Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DR. SUSAN M. KEGERISE,
Plaintiff,
:
: CIVIL ACTION
:
v.
:
: No.: 1:14-CV-00747-WWC
SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP
:
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
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 her attorney,
Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P., complains of
Defendants, the Susquehanna Township School District, School Director Carol L.
Karl, School Director Jesse Rawls, Sr., and School Director Mark Y. Sussman, in
their official and individual capacities, as follows:
Introduction
1.
Plaintiff is the duly appointed Superintendent of Susquehanna
Township School District, having held the position since January 6, 2010.
2.
During Plaintiffs term as Superintendent, she has been subjected to
physical intimidation, verbal abuse, sabotage of district image and administration
performance, discrimination on the basis of race and sex, and micromanagement by

members of the School Board of Directors and the Board as a whole.
3.
As a result, Plaintiff brings the instant action seeking an award of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees and other relief for the
wrongful termination of Plaintiffs employment in violation of Plaintiffs
Constitutional, Federal Statute, Pennsylvania statute and the terms of her
employment contract.
Parties
4.
Plaintiff, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, is an adult individual and citizen of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 10 Meadowood Drive,

Hummelstown, PA 17036. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Kegerise has served as
Superintendent of STSD.
5.
Defendant, Susquehanna Township School District (hereinafter
STSD) is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with geographic boundaries entirely within the
County of Dauphin and the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since February 11,
2011, STSD has maintained its offices at 2579 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, PA
17110.
6.
Defendant, Carol L. Karl, is an adult individual residing within STSD
and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board.
7.
Defendant, Jesse Rawls Sr., is an adult individual residing within STSD
and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board, and President
of the Board from 2011-2012.
8.
Defendant, Mark Y. Sussman is an adult individual residing within
STSD and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board.
9.
At all times relevant hereto, STSD acted and/or failed to act by and/or
through the Board.

Jurisdiction and Venue
10.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 1367.
11.
Venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is proper pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1391(b) because Dauphin County is the location of all defendants and the
location of the actions giving rise to this complaint.
Background
12.
Dr. Kegerise holds an Ed.D. in Education Administration from Widener
University.
13.
Dr. Kegerise served as a Principal in Central Dauphin School District
from 1995 until 2006.

14.
In 2004, Dr. Kegerise was named Principal of the Year by the
Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals.

15.
This accolade was honored by resolution of the Pennsylvania Senate,
House of Representatives and the Dauphin County Commissioners.

16.
While employed by the Central Dauphin School District, Dr. Kegerise
received numerous positive comments from not only parents of students, but also
staff that worked directly for her.
17.
Dr. Kegerise was Assistant Superintendent of STSD from 2006 until
18.
Dr. Kegerise was promoted to Superintendent by the Board of School
2010.
Directors by contract to begin on January 6, 2010 and conclude on January 6, 2013.

19.
Dr. Kegerise is at least 40 years of age.
20.
Dr. Kegerise is qualified for the position of Superintendent of
STSD.
21.
During her term as Superintendent, Dr. Kegerise has administered the
creation of the School of the Arts, School of Medicine, Health Sciences and
Engineering, and full day kindergarten.
22.
In the final year of the initial contract as Superintendent, Defendant
Rawls was President of the Board of School Directors.

23.
The School Code provides that a current superintendents term shall
continue for another three-to-five years if the Board does not take official, specific
action during the last year of the term at least 150 days in advance of the end of the
term to notify the superintendent that another or other persons will be considered for
that position. 24 P.S. 10-1073.
24.
Defendant Rawls, as Board President from December 2011 until
December 2012, did not re-negotiate a new contract with Dr. Kegerise prior to 150
days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerises contract.
25.
Defendant Rawls, as Board President, did not provide notice of
termination prior to 150 days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerises contract.
26.
Dr. Kegerise is an ex-officio member of the Board by virtue of being
Superintendent.
27.
On or about March 5, 2012, Defendant Rawls, as Board President,
called a meeting of the Board, without informing Dr. Kegerise, whereupon the Board
voted on the hiring of an interim solicitor.
28.
On August 20, 2012, the Board met in executive session, whereupon
District Solicitor Paul Blunt, Esquire, indicated he needed to discuss a personnel and
student safety issue with the Board, but requested Defendant Rawls recuse himself
5
from discussion due to a family member of Rawls being a possible witness. When
Defendant Rawls refused to recuse himself, the Board (including Dr. Kegerise)
could not receive a full briefing on the matter due to Rawls refusal. In response to
the request for recusal, Defendant Rawls threatened legal action.
29.
On or about September 25, 2012, Defendant Rawls approached STSD
High School Principal Ralph Lovelidge and attempted to have a conversation with
him which was critical of STSD central administration.
30.
Defendant Rawls also approached a Union official to suggest the Union
file a grievance against STSD regarding a personnel issue.

31.
STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection system (the
rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.

32.
The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign points to job
applicants.
33.
The rubric awards points for factors such as certifications, work
experience, education level, job related skills, interview performance and references.
34.
Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocated for, even
demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even expressing that
STSD should hire more Black males because the Superintendent is Caucasian.
35.
At one point, Defendant Rawls told Dr. Kegerise as Superintendent that
she was white and the whites would listen to her because you think like them.
6
36.
In the same conversation, Defendant Rawls relayed to Dr. Kegerise that
she would pave the way for an African American male to replace her and said that
is what his friend Major Poteet did in the Harrisburg School District.
37.
Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted to take job
applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for review.
38.
On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applicant resume
and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy concerns,
Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and verbally and
physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented upon realizing
two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.
39.
On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted against the hiring
of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that an AfricanAmerican should have been hired for the position instead.
40.
On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted against the
hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the applicant.

41.
Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the Board at a
subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observing the man
to be African-American and yelled at Plaintiff I should know [the applicants race]
ahead of time.
42.
Defendant Rawls, as a member of the STSD School Board, has
stated to Dr. Kegerise that she would pave the way for an African American
male to be hired as Superintendent.
43.
Additionally, Defendant Rawls has publicly referred to Plaintiff
as a bitch and that the STSD is run by three white bitches.

44.
On or about December 12, 2012, the Board met in executive session.
Dr. Kegerise was asked to leave the meeting because the Board was going to discuss
renewal of her contract. Plaintiff left.
45.
In Dr. Kegerises absence, the Board, led by Defendant Rawls, rather
than discussing solely the renewal of Dr. Kegerises contract, discussed personnel
issues unrelated to the Superintendents contract for which the Superintendent had
no conflict of interest and could have been present for discussions.
46.
On February 5, 2013, Defendant Rawls visited the District Middle
School and High School without giving prior notice to the administration.
47.
Pursuant to District Policy 907, Board Members should not engage
directly with district employees due to possible liability and undermining of the
administration. (See Board Policy 907, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A).
48.
In 2013, a consensual decision was made to transfer a long time high
school gym teacher and coach to a district elementary school. Believing this transfer
was against the will of the teacher and discriminatory, Defendant Rawls attempted
8
to intervene by usurping the role and judgment of the Administration. Defendant

Rawls went so far as to approach the president of the teachers union, stating the
transfer should be grieved by the district.
49.
On December 3, 2012, at the annual reorganization meeting, Michael
Ferguson, Esquire, became Board President.

50.
On January 28, 2013, Defendant Rawls, at a public meeting of the
Board, falsely accused Plaintiff of nepotism as grounds to not renew her contract.
51.
This accusation resulted in a special investigation which cleared Dr.
Kegerise of any wrongdoing. The investigation cost STSD in excess of $15,000.00.

52.
On September 23, 2013, Board President Michael Ferguson, Esquire,
issued an apology to the hired employee on behalf of the Board for Defendant Rawls
false accusation of nepotism.
53.
Board President Ferguson and members of a contract negotiating
committee met on behalf of the Board of School Directors with Undersigned

Counsel and Dr. Kegerise on multiple occasions to negotiate her new contract.
54.
On March 2, 2013, Defendant Rawls approached a district custodian
regarding whether another employee should have been terminated. The propriety of
the termination was pending arbitration at the time. Defendant Rawls further stated
to the employee that the union should have helped the terminated employee and
district employees should start using ASFME as their union instead of Teamsters.
9
55.
In Executive Session meeting of the School Board, Defendant Rawls
accused Plaintiff of fabricating the confrontation incident by threatening to fire the

custodian if he did not make something up about Defendant Rawls.
56.
District Solicitor Paul Blunt spoke with the custodian who confirmed
the accuracy of the report and denied any threat by Plaintiff.

