Keisling then threatened to falsely accuse Attorney Blunt o

him, and later made such false accusation to the assembled media.

72. Dr. Kegerise was so threatened by Keisling’s actions that sh

a fellow administrator to call 911 and summon law enforcement.

73. On November 5, 2013, Defendant Rawls was re-elected t

and Defendant Karl was elected for the first time to the STSD Board.

74. On November 25, 2013, Defendants Rawls and Sussman

the Civil Action Complaint that they had announced a month earlier.

Sussmans’ Complaint was filed in United States District Court for

District of Pennsylvania, naming the Susquehanna Township Schoo

Directors, the Susquehanna Township School District and Plaintiff as

(See Rawls and Sussman’s Complaint, attached hereto and marked as E

75. On January 15, 2014, Solicitor for the School District, Kin

Attorney Keisling a Rule 11 Letter indicating they would be filing for sa


Case 1:14 cv 00747 WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 15


15/172

76. On January 21, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussma

Amended Complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania namin

Kegerise as defendant. (See Rawls and Sussman’s Amended Complai

hereto and marked as Exhibit F).

77. On January 31, 2014, Defendant Rawls publically dem

resignation of Dr. Kegerise as Superintendent.

78. On February 1, 2014, Defendant Karl was quoted by the

Patriot News demanding Dr. Kegerise’s resignation as Superintendent a

resignation of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, accusing

incompetence. (See Pennlive.com Article, attached hereto and marked

G).

79.

On February 3, 2014, Defendant Karl signed a petition

Plaintiff’s resignation.

80. On February 7, 2014, undersigned counsel sent Rawls and

attorney, Attorney Keisling, a letter indicating Dr. Kegerise would b

sanctions due to the frivolity of the Amended Complaint filed by

Sussman. (See February 7, 2014 correspondence, attached hereto and




16/172

81. On or about February 24, 2014, the Board met in execut

whereupon Dr. Kegerise’s representative1 was directed by the district

leave without reason.

82. On March 4, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman discon

federal lawsuit against Dr. Kegerise, without any type of settlement.

83. On or about March 4, 2014, Rawls and Sussman commu

they were withdrawing their suit because “the reasons for filing this actio

corrected as a result of community and media interest in this case and rec

(See March 4, 2014, Pennlive.com article, attached hereto and marked a

84. In early March 2014, Defendants Karl and Sussman an

Keisling brought members of the media to a community meeting with a l

85.

It is believed and therefore averred that the purpose of the m

to obtain statistics showing reduced demand for homes within S

Township in an effort to portray STSD as dysfunctional and harmful

values.

86. When informed by the realtor that home prices in Su

Township have increased at a greater rate than neighboring Lower Paxto



17/172



18/172

a. STSD Board Policy 7112 provides a series of steps to add

Complaints, which the Board continually violates by taking

into their own hands and out of the knowledge or con

administration. (See Policy 7112, attached hereto and

Exhibit K).

b. STSD Board Policy 304 allows the Administration to hi

continuity of educational services, prior to Board approva

the Board has applied this policy arbitrarily and capr

periodically not allowing the administration to hire non-ad

positions between board meetings and without prior boar

(See Policy 304, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit L).

c.

STSD Board Policy 903 outlines procedure for public part

Board Meetings, which the current School Board does no

order to hinder undermine the administration and its effecti

example, Defendants have individually and collectively

this policy by allowing and/or encouraging members of th

speak about confidential personnel issues, display signs

Case 1:14 cv 00747 WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 18



19/172

new position within the School District. Per Board Polic

Superintendent can recommend new positions within the S

e. As of April 15, 2014, the School Board has appointed a

consisting of Defendants Rawls and Sussman, as wel

President John Dietrich, for the sole purpose of conducting

and hiring of a District Business Manager.

f. Hiring is a function of the Administration.

94. Dr. Kegerise was on leave from her position as Sup

beginning on March 24, 2014, due to medical reasons.

95. On April 16, 2014, undersigned counsel received correspon

Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the STSD took the p

Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School District and was simp

pursuant to a Doctor’s note. (See April 16, 2014, correspondence fro

McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit N).

96. Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was relayed the

sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion

qualifying condition.

g



20/172

98. As of April 21, 2014, the Board had not been served with

initial Complaint.

99. On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute addition to

halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the acceptance o

“Resignation”, and did vote in the affirmative.

100. As a result of the vote, Defendant STSD ceased paying P

contractual salary and stopped providing benefits, retroactive to April 17

101. At no time did Plaintiff tender resignation for the Board to

102. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff merely pet

government for redress of her grievances was wrongfully construed as a

of her position with the STSD.

103.

Additionally, confusingly, single correspondence dated Ap

from STSD Solicitor Jeffrey B. Engle, Esquire, both memorializes the ac

the resignation and indicates Plaintiff was terminated for breach o

(“[P]ursuant to the contract with the Board, [Plaintiff] breached the t

contract and failed to provide sixty (60) days notice.”).

104. Plaintiff has never formally resigned from her position.



21/172

106. STSD never afforded Plaintiff a due process hearing in rel

employment at STSD.

107. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania School Code, the only mec

removal of a Superintendent is a due process hearing with prior notice.

1080.

108. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Mandamus in the Dauphin Co

of Common Pleas, docketed at 2014-CV-3793-CV on April 24, 2014.

109. On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in

in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.

110. On October 16, 2014, a Trial on the Complaint in Mandam

in front of the Honorable Judge William Tully in the Court of Comm

Dauphin County.

111. As a result of the Trial on the Complaint in Mandamus, an

entered on November 5, 2014 in the Dauphin County Court of Com

reinstating Plaintiff to her position as Superintendent of the Susquehann

School District. (See Order dated November 5, 2014, attached as Exhib

112. At 6:45 a.m. on November 7, 2014, Plaintiff returned to w



22/172

a. Had a legal right to request This Court to enter a Writ of M

b.

Defendants have a duty to abide by the Public School Cod

removal of Plaintiff; and

c. No other remedy at law will prevent irreparable harm to Pl

114. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas found that

did not afford Plaintiff a due process hearing when it voted on April 2

terminate her effective April 17, 2014. See, page 12-13 of the Opinion.

115. Plaintiff continues to be unable to satisfy her obligation

commission, is not being paid nor receiving benefits.

116. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas found that, [

of the Susquehanna Township School Board on April 21, 2014, allegedl

Dr. Kegerise’s purported resignation, was improper, illegal and void as

law.” See, page 7 of the Opinion.

117. At 9:39 a.m. on November 7, 2014, Defendants filed a

Appeal, however, the Notice was not received by undersigned counsel’s

3:07 p.m., when the Notice was received by facsimile.



23/172

COUNT II

Dr. Kegerise v. STSD, Karl, Rawls, and Sussman

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. § 1983

118. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by refere

119. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states, “every person who, under color of

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory of the

Columbia, subjects, or cases to be subjected, any citizen of the United Sta

person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, p

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the p

in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

120.

In other words, to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must dem

that the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him or her o

secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. American

Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999) (Internal citations omitte

121. In order to demonstrate a procedural due process violation,

must show that (1) she was deprived of an individual interest encompa



24/172

122. Moreover, “discharge in a procedural due process case con

1983 violation ‘only if it amounts to forced discharge to avoid affording

due process guarantees].’” Id.

123. Furthermore, two circumstances exist when an employee’s

or resignation will be deemed involuntary for due process purposes: “(

employer forces the resignation or retirement by coercion or duress, or (

employer obtains the resignation or retirement by misrepresenting a mat

the employee.” Id. (citing Rife v. Borough of Dauphin, 647 F.Supp.2d

(M.D. Pa. 2009).

124. Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected property and libert

her contract and resulting privileges, immunities and emoluments, pur

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

125. All Defendants have acted under color of state law.

126. Pursuant to the School Code, the only mechanism for the re

administrator is a due process hearing with prior notice. 24 P.S. § 10-10

127. Plaintiff has been deprived of this interest without due pro

School District Board of Directors, and Defendants Karl, Rawls and Sus



25/172

129. Defendants’ course of conduct as described above continue

Plaintiff of her due process rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

130. Due to Defendants’ improper, arbitrary, and capricious a

Kegerise has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including but

to, irreparable damage to professional reputation, loss of future employm

earning capacity, mental anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, a

indignity, plus costs and attorney’s fees, for which Plaintiff is ent

compensated.