57.
When confronted by district solicitor and Dr. Kegerise about the
inappropriateness of this discussion and resulting potential liability at a meeting of

the Board on April 9, 2013, Defendant Rawls responded by violently slapping his
hands on a table and yelling a string of profane references to Dr. Kegerise and the
Solicitor.
58.
Defendant Rawls actions at the meeting on April 9, 2013 were
perceived by Dr. Kegerise and other members of the Board as threatening towards
Dr. Kegerise.
59.
In one or more instances, Defendant Rawls has commented that the
administration is run by three white bitches.

60.
On April 22, 2013, the new contract between the Susquehanna
Township School District and Dr. Kegerise was ratified by a majority of the Board
of School Directors at public meeting. (See, Contract, attached hereto and marked
as Exhibit B).
61.
The contract, in relevant part, provides:

10
8.00 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. The Board of School Directors may only
remove Superintendent for cause and terminate this AGREEMENT pursuant
to Section 10-1080 and 11-1122 of the Public School.
(a) Due Process. The Superintendent shall, throughout the term of
this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract for valid and just
cause for reasons specified under Section 11-1122 of the Public School Code.
However, the Board of School Directors shall not arbitrarily and capriciously
call for her dismissal without first providing the Superintendent with written
charges, adequate notice of a hearing, a fair and impartial hearing, all
elements of due process, and the right to appeal to a court of competent
jurisdiction. Notice of the hearing must be in writing and sent by certified
mail to the Superintendent and each member of the Board of School Directors
at least three (3) week prior to the hearing. Removal shall only be proper after
a hearing followed by a two thirds (6 members of a 9 member board) vote of
the Board of School Directors for removal.
(b) Termination for Cause. The Superintendent shall, throughout the
term of this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract for valid
and just cause for the following reasons specified under Section 11-1122 of the
Public School Code:
(1) The only valid causes for termination of a contract heretofore
or hereafter entered into with a professional employee shall be
immorality, incompetency, intemperance, cruelty, persistent negligence,
mental derangement, advocation of or participating in un-American or
subversive doctrines, persistent and willful violation of the school laws
of this Commonwealth on the part of the professional employee:
Provided, That boards of school directors may terminate the service of
any professional employee who has attained to the age of sixty-two
except a professional employee who is a member of the old age and
survivors insurance system pursuant to the provisions of the act,
approved the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred fifty-six
(Pamphlet Laws 1973). In such case the board may terminate the
service of any such professional employee at the age of sixty-five or at
the age at which the employee becomes eligible to receive full benefits
under the Federal Social Security Act.
11
Nothing within the foregoing enumeration of causes, shall be

interpreted to conflict with the retirement of professional employees
upon proper evidence of disability, or the election by professional
employees to retire during the period of voluntary retirement, or the
authority of the board of school directors to require professional
employees to retire during said period of voluntary retirement, or the
compulsion on the part of professional employees to retire at the
attainment of age seventy.
62.
Defendants Rawls and Sussman opposed the contract, but were
outvoted 6-3.
63.
On October 31, 2013, Defendants Rawls and Sussman, at public press
conference on STSD grounds, announced intent to file a Civil Action Complaint

against STSD, the Board and Dr. Kegerise seeking to void the contract. (See,
Pennlive Article, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C).
64.
In October 2013, the following comment was posted after an Article on
Pennlive.com
in
the
comments
section
under
the
screen
name
moderatecommonsense:
Our attorneys are all over this, we only need 5 votes to fire her. State law
takes precedent over this or any boards actions, so no worries there.
Rawls, Edwards, Karl along with our two other allies on the board means
Dr. K should get her resume ready, we are firing you. DelG you will soon
follow Fuller and Butler so you might as well just resign you have
absolutely no chance of being reelected next time you run.
12
65.
On October 31, 2013, the following comment was posted after an
Article on Pennlive.com in the comments section under the screen name

DumbandDumber:
Costs? Are you serious? Ok lets talk about costs as in how many
MILLIONS, MILLIONS, MILLIONS do you think the Sharkey, hired at
the urging of Dr. K, recommended by Dr. K, handpicked by Dr. K is
going to costs us? What about $8o[sic] Gs a year for our waste of money
friend hire communications director, how much is Dr. Ks neice making?
And finally how about the $30,000 office equipment in the good Dr.s
office?
Dont tell me about costs.
The only good thing about the Sharkey hire is we now have legal cause to
fire Kegerise, already looked into and its rock solid legal to now fire her
with no financial reprecussions.
66.
It is believed and therefore averred that moderatecommonsense and
DumberandDumber is the username of Defendant Sussman.

67.
On November 1, 2013, Bret Keisling, attorney for Defendants Rawls
and Sussman, appeared uninvited with Rawls and Sussman at the STSD
administration building with multiple reporters and cameras.
68.
At all times relevant hereto, Keisling was counsel for Defendants Rawls
and Sussman and acting with their knowledge and consent.

69.
Attorney Keisling yelled at Dr. Kegerise regarding litigation which
Attorney Keisling had announced his intention to file but had not yet filed. Attorney
Keisling was aware Dr. Kegerise was represented by counsel.
13
70.
When District Solicitor Paul K. Blunt, Esquire, indicated that Dr.
Kegerise was his client and Keisling may not speak to her, Keisling ignored this
demand and continued to yell at Dr. Kegerise in a loud and aggressive tone.
71.
Keisling then threatened to falsely accuse Attorney Blunt of assaulting
him, and later made such false accusation to the assembled media.
72.
Dr. Kegerise was so threatened by Keislings actions that she instructed
a fellow administrator to call 911 and summon law enforcement.

73.
On November 5, 2013, Defendant Rawls was re-elected to the Board
and Defendant Karl was elected for the first time to the STSD Board.
74.
On November 25, 2013, Defendants Rawls and Sussman finally filed
the Civil Action Complaint that they had announced a month earlier. Rawls and
Sussmans Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, naming the Susquehanna Township School Board of
Directors, the Susquehanna Township School District and Plaintiff as defendants.
(See Rawls and Sussmans Complaint, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit D).
75.
On January 15, 2014, Solicitor for the School District, King Spry, sent
Attorney Keisling a Rule 11 Letter indicating they would be filing for sanctions due
to the frivolity of the Complaint filed by Rawls and Sussman. (See King Spry letter,
attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E).
14
76.
On January 21, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman filed an
Amended Complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania naming only Dr.

Kegerise as defendant. (See Rawls and Sussmans Amended Complaint, attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit F).
77.
On January 31, 2014, Defendant Rawls publically demanded the
resignation of Dr. Kegerise as Superintendent.

78.
On February 1, 2014, Defendant Karl was quoted by the Harrisburg
Patriot News demanding Dr. Kegerises resignation as Superintendent as well as the

resignation of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, accusing Plaintiff of
incompetence. (See Pennlive.com Article, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
G).
79.
On February 3, 2014, Defendant Karl signed a petition demanding
Plaintiffs resignation.
80.
On February 7, 2014, undersigned counsel sent Rawls and Sussmans
attorney, Attorney Keisling, a letter indicating Dr. Kegerise would be filing for
sanctions due to the frivolity of the Amended Complaint filed by Rawls and
Sussman. (See February 7, 2014 correspondence, attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit H).
15
81.
On or about February 24, 2014, the Board met in executive session,
whereupon Dr. Kegerises representative1 was directed by the district solicitor to

leave without reason.
82.
On March 4, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman discontinued their
federal lawsuit against Dr. Kegerise, without any type of settlement.