131.

Deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to Due Proce

and committed with malice and/or evil motive and/or reckless disregard

callous indifference to Plaintiff’s rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to a

punitive or exemplary damages against the individual defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against STSD and D

Karl, Rawls, and Sussman for damages in excess of six mill

($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and economic damages

contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other emoluments of em



26/172

reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgme

judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary

COUNT III

Dr. Kegerise v. STSD

BREACH OF CONTRACT

132. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by refere

133. A breach of contract action requires (1) the existence of

including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contr

resultant damages. Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683, 692 (Pa. Super. 200

134. The termination of Plaintiff from her employment as Superi

STSD has breached her employment contract by depriving Plaintiff of th

and immunities of the position of Superintendent.

135. The employment contract between Dr. Kegerise and STSD p

notice and hearing prior to a vote on termination for misconduct.

136. On April 21, 2014, Defendants violated the explicit mand

employment contract between Plaintiff and STSD by terminating Plaint

without written notice of alleged misconduct and failing to provide



27/172

(5) vote majority rather than the six (6) voter supermajority previously a

the Board upon approval of the contract.

138. Due to Defendants’ breach, Dr. Kegerise has incurred

damage to professional reputation, loss of future employment, loss

capacity, plus costs and attorney’s fees, for which Plaintiff is ent

compensated.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against STSD damag

of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and

damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other em

employment, consequential damages, including damage to professiona

and loss of future salary as an educational administrator, punitive or

damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pr

and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just

and proper.

COUNT IV

Dr. Kegerise v. Karl, Rawls, and Sussman

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT



28/172

(1)The existence of a contractual, or prospective contrarelation between the complainant and a third party;

(2) purposeful action on the part of the defendant, specifiintended to harm the existing relation, or to preve

prospective relation from occurring;

(3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part odefendant; and

(4) the occasioning of actual legal damage as a result odefendant’s conduct.

Kernaghan v. BCI Communications, Inc., 802 F. Supp..2d596 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (internal citations omitted).

141.

Plaintiff has a contract for employment with STSD.

142. Defendants, Karl, Rawls and Sussman, in their individual c

third parties to said contract.

143.

Defendants Rawls and Sussman’s efforts to void the contrac

lawsuit were intended to harm the contractual relationship between P

STSD.

144. More specifically, Defendants Rawls and Sussman did no

lawsuit seeking to void the Superintendent’s Contract on behalf of the S

Township School District.



29/172

147. The actions of Defendants Karl, Rawls, and Sussman did

harm the contractual relationship because Plaintiff is unable to fulfil

duties to STSD due to Defendants’ creation of a hostile, threatening wor

their efforts to undermine and sabotage district image and adm

performance, such that the relationship was breached by STSD on April

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants K

and Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000

compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary sinc

2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages

damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an

administrator, punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all

attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and

further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.

COUNT V

Dr. Kegerise v. Rawls

DEFAMATION

(Count Dismissed by January 7, 2015 Order of Court)



30/172

(Count Dismissed by January 7, 2015 Order of Court)

COUNT VII

Dr. Kegerise v. Rawls, Sr. and Sussman

WRONGFUL USE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

UNDER 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351, et. seq.

148. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by referen

149. A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, or c

of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other fo

use of civil proceedings:

(1) He acts in a grossly negligent manner or without

probable cause and primarily for the a purpose other

than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of

parties, or adjudication of the claim in which the

proceedings are based; and

(2) The proceedings have terminated in favor of the person

against whom they are brought.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a).



31/172

file a Civil Action Complaint against STSD, the Board, and Dr, Kegeris

void the Superintendent’s contract.

151. Defendants Rawls and Sussman did not file their Com

November 25, 2013.

152. On January 21, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussma

Amended Complaint in the Middle District naming only Dr. Keg

Defendant.

153. Thereafter, on March 4, 2014, Defendants’ Rawls an

discontinued their lawsuit against Dr. Kegerise without any type of settl

154. It is believed and therefore averred that the initiation of

Rawls and Sussmans’ Federal Suit against Dr. Kegerise was for a

purpose.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants

Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00

compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary sinc

2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages

damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an


32/172



33/172

160. Plaintiff was on leave from her position for health rela

beginning on March 24, 2014.

161. In fact, the STSD School Board released a statement to

telling the public that Plaintiff was on leave from her position.

162. Moreover, on April 16, 2014, undersigned counse

correspondence from Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the

the position that Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School Dist

simply on leave pursuant to a Doctor’s note. (See April 16, 2014, corr

from Attorney McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit

163. Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was relayed the

sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion

qualifying condition.

164. Pursuant to STSD practice, it was known to all parties th

would exhaust sick leave prior to taking FMLA leave time.

165. However, On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute ad

agenda halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the ac

Plaintiff’s “Resignation.”



34/172

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant f

in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compen

economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014

emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including

professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational ad

punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorne

costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, violation of FMLA and

discharge, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and pr

COUNT IX


VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITIO

GOVERNMENT

168.

The preceding averments are incorporated herein by referen

169. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution pr

“Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people p

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

170. Plaintiff has exercised her right by filing the initial Comp

Middle District of Pennsylvania to redress her grievances she has encou



35/172

172. Therefore, the STSD has violated Plaintiff’s First Amendm

Petition the Government by retaliating against her and terminating her em







costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, violation of FMLA and

discharge, Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right to P

Government, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and

COUNT X


VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 § 20 OF THE PENNSYLVAN

CONSTITUTION

173.

The preceding averments are incorporated herein by referen

174. Article 1 § 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, “



36/172

175. Plaintiff has exercised her right by filing the initial Comp

Middle District of Pennsylvania to redress her grievances she has encou

176. After filing her initial Complaint, the STSD attempted to

characterize her lawsuit as a “resignation” and/or a breach of her contra

177. Therefore, the STSD has violated Article 1 § 20 of the Pe

Constitution to Petition the Government by retaliating against her and

her employment.







costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other further r

be just, necessary, and proper.

COUNT XI



37/172

179. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) pr

it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employe

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individuotherwise to discriminate against any individual with rto his compensation, terms, conditions, or privilegemployment, because of such individual’s race,

religion, sex, or national origin;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicanemployment in any way which would deprive or tedeprive any individual of employment opportunitiotherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, beof such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin

180.

A plaintiff must show that (1) (s)he is a member of a prot

(2) he was qualified for the position (s)he held or sought; (3) (s)he

adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated persons who are n

of the protected class were treated more favorably, or that the circum

termination give rise to an inference of discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Di

198 F.3d 403, 410-11 (3d Cir. 1999).

181. STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection

rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.

182. The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign p



38/172

184. Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocate

demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even exp

STSD should hir e “more Black males” because the Superintendent is Ca

185. Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted

applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for r

186. On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applic

and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy

Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and v

physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented up

two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.

187. On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted agains

of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that

American should have been hired for the position instead.

188. On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted

hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the

189. Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the

subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observ



39/172

190. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff’s terminati

due to Plaintiff’s refusal to supplant the merit based hiring system wi

reflecting racial preference, as demanded by Defendant Rawls and other

191. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff’s terminati

also due to the desire of the Board, and Defendant Rawls speci

individually, to replace Plaintiff with an African-American superintende

192. Subsequent to STSD’s wrongful termination of Plaintiff o

2014, the Board subsequently hired Dr. Jeffrey Miller, a Caucasia

Plaintiff’s immediate successor in the role of Superintendent.

193. Following the resignation of Dr. Miller on December 31

Board hired Richard Daubert, a Caucasian male, as Acting Superintende

194.