83.
On or about March 4, 2014, Rawls and Sussman communicated that
they were withdrawing their suit because the reasons for filing this action have been
corrected as a result of community and media interest in this case and recent events.
(See March 4, 2014, Pennlive.com article, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit I).
84.
In early March 2014, Defendants Karl and Sussman and Attorney
Keisling brought members of the media to a community meeting with a local realtor.
85.
It is believed and therefore averred that the purpose of the meeting was
to obtain statistics showing reduced demand for homes within Susquehanna

Township in an effort to portray STSD as dysfunctional and harmful to property
values.
86.
When informed by the realtor that home prices in Susquehanna
Township have increased at a greater rate than neighboring Lower Paxton Township
and Dauphin County as a whole, the meeting promptly ended.
Dr. Kegerise was not present for the meeting due to attendance at a conference.
Pursuant to common procedure, a non-attorney representative was sent in her
stead.
16
87.
On or about May 21, 2013, a rumor was heard in the Susquehanna
Township High School regarding a text or photo on a students cellular telephone.

88.
The Administration launched an internal investigation into the rumored
text or photograph.
89.
The Dauphin County District Attorney began an investigation by way
of Grand Jury into the STSD Administrations response to the rumors.

90.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the District Attorneys Office
concluded that the STSD Administration did not violate any laws. (See Grand Jury
Report, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit J).
91.
On March 11, 2014, Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller was
commissioned by the STSD Board to launch yet another investigation into the
Administrations handling of the Sharkey matter, after the administrations original
investigation, law enforcements investigation, and the Dauphin County District
Attorneys Grand Jury Investigation.
92.
It is believed and therefore averred that this fourth investigation
instituted by the STSD Board into the handling of the Sharkey matter, is a witch hunt
in order to find some minimally plausible cause to terminate Dr. Kegerise.
93.
Since hiring Dr. Kegerise, the STSD Board has violated policies
enacted by the Board in an attempt to usurp Dr. Kegerises authority within the
District and prevent her from performing her duties as Superintendent.
17
a. STSD Board Policy 7112 provides a series of steps to address Public

Complaints, which the Board continually violates by taking complaints
into their own hands and out of the knowledge or control of the
administration.
(See Policy 7112, attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit K).
b. STSD Board Policy 304 allows the Administration to hire staff for
continuity of educational services, prior to Board approval; however,
the Board has applied this policy arbitrarily and capriciously by
periodically not allowing the administration to hire non-administrative
positions between board meetings and without prior board approval.
(See Policy 304, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit L).
c. STSD Board Policy 903 outlines procedure for public participation at
Board Meetings, which the current School Board does not follow in
order to hinder undermine the administration and its effectiveness. For
example, Defendants have individually and collectively disregarded
this policy by allowing and/or encouraging members of the public to
speak about confidential personnel issues, display signs and disrupt
speakers. (See Policy 903, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit M).
d. On April 11, 2014, the Board and Solicitor met with Assistant
Superintendent Taschner to post an employment position opening for a
18
new position within the School District. Per Board Policy, only the
Superintendent can recommend new positions within the STSD.
e. As of April 15, 2014, the School Board has appointed a committee
consisting of Defendants Rawls and Sussman, as well as Board
President John Dietrich, for the sole purpose of conducting interviews
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 Superintendent
beginning on March 24, 2014, due to medical reasons.

95.
On April 16, 2014, undersigned counsel received correspondence from
Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the STSD took the position that
Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School District and was simply on leave
pursuant to a Doctors note. (See April 16, 2014, correspondence from Attorney
McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit N).
96.
Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was relayed the District had
sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion due to her
qualifying condition.
97.
On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint in the instant
case.
19
98.
As of April 21, 2014, the Board had not been served with Plaintiffs
initial Complaint.
99.
On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute addition to the agenda
halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the acceptance of Plaintiffs
Resignation, and did vote in the affirmative.
100. As a result of the vote, Defendant STSD ceased paying Plaintiff her
contractual salary and stopped providing benefits, retroactive to April 17, 2014.
101. At no time did Plaintiff tender resignation for the Board to accept.
102. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff merely petitioning the
government for redress of her grievances was wrongfully construed as a resignation
of her position with the STSD.
103. Additionally, confusingly, single correspondence dated April 22, 2014
from STSD Solicitor Jeffrey B. Engle, Esquire, both memorializes the acceptance of
the resignation and indicates Plaintiff was terminated for breach of contract.
([P]ursuant to the contract with the Board, [Plaintiff] breached the terms of the
contract and failed to provide sixty (60) days notice.).
104. Plaintiff has never formally resigned from her position.
105. Plaintiff has not breached her contract with the STSD to warrant
termination.
20
106. STSD never afforded Plaintiff a due process hearing in relation to her
employment at STSD.
107. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania School Code, the only mechanism for
removal of a Superintendent is a due process hearing with prior notice. 24 P.S. 101080.
108. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Mandamus in the Dauphin County Court
of Common Pleas, docketed at 2014-CV-3793-CV on April 24, 2014.
109. On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in Mandamus
in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.
110. On October 16, 2014, a Trial on the Complaint in Mandamus was held
in front of the Honorable Judge William Tully in the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County.
111. As a result of the Trial on the Complaint in Mandamus, an Order was
entered on November 5, 2014 in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas
reinstating Plaintiff to her position as Superintendent of the Susquehanna Township
School District. (See Order dated November 5, 2014, attached as Exhibit O).
112. At 6:45 a.m. on November 7, 2014, Plaintiff returned to work in her
capacity as Superintendent at the Susquehanna Township School District.
113. In its November 5, 2014, Order and supporting Opinion, the Dauphin
County Court of Common Pleas found that Plaintiff:
21
a. Had a legal right to request This Court to enter a Writ of Mandamus;

b. Defendants have a duty to abide by the Public School Code regarding
removal of Plaintiff; and
c. No other remedy at law will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
114. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas found that Defendants
did not afford Plaintiff a due process hearing when it voted on April 21, 2014, to
terminate her effective April 17, 2014. See, page 12-13 of the Opinion.
115. Plaintiff continues to be unable to satisfy her obligations under her
commission, is not being paid nor receiving benefits.
116. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas found that, [T]he action
of the Susquehanna Township School Board on April 21, 2014, allegedly accepting
Dr. Kegerises purported resignation, was improper, illegal and void as a matter of
law. See, page 7 of the Opinion.
117. At 9:39 a.m. on November 7, 2014, Defendants filed a Notice of
Appeal, however, the Notice was not received by undersigned counsels office until
3:07 p.m., when the Notice was received by facsimile.
COUNT I
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD
CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION
(Count Dismissed by January 7, 2015 Order of Court)
22
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 reference.
119.
42 U.S.C. 1983 states, every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory of the District of

Columbia, subjects, or cases to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
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 demonstrate
that the defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived him or her of a right
secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. American Mfrs. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999) (Internal citations omitted).
121. In order to demonstrate a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff
must show that (1) she was deprived of an individual interest encompassed within
the Fourteenth Amendments protection of life, liberty, or property, and that (2) the
procedures available to her did not provide due process of the law. Mayo v. Bangor
Area School Dist., 2013 WL 3716533 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
23
122. Moreover, discharge in a procedural due process case constitutes a

1983 violation only if it amounts to forced discharge to avoid affording [procedural
due process guarantees]. Id.
123. Furthermore, two circumstances exist when an employees retirement
or resignation will be deemed involuntary for due process purposes: (1) when the
employer forces the resignation or retirement by coercion or duress, or (2) when the
employer obtains the resignation or retirement by misrepresenting a material fact to
the employee. Id. (citing Rife v. Borough of Dauphin, 647 F.Supp.2d 431, 449-50
(M.D. Pa. 2009).
124. Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected property and liberty interest in
her contract and resulting privileges, immunities and emoluments, pursuant to the
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 removal of an
administrator is a due process hearing with prior notice. 24 P.S. 10-1080.
127. Plaintiff has been deprived of this interest without due process by the
School District Board of Directors, and Defendants Karl, Rawls and Sussman.
128. Defendants violated Plaintiffs right of Due Process by terminating
Plaintiff without written notice of alleged misconduct and failing to provide a fair
and impartial adjudication hearing.
24
129. Defendants course of conduct as described above continues to deprive