On January 7, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity C

(EEOC) issued Dr. Kegerise a Right-to-Sue letter. (See Right to Sue Let

hereto and marked as Exhibit P).



economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17 2014



40/172



COUNT XII


VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42

2000e, et seq. – SEX DISCRIMINATION

195. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by referen

196. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) pr

it shall be an unlawful employment practice for anemployer –

(3) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge anyindividual, or otherwise to discriminate against anyindividual with respect to his compensation, terms,conditions, or privileges of employment, because of

such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin;

(4) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees orapplicants for employment in any way which woulddeprive or tend to deprive any individual of

employment opportunities or otherwise adverselyaffect his status as an employee, because of suchindividual’s race, color, sex, or national origin.



41/172

198. Additionally, Defendant Rawls has publicly referred to Pl

as a “bitch” and that the STSD is run by “three white bitches.”

199. Subsequent to STSD’s wrongful termination of Plaintiff o

2014, the Board subsequently hired Dr. Jeffrey Miller, a Caucasian mal

Superintendent of STSD.

200. On January 7, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity C

(EEOC) issued Dr. Kegerise a Right-to-Sue letter. (See Right to Sue Lett

hereto and marked as Exhibit P).











42/172

Respectfully Submitted,

ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP

Date: February 12, 2015 __/s/________________Jason P. Kutulakis, EsquireAttorney ID #804112 West High StreetCarlisle, PA 17013

(717) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

SECTION COMMUNITY

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page


43/172

SECTION: COMMUNITY

TITLE: SCHOOL VIS

ADOPTED: October 28, 20

REVISED:

SUSQUEHANNA

TOWNSHIP

SCHOOL DISTRICT

907. SCHOOL VISITORS

1. AuthoritySC 510

The Board welcomes and encourages interest in district educatother school-related activities. The Board recognizes that such

visits to school by parents/guardians, adult residents, educators

To ensure order in the schools and to protect students and empl

for the Board to establish policy governing school visits.

2. Delegation of

Responsibility

The Superintendent or designee and building principal have the

the entry of any individual to a district school, in accordance wand state and federal law and regulations.

The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative re

implement this policy and control access to school buildings an

3. Guidelines Persons wishing to visit a school should make arrangements in

school office in that building.

Upon arrival at the school, all visitors must report to the school

their presence in the building.

A visitor’s badge will be issued to guests to be worn throughou

leaving the building, the visitor should return to the office and

departure.

Notice of this requirement shall be posted on entrances to the b

All staff members shall be responsible for requiring a visitor de

has registered at the school office and received authorization to

purpose of conducting business

907 SCHOOL VISITORS Pg 2



44/172

907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 2

Failure to comply with this policy shall result in more limited adetermined by the building principal, consistent with Board pol

regulations, school rules and federal and state law and regulatio

A person who enters or remains on school property without aut

charged with trespassing.

Pol. 709 All schools shall be monitored by video surveillance equipmen

maintaining security.

Classroom Visitations

SC 510

Title 22

Sec. 14.108

Parents/Guardians may request to visit their child’s classroom,

be made prior to the visit, in accordance with established admi

The building principal or program supervisor must grant prior a

and shall notify the classroom teacher prior to the visit.

Parents/Guardians shall be limited to one (1) class period per m

school for classroom visitations, in order to minimize disruptio

schedule and the educational program. Parental participation inor programs such as room parents, back-to-school events, and c

trips shall not constitute a classroom visit for purposes of this p

The building principal or program supervisor and classroom teauthority to ask a visitor to leave if the visitor disrupts the class

educational program or daily schedule, or if a visitor violates B

to leave when asked or repeated, documented disruptions may classroom visitation privileges.

Under exceptional circumstances and upon request of the build

program supervisor, classroom teacher or parent/guardian, the designee may authorize additional or longer classroom visits by

Military Personnel

24 P S Members of the active and retired Armed Forces including the

907 SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg 3



45/172

907. SCHOOL VISITORS Pg. 3

Pol. 002 School Board Members And Other Officials

1. Persons wishing to visit a school shall make arrangements i

Superintendent.

2. The Superintendent or designee shall be notified of the buil

of the visit.

3.

The Superintendent or designee shall accompany the visitorthe agreed upon day and time.

References:

School Code – 24 P.S. Sec. 510

State Board of Education Regulations – 22 PA Code Sec. 14.10

Military Visitors – 24 P.S. Sec. 2402

Board Policy – 000, 002, 250, 709

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-2 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 15


46/172



47/172



48/172



49/172



50/172


51/172



52/172



53/172



54/172



55/172



56/172



57/172



58/172



59/172



60/172



61/172



62/172



63/172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1370 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 ofCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1


64/172


JESSE RAWLS, SR. and :MARK Y. SUSSMAN :Plaintiffs, :

: CIVIL ACTIONv. :

:THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP : NO.SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, :

THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL :DISTRICT and DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, :SUPERINTENDENT :OF THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP :SCHOOL DISTRICT IN HER OFFICIAL AND :INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES :Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby bring the following action against the

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (

the SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT (STSD), and

SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively “Defendants”) to e

Defendants from violating Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and to nullify

Employment Contract (“Contract”) between the Board and Dr. Kegerise

Constitution, and also violates federal and state law and in support there



65/172

following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendants Board a

Kegerise have entered into an employment contract (“Contract”) and th

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement violate Plaintiffs’ right

Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylva

violates the Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. § 1-101 (

true and correct copy of the Contract is appended hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implement

enforcement, violates:

a. Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech under the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

b. Plaintiffs’ rights to perform their constitutiona

statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions

the United States and Pennsylvania.

3. Express terms of the Contract violate the plain langu

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to nullify and declare invalid



66/172

Contract, permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Contract, u

Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution and enjoin Defend

committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or stat

rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays

STSD.

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of t

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxe

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Board is comprised of nine members elec

voters of Susquehanna Township.

8. Defendant STSD is the public school system for Sus

Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

9 Defendant Dr Susan Kegerise is employed by the B



67/172

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which

subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

11.

Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdictio

to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a).

12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaint

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C

because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylva

events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

THE FACTS

14. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as

superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board i

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of

15. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a n

16. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retain



68/172

“ power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon a

in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Com

of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the expres

this AGREEMENT.” (Emphasis added.)

17.

Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: “Criticisms, c

and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be ref

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the

School Directors as appropriate.”

18. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain lan

Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere w

direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, t

residents, and taxpayers.

19. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquir

employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on he

and with her knowledge and approval.

20. It is believed and therefore averred that between Feb

21. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he woul



69/172

front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Raw

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

22. Although public meetings of the School Board are n

held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Bo

meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Town

School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, includin

related to this litigation.

23.

The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only

STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis

front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to singl

for intimidation.

24. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis att

board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaint

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected off

did so on Dr. Kegerise’s behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

25. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

26. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 201



70/172

Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relativ

Kegerise by STSD.

27. In response, the Board decided to retain a special inv

look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

28.

In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulak

on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of perso

attorney, insisted of the Board President that “you retract your appointm

special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless

demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board me

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson date

22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

29. Further, Kutulakis stated “[p]lease accept this corres

as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise

privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations mad

Rawls.”

30. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members,

Ferguson stated that “it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I w



71/172

implore you to do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessmen

31. Blunt replied via email stating “[y]es I agree. Also s

choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal l

32. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an em

Kegerise stating “I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball ga

correct?”

33. Several additional emails followed, including one wh

Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna To

High School athletic director.

34. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed

school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman e

violated Dr. Kegerise’s contract and that “Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls

interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District an

Kegerise and this must cease immediately.” A true and correct copy of t

Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended

incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

36. Discovery will show whether other Board members

i di id l i d d f K l ki d h h h



72/172

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.

37. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Su

claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman sta

private conversations that “teachers are afraid and students are out of co

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18,

appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.

38.

Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediate

the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

39. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to com

midnight on Saturday, May 19, 20131, litigation would be initiated the f

Monday due to Kutulakis’ view that Sussman was “tortuously [sic] inter

Dr. Kegerise’s Contract.”

40. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutu

repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013

and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated Ma

i d d h t d i t d h i E hibit E2

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1370 Filed 11/25/13 Page 10 ofCase 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 10 oCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1


73/172

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E.2

41. In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the writte

correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman im

retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be

the written correspondence.

42. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide “Dr.

with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has

the District’s Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occ

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.”

43. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis w

Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. “indicated he desired to have

personal email made public so residents of the district may communicat

with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required t

provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is

breach of her contract and must cease immediately.” A true and correct

Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appende

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F



74/172

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.

44. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essenti

same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal emai

public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again

that “[a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the adm

specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contrac

cease immediately.” A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspon

Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated here

Exhibit G.

45. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March

threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact tha

Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate

46. Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing h

Rawls’ conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he

use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, s

48. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered ta

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues relat



75/172

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues relat

STSD.

49. In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis cha

the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contrac prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegeriseinstance . . . while a survey permitting input from resmake sense to allow community outreach, it may notto obtain anonymous allegations into the administratIt may not become an additional tool to conduct a wi

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.

50. The community survey was never undertaken.

51. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery w

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with th

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to v

recipients’ constitutional and statutory rights.

52. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any ins

where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis’ attempts to interfere with

53. At no time during his representation of STSD has M

explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in th



76/172

explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in th

be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity

elected positions.

54. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board

they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are no

speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.

55. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over theSue’s attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns founded. Board members only enjoy the extensive imliability the law provides when they are acting withinas Board members. When they are acting as individ

not as members of the Board, they are subject to the of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues determining whether a Board member is acting as a Bmember is whether their actions are in accordance wadvice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly,

protect individual Board members if and when their authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are wdisavow the unauthorized actions of other Board meWorse still, I cannot protect innocent Board memberDistrict unless I am allowed to disavow those actionboard members] on behalf of the District and Board

It has come to my attention that some of you attende“community meeting” sponsored and organized by PSpeaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the



77/172

Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the

effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the righany meeting you choose, I must again advise that it iadvised to attend such meetings precisely because it the appearance and invites the assumption that you arepresenting the Board and District.

57. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants

communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email add

[email protected] -- for email correspondence to be sent to

members.

58.

The official STSD website explains that “[w]hen usi

email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then for

message to all members of the school board. A member of District Adm

may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to f

to the School Board.”

59. Under the single email address scheme, the superinte

the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to

or even if an email will be disseminated.

60. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly acc

61. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or no

Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


78/172

y

emails from it.

62. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Townshi

Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled

sent an email to [email protected] to ask a question related

criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into ST

handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assis

principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled studen

“Sharkey Matter”). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener email

referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit H.

63. The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School

members.

64. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no res

even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener c

Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plain

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


79/172


80/172


81/172

83. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery w

numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and r



82/172

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by D

84. The Contract was approved by a 6-3 vote of the Scho

85. Plaintiffs first received a copy of the Contract at an e

session of the board immediately prior to the public meeting where it w

86. Plaintiffs had approximately 37 minutes to review th

Contract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted

87.

Plaintiffs voted against entering into the proposed Co

did Board member John Dietrich.

88. Plaintiffs do not know which other Board members m

received the proposed Contract before Plaintiffs did.

89. Although Kutulakis handled Contract negotiations o

Dr. Kegerise, Blunt was quoted in local media defining his own role as

reviewing the draft document to insure that it had the changes mandated

new law.”

90. In an email to the Board dated March 20, 2013, Blun


83/172

appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwother improper conduct.



84/172

24 P.S. § 5-514.

96. Section 8.00(b)(1) of the Contract states:

The only valid causes for termination of a contraheretofore or hereafter entered into with a professio

employee shall be immorality, incompetency, intemcruelty, persistent negligence, mental derangemeadvocation of or participating in un-American ordoctrines, persistent and willful violation of the sof this Commonwealth on the part of the professionemployee[.] (Emphasis added.)

97.

The language contained in Section 8.00(b)(1) expres

references §11-1122 of the Act as grounds for termination, even though

applies only to professional employees.

98.

Dr. Kegerise, as a superintendent, is not considered a

professional employee for purposes of §11-1122. See 24 P.S. § 11-1101

99. Section 10-1073.1 (b.1) of the Act states: “[t]he boar

directors shall post the mutually agreed to objective performance standa

contained in the contract on the school district's publicly accessible Inte

website ” 24 P S § 10 1073 1(b 1)

filing Dr. Kegerise, who controls what information is posted on the web

refused to comply.