Plaintiff of her due process rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
130. Due to Defendants improper, arbitrary, and capricious actions, Dr.
Kegerise has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including but not limited
to, irreparable damage to professional reputation, loss of future employment, loss of
earning capacity, mental anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal
indignity, plus costs and attorneys fees, for which Plaintiff is entitled to be
compensated.
131. Deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional right to Due Process was done
and committed with malice and/or evil motive and/or reckless disregard and/or with
callous indifference to Plaintiffs rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of
punitive or exemplary damages against the individual defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against STSD and Defendants,

Karl, Rawls, and Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars
($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and economic damages for loss of
contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other emoluments of employment,
consequential damages, including damage to professional reputation and loss of
future salary as an educational administrator, punitive or exemplary damages,
25
reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post
judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT III
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD
BREACH OF CONTRACT
132.
133.
A breach of contract action requires (1) the existence of a contract,
including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract, and (3)
resultant damages. Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683, 692 (Pa. Super. 2002).
134. The termination of Plaintiff from her employment as Superintendent by
STSD has breached her employment contract by depriving Plaintiff of the privileges
and immunities of the position of Superintendent.
135. The employment contract between Dr. Kegerise and STSD provides for
notice and hearing prior to a vote on termination for misconduct.
136. On April 21, 2014, Defendants violated the explicit mandates of the
employment contract between Plaintiff and STSD by terminating Plaintiff for cause
without written notice of alleged misconduct and failing to provide a fair and
impartial adjudication hearing.
137. On April 21, 2014, Defendants violated the explicit mandates of the
employment contract between Plaintiff and STSD by terminating Plaintiff by a five
26
(5) vote majority rather than the six (6) voter supermajority previously agreed to by
the Board upon approval of the contract.
138. Due to Defendants breach, Dr. Kegerise has incurred irreparable
damage to professional reputation, loss of future employment, loss of earning
capacity, plus costs and attorneys fees, for which Plaintiff is entitled to be
compensated.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against STSD damages in excess
of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and economic
damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other emoluments of
employment, consequential damages, including damage to professional reputation
and loss of future salary as an educational administrator, punitive or exemplary
damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment
and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary
and proper.
COUNT IV
Dr. Kegerise v. Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
139.
140.
In Pennsylvania, to state a successful claim for tortious interference, a
plaintiff must allege:

27
(1)The existence of a contractual, or prospective contractual

relation between the complainant and a third party;
(2) purposeful action on the part of the defendant, specifically
intended to harm the existing relation, or to prevent a
prospective relation from occurring;
(3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the
defendant; and
(4) the occasioning of actual legal damage as a result of the
defendants conduct.
Kernaghan v. BCI Communications, Inc., 802 F. Supp..2d 590,
596 (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 capacity, are
third parties to said contract.
143. Defendants Rawls and Sussmans efforts to void the contract by way of
lawsuit were intended to harm the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and
STSD.
144. More specifically, Defendants Rawls and Sussman did not bring the
lawsuit seeking to void the Superintendents Contract on behalf of the Susquehanna
Township School District.
145. Defendants efforts to undermine the contractual relationship between
Plaintiff and STSD were intended to harm the contractual relationship
146. Defendants have no privilege or justification for this interference.
28
147. The actions of Defendants Karl, Rawls, and Sussman did collaterally
harm the contractual relationship because Plaintiff is unable to fulfil contractual
duties to STSD due to Defendants creation of a hostile, threatening work place and
their efforts to undermine and sabotage district image and administration
performance, such that the relationship was breached by STSD on April 21, 2014.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Karl, Rawls,
and Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000), including
compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17,
2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including
damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational
administrator, punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other
further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT V
Dr. Kegerise v. Rawls
DEFAMATION
COUNT VI
Dr. Kegerise v. Karl and Rawls
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
29
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 reference.
149. A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation
of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful
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).
150. On October 31, 2013, mere days prior to the November 5th elections for
School Board Members, Defendants Rawls and Sussman announced their intent to
30
file a Civil Action Complaint against STSD, the Board, and Dr, Kegerise seeking to
void the Superintendents contract.
151. Defendants Rawls and Sussman did not file their Complaint until
November 25, 2013.
152. On January 21, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman filed an
Amended Complaint in the Middle District naming only Dr. Kegerise as a
Defendant.
153. Thereafter, on March 4, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman
discontinued their lawsuit against Dr. Kegerise without any type of settlement.
154. It is believed and therefore averred that the initiation of Defendant
Rawls and Sussmans Federal Suit against Dr. Kegerise was for an improper
purpose.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Rawls and
Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including
compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17,
2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including
damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational
administrator, punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other
further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
31
COUNT VIII
Dr. Kegerise v. Susquehanna Township School District
Violation of Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 2601, et. seq.
Retaliatory Termination
156. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.A. 2601, et.
seq., states in pertinent part that it shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere
with restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided
for under this chapter. 29 U.S.C.A. 2615(a)(1).
157. Additionally, the FMLA provides it shall be unlawful for any person
to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual because such
individualhas filed any charge, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any
proceeding, under or related to this subchapter. 29 U.S.C.A. 2615(b)(1).
158. An employer may not retaliate against any employee for having
exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights. Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med.
Ctr., 765 F.3d 245, 256 (3d Cir. 2014)(quoting C.F.R. 825.220(c).
159. In order to obtain relief under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show (1) she
invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse
employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to her
invocation of rights. Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294,
302 (3d Cir. 2012).
32
160. Plaintiff was on leave from her position for health related reasons
beginning on March 24, 2014.
161. In fact, the STSD School Board released a statement to the public
telling the public that Plaintiff was on leave from her position.
162. Moreover, on April 16, 2014, undersigned counsel received
correspondence from Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the STSD took
the position that Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School District and was
simply on leave pursuant to a Doctors note. (See April 16, 2014, correspondence
from Attorney McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit N).
163. Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was relayed the District had
sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion due to her
qualifying condition.
164. Pursuant to STSD practice, it was known to all parties that Plaintiff
would exhaust sick leave prior to taking FMLA leave time.
165. However, On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute addition to the
agenda halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the acceptance of
Plaintiffs Resignation.
166. At no time did Plaintiff tender resignation for the Board to accept.
167. Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment knowing she
would soon be taking FMLA leave.
33
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages

in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and
economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other
emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including damage to
professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational administrator,
punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, violation of FMLA and retaliatory
discharge, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT
169. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
170. Plaintiff has exercised her right by filing the initial Complaint in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania to redress her grievances she has encountered.
171. After filing her initial Complaint, the STSD attempted to incorrectly
characterize her lawsuit as a resignation and/or a breach of her contract.
34
172. Therefore, the STSD has violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to
Petition the Government by retaliating against her and terminating her employment.
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, violation of FMLA and retaliatory
discharge, Violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Petition the
Government, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT X
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 20 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION
174. Article 1 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, the citizens
have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good,
and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of
grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance.
35
175. Plaintiff has exercised her right by filing the initial Complaint in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania to redress her grievances she has encountered.
176. After filing her initial Complaint, the STSD attempted to incorrectly
characterize her lawsuit as a resignation and/or a breach of her contract.
177. Therefore, the STSD has violated Article 1 20 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution to Petition the Government by retaliating against her and terminating
her employment.
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may
be just, necessary, and proper.
COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.
2000e, et seq. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
36
179. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides:
it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individuals race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for
employment in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because
of such individuals race, color, sex, or national origin.
180. A plaintiff must show that (1) (s)he is a member of a protected class;
(2) he was qualified for the position (s)he held or sought; (3) (s)he suffered an
adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated persons who are not members
of the protected class were treated more favorably, or that the circumstances of
termination give rise to an inference of discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.,
198 F.3d 403, 410-11 (3d Cir. 1999).
181. STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection system (the
rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.
182. The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign points to job
applicants.
183. The rubric awards points for factors such as certifications, work
experience, education level, job related skills, interview performance and references.
37
184. Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocated for, even
demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even expressing that
STSD should hire more Black males because the Superintendent is Caucasian.
185. Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted to take job
applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for review.
186. On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applicant resume
and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy concerns,
Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and verbally and
physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented upon realizing
two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.
187. On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted against the hiring
of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that an AfricanAmerican should have been hired for the position instead.
188. On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted against the
hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the applicant.
189. Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the Board at a
subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observing the man
to be African-American and yelled at Plaintiff I should know [the applicants race]
ahead of time.
38
190. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs termination occurred

due to Plaintiffs refusal to supplant the merit based hiring system with a system
reflecting racial preference, as demanded by Defendant Rawls and others.
191. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs termination occurred
also due to the desire of the Board, and Defendant Rawls specifically and
individually, to replace Plaintiff with an African-American superintendent.
192. Subsequent to STSDs wrongful termination of Plaintiff on April 21,
2014, the Board subsequently hired Dr. Jeffrey Miller, a Caucasian male, as
Plaintiffs immediate successor in the role of Superintendent.
193. Following the resignation of Dr. Miller on December 31, 2014, the
Board hired Richard Daubert, a Caucasian male, as Acting Superintendent.
194. On January 7, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) issued Dr. Kegerise a Right-to-Sue letter. (See Right to Sue Letter, attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit P).
39
COUNT XII
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.
2000e, et seq. SEX DISCRIMINATION
196. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides:
it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer
(3) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin;
(4) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or
applicants for employment in any way which would
deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect his status as an employee, because of such
individuals race, color, sex, or national origin.
197. Defendant Rawls, as a member of the STSD School Board, has
stated to Plaintiff that she would pave the way for an African American male
to be hired as Superintendent.
40
198. Additionally, Defendant Rawls has publicly referred to Plaintiff

as a bitch and that the STSD is run by three white bitches.
199. Subsequent to STSDs wrongful termination of Plaintiff on April 21,
2014, the Board subsequently hired Dr. Jeffrey Miller, a Caucasian male, as Acting
Superintendent of STSD.
200. On January 7, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) issued Dr. Kegerise a Right-to-Sue letter. (See Right to Sue Letter, attached
hereto and marked as Exhibit P).
41
Respectfully Submitted,
ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP
Date: February 12, 2015
__/s/________________
Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire
Attorney ID #80411
2 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-0900
JPK@abomkutulakis.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
42
Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of

No.3 907
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
COMMUNITY
TITLE:
SCHOOL VISITORS
ADOPTED:
October 28, 2013
REVISED:
907. SCHOOL VISITORS

1. Authority
SC 510
The Board welcomes and encourages interest in district educational programs and
other school-related activities. The Board recognizes that such interest may result in
visits to school by parents/guardians, adult residents, educators and other officials.
To ensure order in the schools and to protect students and employees, it is necessary
for the Board to establish policy governing school visits.
2. Delegation of
Responsibility
The Superintendent or designee and building principal have the authority to prohibit
the entry of any individual to a district school, in accordance with Board guidelines
and state and federal law and regulations.
The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative regulations to
implement this policy and control access to school buildings and school classrooms.
3. Guidelines
Persons wishing to visit a school should make arrangements in advance with the
school office in that building.
Upon arrival at the school, all visitors must report to the school office and register
their presence in the building.
A visitors badge will be issued to guests to be worn throughout the visit. Prior to
leaving the building, the visitor should return to the office and indicate his/her
departure.
Notice of this requirement shall be posted on entrances to the building.
All staff members shall be responsible for requiring a visitor demonstrate that s/he
has registered at the school office and received authorization to be present for the
purpose of conducting business.
No visitor may confer with a student in school without the approval of the principal.
Should an emergency require that a student be called to the school office to meet a
visitor, the principal or designee shall be present during the meeting.
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 3
907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 2
Failure to comply with this policy shall result in more limited access to the school as
determined by the building principal, consistent with Board policies, administrative
regulations, school rules and federal and state law and regulations.
A person who enters or remains on school property without authorization may be
charged with trespassing.
Pol. 709
All schools shall be monitored by video surveillance equipment for the purpose of
maintaining security.
Classroom Visitations
SC 510
Title 22
Sec. 14.108
Parents/Guardians may request to visit their childs classroom, but the request must
be made prior to the visit, in accordance with established administrative regulations.
The building principal or program supervisor must grant prior approval for the visit,
and shall notify the classroom teacher prior to the visit.
Parents/Guardians shall be limited to one (1) class period per month, per child in the
school for classroom visitations, in order to minimize disruption of the classroom
schedule and the educational program. Parental participation in classroom activities
or programs such as room parents, back-to-school events, and chaperones for field
trips shall not constitute a classroom visit for purposes of this policy.
The building principal or program supervisor and classroom teacher have the
authority to ask a visitor to leave if the visitor disrupts the classroom routine,
educational program or daily schedule, or if a visitor violates Board policy. Failure
to leave when asked or repeated, documented disruptions may result in loss of
classroom visitation privileges.
Under exceptional circumstances and upon request of the building principal,
program supervisor, classroom teacher or parent/guardian, the Superintendent or
designee may authorize additional or longer classroom visits by a parent/guardian.
Military Personnel
24 P.S.
Sec. 2402
Pol. 250
Members of the active and retired Armed Forces, including the National Guard and
Reserves, shall be permitted to:
1. Visit and meet with district employees and students when such visit is in
compliance with Board policy and district procedures.
2. Wear official military uniforms while on district property.
Page 2 of 3
907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 3
Pol. 002
School Board Members And Other Officials

1. Persons wishing to visit a school shall make arrangements in advance with the
Superintendent.
2. The Superintendent or designee shall be notified of the building and the purpose
of the visit.
3. The Superintendent or designee shall accompany the visitor to the building on
the agreed upon day and time.
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 510
State Board of Education Regulations 22 PA Code Sec. 14.108
Military Visitors 24 P.S. Sec. 2402
Board Policy 000, 002, 250, 709
Page 3 of 3
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
11of
of129
29
of 29

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and
MARK Y. SUSSMAN
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP
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
NO.
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 (Board),
the SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT (STSD), and DR.
SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin
Defendants from violating Plaintiffs Constitutional rights and to nullify an
Employment Contract (Contract) between the Board and Dr. Kegerise. Plaintiffs
contend that the terms, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
Contract violates their rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
22of
of229
29
of 29
Constitution, and also violates federal and state law and in support thereof, aver the
following:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiffs file this action because Defendants Board and Dr.
Kegerise have entered into an employment contract (Contract) and that its terms,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement violate Plaintiffs rights under the
Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
violates the Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101 (Act). A
true and correct copy of the Contract is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
2.
The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and
enforcement, violates:
a.
Plaintiffs rights to free speech under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution;

b.
Plaintiffs rights to perform their constitutional and
statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and laws of

the United States and Pennsylvania.
3.
Express terms of the Contract violate the plain language of the
Act and the Contract expressly cedes to Dr. Kegerise powers, duties, and
responsibilities conferred upon the Board under state law, in violation of the Act,
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, and the Delegation Doctrine.
2
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
33of
of329
29
of 29
4.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to nullify and declare invalid the
Contract, permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Contract, uphold

Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution and enjoin Defendants from
committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory
rights.
THE PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the Board,
resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to

STSD.
6.
Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,
resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD,

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.
7.
Defendant Board is comprised of nine members elected by the
voters of Susquehanna Township.

8.
Defendant STSD is the public school system for Susquehanna
Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

9.
Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as
superintendent of STSD. Dr. Kegerise is being sued in her official and individual
capacities.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
44of
of429
29
of 29
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which conveys
subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
11.
Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a).