85/172

101. Section 10-1073.1(b) of the Act states: The board of

directors shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the d

superintendent and assistant district superintendent annually. A time fra

assessment shall be included in the contract. 24 P.S. § 10-1073.1.

102. Section 7.01 of the Contract calls for an annual perfo

assessment of the Superintendent, however the only rating categories al

under the Contract are exemplary, good and satisfactory.

103. An “exemplary” rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 5%

“good” rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 3% stipend and a “satisfactory”

entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 2% stipend.

104. It is believed and therefore averred that the performa

is classified as a “stipend” in order to avoid calculating the bonus as inc

would subject the bonus to contributions by Dr. Kegerise and STSD to t

Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System.

105. Section 7.01 of the Contract states that in the event n

106. Since becoming superintendent in 2009, Dr. Kegeris

received an annual performance review, notwithstanding the fact that th



86/172

performance review is mandated by the Act.

107. Section 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) provides that the Contract

school district and its superintendent shall “[i]ncorporate all provisions

compensation and benefits to be paid to or on behalf of the district super

. . . .” 24 P.S. § 10-1073(e)(2)(iii).

108. STSD policy provides that a non-resident who attend

shall pay tuition in the amount of $941 monthly for an elementary stude

109. Since 2009, Dr. Kegerise’s grandchild has been enro

STSD.

110. It is believed and therefore averred that the grandchi

and has never resided in the Susquehanna Township School District.

111. It is believed and therefore averred that no one has p

district tuition for the non-resident grandchild since she began attending

2009.

112. In October 2013, Dr. Kegerise informed the Board th

113. Authorization for Dr. Kegerise’s grandchild to attend

tuition-free does not appear in Board minutes dating back to 2009.



87/172

114. The benefit conferred on Dr. Kegerise to send her gr

STSD tuition-free is not reflected in the Contract.

COUNT I

Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. § 1983;First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual and official ca

115. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorp

reference as if fully set forth herein.

116. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by t

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

117.

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

118. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at

relevant hereto under color of state law.

119. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to

their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate wi

120. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with the



88/172

School Board members, including Plaintiffs.

121. In addition to examples provided above, Discovery w

numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has bee

interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her a

122. Under authority vested in Dr. Kegerise by state law a

contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitu

violations be stopped.

123. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constit

violations continue.

124. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions a

actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individu

official capacities.

125. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerise’s acti

inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to

Amendment rights of free speech.

COUNT II

Declaratory Judgment Action to Declare the Employment Contr

as Violative of The Public School Code of 1949 as amended 24 P S



89/172

as Violative of The Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S

Plaintiffs v. All Defendants

127. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorp

reference as if fully set forth herein.


enforcement, is the vehicle through which Plaintiffs’ and others constitu

rights have been repeatedly violated.

129.

As stated more fully above, sections of the Contract

express language of the Act as follows:

a. Section 8.00(a) violates 24 P.S. §§ 5-50

10-1080(a); and

b. Section 8.00 (b)(1) of the Contract viola

24 P.S. § 5-514.


enforcement violates 24 P.S. § 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) which requires that the

state the salary conferred upon a superintendent such as Dr. Kegerise.


90/172

c. By delaying correspondence sent to the

d. By repeatedly threatening legal action a



91/172

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, f

exercising their First Amendment rights;

e. By acting to intimidate individuals, incl

not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from

their First Amendment rights; and

f. By punishing or threatening to punish B

members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other S

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

136. Kegerise’s continued and persistent violations of Pla

First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or

actions.

137. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive damages be awa

against Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs Jesse Rawls Sr and Mark Y

B. Nominal Relief against all Defendants;

C. Compensatory Relief against Defendant Dr. Susan L

i h i di id l d ffi i l i i



92/172

in her individual and official capacities;

D. Punitive damages against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Ke

her individual capacity;

E.

Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and,

F. Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and a

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C.

/s/ Bret KeislingBret Keisling, EsquireAttorney ID #20135217 S. Second Street, Suite 301Harrisburg, PA 17101

(717) 303-3446 (Phone)(717) 801-1786 (fax)Email: [email protected]

Date: November 25, 2013


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

Documents