12.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

13.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)
because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
THE FACTS
14.
The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant
superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act.
15.
On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new
Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half
years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
4
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
55of
of529
29
of 29
16.
Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all
power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested
in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of
this AGREEMENT. (Emphasis added.)
17.
Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: Criticisms, complaints,
and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the
District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of
School Directors as appropriate.
18.
It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of
Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful
direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers,
residents, and taxpayers.
19.
At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been
employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf
and with her knowledge and approval.
20.
It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013
and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled
monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings
Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.
5
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
66of
of629
29
of 29
21.
At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the
front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and
always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.
22.
Although public meetings of the School Board are normally
held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board
meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High
School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those
related to this litigation.
23.
The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of
STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the
front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out
for intimidation.
24.
It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended
board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and
did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
25.
Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent
correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence
the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.
6
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
77of
of729
29
of 29
26.
At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff
Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.
Kegerise by STSD.
27.
In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to
look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

28.
In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting
on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal
attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any
special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and
demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February
22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
29.
Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this correspondence
as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both
privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr.
Rawls.
30.
Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.
Kegerise, and STSD Solicitor Paul Blunt, and informed them that in response to an
inquiry from a reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the
board was taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations,
7
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
88of
of829
29
of 29
Ferguson stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would

implore you to do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment.
31.
Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you
choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.

32.
On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.
Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this
correct?
33.
Several additional emails followed, including one where
Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township

High School athletic director.
34.
In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the
school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails
violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually
interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr.
Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
35.
In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with
and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and
with her knowledge and approval.
8
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
99of
of929
29
of 29
36.
Discovery will show whether other Board members or other
individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.
37.
In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and
claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in
private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is
appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
38.
Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify
the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

39.
Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by
midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following
Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortuously [sic] interfering with
Dr. Kegerises Contract.
40.
In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis
repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true
May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.
9
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
10
10of
10
of29
29
of 29
and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2
41.
In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written
correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately
retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on
the written correspondence.
42.
Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr. Kegerise
with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as
the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by
midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.
43.
In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote
Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his
personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly
with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be
provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material
breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.
It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email
when it clearly was written after.
10
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
11
11of
11
of29
29
of 29
Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.
44.
On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the
same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made
public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted
that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,
specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must
cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to
Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit G.
45.
Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to
threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents,

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls,
Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him.
46.
Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about
Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not
use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students,
teachers, taxpayers, and residents.
47.
As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the
relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
11
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
12
12of
12
of29
29
of 29
48.
In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a
community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to

STSD.
49.
In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized
the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contractual
prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the first
instance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents may
make sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized
to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations roles.
It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt.
See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.
50.
The community survey was never undertaken.
51.
It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show
additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the
recipients constitutional and statutory rights.
52.
Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance
where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with Board
business or Board members activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of
the Board.
12
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
13
13of
13
of29
29
of 29
53.
At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt
explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would
be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their
elected positions.
54.
Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members
they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or
speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.
55.
In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to
Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact that
Sues attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are wellfounded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity to
liability the law provides when they are acting within their role
as Board members. When they are acting as individuals and
not as members of the Board, they are subject to the same risk
of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues in
determining whether a Board member is acting as a Board
member is whether their actions are in accordance with the
advice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only
protect individual Board members if and when their actions are
authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing to
disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . .
Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or the
District unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain
board members] on behalf of the District and Board.
56.
In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to
Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:
13
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
14
14of
14
of29
29
of 29
It has come to my attention that some of you attended a

community meeting sponsored and organized by Peter
Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-register
effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attend
any meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is illadvised to attend such meetings precisely because it engenders
the appearance and invites the assumption that you are
representing the Board and District.
57.
If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to
communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address -schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board
members.
58.
The official STSD website explains that [w]hen using this
email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the
message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration
may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding
to the School Board.
59.
Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has
the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors

or even if an email will be disseminated.
60.
Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emails
sent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to
send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account
information or passwords necessary to access the official account.
14
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
15
15of
15
of29
29
of 29
61.
Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other
Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send
emails from it.
62.
On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident
Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,
sent an email to schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org to ask a question related to a
criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs
handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant
principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled student (the
Sharkey Matter). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener emails
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 Board
64.
On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or
members.
even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two
Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark
Sussman.
65.
Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one
week prior had not been disseminated to the Board.

15
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
16
16of
16
of29
29
of 29
66.
At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any
member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.
67.
Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not
allowed to discuss the substance of the email.

68.
Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to
threatening letters he had received from the Superintendents personal attorney,

Kutulakis, as well as legal guidance from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.
69.
Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldnt
discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wieners

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation
as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors.
70.
Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have
Wieners email disseminated to the Board.

71.
Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wieners email,
which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.
72.
Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute
Wieners email to the Board.

73.
On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at
schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org, stating in part I was informed that the e-mail had

16
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
17
17of
17
of29
29
of 29
not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it] has been as
of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H appended
hereto.
74.
Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise
that she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent
the second email.
75.
On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or
acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise
and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or
any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I
believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a
response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?] (Emphasis
added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
76.
Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt replied to
Wiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding

information.
77.
In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: Contrary to reports by
the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires;
and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of
17
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
18
18of
18
of29
29
of 29
any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim.
(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
78.
Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had
previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to
District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.
79.
At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this
Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wieners

emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails were ever
disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were addressed to
the Board and sent to the official Board email address.
80.
Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch
supporter of the superintendent and her administration.

81.
Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as
adversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

82.
Board members who are perceived as favorable to the
Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those
Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.
18
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
19
19of
19
of29
29
of 29
83.
It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce
numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise.
84.
The Contract was approved by a 6-3 vote of the School Board.
85.
Plaintiffs first received a copy of the Contract at an executive
session of the board immediately prior to the public meeting where it was adopted.
86.
Plaintiffs had approximately 37 minutes to review the proposed
Contract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted on.
87.
Plaintiffs voted against entering into the proposed Contract, as
did Board member John Dietrich.

88.
Plaintiffs do not know which other Board members may have
received the proposed Contract before Plaintiffs did.

89.
Although Kutulakis handled Contract negotiations on behalf of
Dr. Kegerise, Blunt was quoted in local media defining his own role as limited to
reviewing the draft document to insure that it had the changes mandated by the
new law.
90.
In an email to the Board dated March 20, 2013, Blunt stated
that to date, my involvement has been limited to reviewing one draft contract
presented to me by Mike Ferguson prior to his presentation of it to Sue and
[Kutulakis].
19
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
20
20of
20
of29
29
of 29
91.
Notwithstanding Blunts review of the draft document, the
Contract contains numerous provisions that conflict with the express language of
the Act.
92.
Section 5-508 of the Act states in part:

The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the
board of school directors in every school district, duly recorded,
showing how each member voted, shall be required in order to
take action on the following subjects: . . . Appointing or
dismissing district superintendents, assistant district
superintendents, associate superintendents, principals, and
teachers.
24 P.S. 5-508. (Emphasis added.)

93.
Section 10-1080(a) of the Act states: District superintendents
and assistant district superintendents may be removed from office and have their
contracts terminated, after hearing, by a majority vote of the board of school
directors of the district, for neglect of duty, incompetency, intemperance, or
immorality 24 P.S. 10-1080.
94.
Section 8.00(a) of the Contract states [r]emoval shall only be
proper after a hearing followed by a two thirds (6 members of a 9 member board)

vote of the Board of School Directors for removal. (Emphasis added.)
95.
Section 5-514 of the Act states:

The board of school directors in any school district, except as
herein otherwise provided, shall after due notice, giving the
reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right
at any time to remove any of its officers, employes, or
20
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
21
21of
21
of29
29
of 29
appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty,

violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or
other improper conduct.
24 P.S. 5-514.
96.
Section 8.00(b)(1) of the Contract states:

The only valid causes for termination of a contract
heretofore or hereafter entered into with a professional
employee shall be immorality, incompetency, intemperance,
cruelty, persistent negligence, mental derangement,
advocation of or participating in un-American or subversive
doctrines, persistent and willful violation of the school laws
of this Commonwealth on the part of the professional
employee[.] (Emphasis added.)
97.
The language contained in Section 8.00(b)(1) expressly
references 11-1122 of the Act as grounds for termination, even though 11-1122
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 board of school
directors shall post the mutually agreed to objective performance standards

contained in the contract on the school district's publicly accessible Internet
website. 24 P.S. 10-1073.1(b.1).
100. Plaintiffs have requested that the objective performance
standards be posted on the official STSD website; however, as of the date of this
21
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
22
22of
22
of29
29
of 29
filing Dr. Kegerise, who controls what information is posted on the website, has
refused to comply.
101. Section 10-1073.1(b) of the Act states: The board of school
directors shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the district
superintendent and assistant district superintendent annually. A time frame for the
assessment shall be included in the contract. 24 P.S. 10-1073.1.
102. Section 7.01 of the Contract calls for an annual performance
assessment of the Superintendent, however the only rating categories allowed
under the Contract are exemplary, good and satisfactory.
103. An exemplary rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 5% stipend, a
good rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 3% stipend and a satisfactory rating
entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 2% stipend.
104. It is believed and therefore averred that the performance bonus
is classified as a stipend in order to avoid calculating the bonus as income which
would subject the bonus to contributions by Dr. Kegerise and STSD to the
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System.
105. Section 7.01 of the Contract states that in the event no annual
performance review is conducted, Dr. Kegerise is entitled to the 5% bonus for
exemplary performance.
22
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
23
23of
23
of29
29
of 29
106. Since becoming superintendent in 2009, Dr. Kegerise has never

received an annual performance review, notwithstanding the fact that the annual
performance review is mandated by the Act.
107. Section 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) provides that the Contract between a
school district and its superintendent shall [i]ncorporate all provisions relating to
compensation and benefits to be paid to or on behalf of the district superintendent
. . . . 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii).
108. STSD policy provides that a non-resident who attends STSD
shall pay tuition in the amount of $941 monthly for an elementary student.
109. Since 2009, Dr. Kegerises grandchild has been enrolled in
STSD.
110. It is believed and therefore averred that the grandchild does not
and has never resided in the Susquehanna Township School District.
111. It is believed and therefore averred that no one has paid out-ofdistrict tuition for the non-resident grandchild since she began attending STSD in
2009.
112. In October 2013, Dr. Kegerise informed the Board that her
grandchild attended STSD tuition-free based on a verbal authorization from a prior
school board, some of whose members no longer serve on the Board.
23
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
24
24of
24
of29
29
of 29
113. Authorization for Dr. Kegerises grandchild to attend STSD

tuition-free does not appear in Board minutes dating back to 2009.
114. The benefit conferred on Dr. Kegerise to send her grandchild to
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 capacities
115. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
116. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
117. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected
members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.
118. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times
relevant hereto under color of state law.
119. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise
their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD
parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.
24
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
25
25of
25
of29
29
of 29
120. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected
School Board members, including Plaintiffs.
121. In addition to examples provided above, Discovery will show
numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been
interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval.
122. Under authority vested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her
contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional
violations be stopped.
123. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional
violations continue.
124. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions and the
actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individual and
official capacities.
125. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or
inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First
Amendment rights of free speech.
inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and other costs.
25
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
26
26of
26
of29
29
of 29
COUNT II
Declaratory Judgment Action to Declare the Employment Contract Void
as Violative of The Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101
Plaintiffs v. All Defendants
128. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and
enforcement, is the vehicle through which Plaintiffs and others constitutional
rights have been repeatedly violated.
129. As stated more fully above, sections of the Contract violate
express language of the Act as follows:
a.
Section 8.00(a) violates 24 P.S. 5-508 and
10-1080(a); and
b.
Section 8.00 (b)(1) of the Contract violates
24 P.S. 5-514.
130. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and
enforcement violates 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) which requires that the Contract
state the salary conferred upon a superintendent such as Dr. Kegerise.
131. Notwithstanding a Severability Clause included in the
Contract at Section 15.00, the Contract cannot be modified because in addition to
the express terms of the Contract which violate applicable law, the interpretation,
26
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
27
27of
27
of29
29
of 29
implementation and enforcement of the Contracts provisions have been the

vehicle through which Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated.
132. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal terms,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Contract, Plaintiffs have
incurred attorneys fees and other costs.
COUNT III
Punitive Damages
Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity
134. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or should have
known that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in discovery,
constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
135. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, and/or
wantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the public at
large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights generally and
more specifically as follows:
a.
By monitoring correspondence sent to and from
b.
By withholding correspondence sent to the Board;
the Board;
27
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
28
28of
28
of29
29
of 29
c.
By delaying correspondence sent to the Board;
d.
By repeatedly threatening legal action against
several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for

exercising their First Amendment rights;
e.
By acting to intimidate individuals, including but
not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising

their First Amendment rights; and
f.
By punishing or threatening to punish Board
members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.
136. Kegerises continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs
First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious
actions.
137. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive damages be awarded
against Kegerise, in her individual capacity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y.
Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against all Defendants, as
follows:
A.
Declaratory Relief against all Defendants;

28
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
29
29of
29
of29
29
of 29
B.
Nominal Relief against all Defendants;
C.
Compensatory Relief against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Kegerise
in her individual and official capacities;

D.
Punitive damages against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Kegerise in
her individual capacity;

E.
Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and,
F.
Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C.
/s/ Bret Keisling

Bret Keisling, Esquire
Attorney ID #201352
17 S. Second Street, Suite 301
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 303-3446 (Phone)
(717) 801-1786 (fax)
Email: Bret@KeislingLaw.com
Date: November 25, 2013
29
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1 of
1 of
2424

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and
MARK Y. SUSSMAN
Plaintiffs,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
DR. SUSAN KEGERISE,
Defendant
1:13-CV-02867-JEJ
(Judge John E. Jones, III.)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN
(collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against DR. SUSAN
KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin Defendant
from violating Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitutional rights, and in support thereof, aver the following:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiffs file this action because Defendant has systematically
violated their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2.
Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to free speech under
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2 of
2 of
2424
3.
Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to perform their
constitutional and statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and
laws of the United States and Pennsylvania.
4.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to uphold Plaintiffs rights under the
United States Constitution and enjoin Defendant from committing acts or

omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights.
THE PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the
Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors (Board), resides in and is

registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to the Susquehanna
Township School District (STSD).
6.
Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,
resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD,

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.
7.
Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as
superintendent of STSD.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which conveys
subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
2
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
3 of
3 of
2424
9.
Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a).

10.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)
because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
THE FACTS
11.
The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant
superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act.
12.
On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new
Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half
years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
13.
Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all
power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested
in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of
this AGREEMENT. (Emphasis added.)
14.
Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: Criticisms, complaints,
and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the
3
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
4 of
4 of
2424
District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of

School Directors as appropriate.
15.
It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of
Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful
direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers,
residents, and taxpayers.
16.
At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been
employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf
and with her knowledge and approval.
17.
It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013
and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled
monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings
Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.
18.
At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the
front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and
always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.
19.
Although public meetings of the School Board are normally
held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board
meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
5 of
5 of
2424
School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those

related to this litigation.
20.
The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of
STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the
front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out
for intimidation.
21.
It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended
board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and
did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
22.
Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent
correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence
the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.
23.
At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff
Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.
Kegerise by STSD.
24.
In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to
look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
6 of
6 of
2424
25.
In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting
on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal
attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any
special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and
demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February
22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
26.
Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this correspondence
as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both
privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr.
Rawls.
27.
Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.
Kegerise, and Blunt, and informed them that in response to an inquiry from a
reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the board was
taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations, Ferguson
stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would implore you to
do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment.
28.
Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you
choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
7 of
7 of
2424
29.
On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.
Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this
correct?
30.
Several additional emails followed, including one where
Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township

High School athletic director.
31.
In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the
school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails
violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually
interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr.
Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
32.
In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with
and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and
with her knowledge and approval.
33.
Discovery will show whether other Board members or other
individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
8 of
8 of
2424
34.
In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and
claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in
private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is
appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
35.
Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify
the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

36.
Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by
midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following
Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortiously interfering with Dr.
Kegerises Contract.
37.
In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis
repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true
and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2
May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.
The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.
It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email
when it clearly was written after.
8
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
9 of
9 of
2424
38.
In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written
correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately
retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on
the written correspondence.
39.
Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr. Kegerise
with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as
the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by
midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.
40.
In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote
Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his
personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly
with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be
provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material
breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.
41.
On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the
same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made
public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted
that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,
9
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1010
of of
2424
specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must
cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to
Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit G.
42.
Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to
threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents,

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls,
Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him.
43.
Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about
Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not
use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students,
teachers, taxpayers, and residents.
44.
As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the
relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
45.
In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a
community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to

STSD.
46.
In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized
the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contractual
prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the first
10
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1111
of of
2424
instance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents may

make sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized
to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations roles.
It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt.
See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.
47.
The community survey was never undertaken.
48.
It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show
additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the
recipients constitutional and statutory rights.
49.
Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance
where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with Board
business or Board members activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of
the Board.
50.
At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt
explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would
be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their
elected positions.
51.
Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members
they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or
speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.
11
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1212
of of
2424
52.
In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to
Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact that
Sues attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are wellfounded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity to
liability the law provides when they are acting within their role
as Board members. When they are acting as individuals and
not as members of the Board, they are subject to the same risk
of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues in
determining whether a Board member is acting as a Board
member is whether their actions are in accordance with the
advice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only
protect individual Board members if and when their actions are
authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing to
disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . .
Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or the
District unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain
board members] on behalf of the District and Board.
53.
In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to
Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:

It has come to my attention that some of you attended a
community meeting sponsored and organized by Peter
Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-register
effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attend
any meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is illadvised to attend such meetings precisely because it engenders
the appearance and invites the assumption that you are
representing the Board and District.
54.
If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to
communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address -schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board
members.
12
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1313
of of
2424
55.
The official STSD website explains that [w]hen using this
email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the
message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration
may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding
to the School Board.
56.
Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has
the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors

or even if an email will be disseminated.
57.
Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emails
sent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to
send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account
information or passwords necessary to access the official account.
58.
Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other
Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send
emails from it.
59.
On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident
Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,
sent an email to schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org to ask a question related to a
criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs
handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant
13
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1414
of of
2424
principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled student (the

Sharkey Matter). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener emails
referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit H.
60.
The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School Board
61.
On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or
members.
even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two
Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark
Sussman.
62.
Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one
week prior had not been disseminated to the Board.

63.
At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any
member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.
64.
Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not
allowed to discuss the substance of the email.

65.
Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to
threatening letters he had received from the Superintendents personal attorney,

Kutulakis, as well as legal guidance from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.
14
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1515
of of
2424
66.
Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldnt
discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wieners

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation
as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors.
67.
Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have
Wieners email disseminated to the Board.

68.
Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wieners email,
which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.
69.
Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute
Wieners email to the Board.

70.
On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at
schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org, stating in part I was informed that the e-mail had

not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it] has been as
of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H appended
hereto.
71.
Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise
that she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent
the second email.
15
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1616
of of
2424
72.
On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or
acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise
and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or
any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I
believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a
response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?]
73.
Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt replied to
Wiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding

information.
74.
In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: Contrary to reports by
the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires;
and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of
any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim.
75.
Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had
previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to
District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.
76.
At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this
Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wieners

16
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1717
of of
2424
emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails were ever
disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were addressed to
the Board and sent to the official Board email address.
77.
Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch
supporter of the superintendent and her administration.

78.
Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as
adversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

79.
Board members who are perceived as favorable to the
Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those
Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.
80.
In correspondence dated December 17, 2013, Kutulakis wrote
undersigned counsel, complaining that Plaintiff Rawls had placed a telephone call
to Kegerise, and that Kegerise would not accept any further calls from Rawls,
notwithstanding that a school district superintendent works for the school board. A
true and correct copy of the December 17, 2013 correspondence is incorporated
herein and appended hereto as Exhibit I.
81.
Notwithstanding the assertion in the December 17, 2013
correspondence, Rawls had not placed any call to Kegerise for at least 6 weeks
prior to the correspondence.
17
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1818
of of
2424
82.
Oddly, the December 17, 2013 asserted without citation to
supporting authority that the contents of the letter may not be used in litigation
except to enforce the directive contained herein. See Exhibit I.
83.
On January 10, 2014, Kegerise filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas for Dauphin County against Plaintiffs Rawls and Sussman
requesting emergency injunctive relief.
84.
On January 15, 2014, Plaintiffs removed that lawsuit to federal
court (docketed in this Honorable Court at 1:14-CV-00067-JEJ).

85.
In the state court complaint, Kegerise alleged:

Sussman attempted to make service of the Complaint [filed in
the instant matter] on an assistant district solicitor during a
recess of the December 17, 2013 meeting of the School Board.
Sussman dropped the papers on the floor of the men's restroom
while the assistant solicitor was making use of the facilities and
requested the papers be picked up.
A true and correct copy of the Complaint seeking injunctive relief is incorporated
herein and appended hereto as Exhibit J.
86.
On January 16, 2014, undersigned counsel spoke in person with
Brian Taylor, Esq., the assistant district solicitor referenced above.

87.
When asked about the averment that Sussman dropped papers
on the floor and told Taylor to pick them up, Taylor told undersigned counsel I
told Jason twice that it never happened, I dont know why he put that in the
complaint.
18
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1919
of of
2424
88.
It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis knowingly
included false information in that complaint in dereliction of his professional

responsibilities and rules of court.
89.
Kegerise signed a verification of the state court complaint
verifying that the statements contained therein were true and correct subject to the
penalties for unsworn falsification.
90.
It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce
numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise.
COUNT I
Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. 1983;
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
91.
The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by

92.
Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

93.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected
members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

94.
As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times
relevant hereto under color of state law.
19
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2020
of of
2424
95.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise
their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD
parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.
96.
At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,
teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected
School Board members, including Plaintiffs.
97.
In addition to examples provided above, discovery will show
numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been

interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval.
98.
Under authority invested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her
contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional
violations be stopped.
99.
Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional
violations continue.
100. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions and the
actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individual and
official capacities.
inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First
Amendment rights of free speech.
20
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2121
of of
2424

inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and other costs.
COUNT II
Punitive Damages
Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity
104. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or should have
known that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in discovery,
constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
105. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, and/or
wantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the public at
large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights generally and
more specifically as follows:
a.
By monitoring correspondence sent to and from
b.
By withholding correspondence sent to the Board;
c.
By delaying correspondence sent to the Board;
the Board;
21
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2222
of of
2424
d.
By repeatedly threatening legal action against
several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for

exercising their First Amendment rights;
e.
By acting to intimidate individuals, including but
not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising

their First Amendment rights; and
f.
By punishing or threatening to punish Board
members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.
106. Kegerises continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs
First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious
actions.
107. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive be awarded against
Kegerise, in her individual capacity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y.
Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against Defendant Kegerise,
as follows:
A.
Declaratory Relief against the Defendant;
B.
Nominal Relief against the Defendant;

22
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2323
of of
2424
C.
Compensatory Relief against the Defendant;
D.
Punitive damages against the Defendant;
E.
Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and,
F.
Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C.
/s/ Bret Keisling

Bret Keisling, Esquire
Attorney ID #201352
17 S. Second Street, Suite 301
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 303-3446 (Phone)
(717) 801-1786 (fax)
Email: Bret@KeislingLaw.com
Date: January 21, 2014
23
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2424
of of
2424
Certificate of Service
I, Bret Keisling, Esq. certify that on January 21, 2014, the foregoing
Amended Complaint was served on the following parties by electronic means at
the addresses listed below:
jef@kingspry.com
jpk@abomkutulakis.com
cek@abomkutulakis.com
_______________/s/_________________
Bret Keisling, Esq.
SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109
POLICY
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
District residents, taxpayers and community groups have the right to present a request,
suggestion or complaint concerning District personnel, the program or the operations of
the District. At the same time, the Board has a duty to protect its staff from
harassment. It is the intent of this policy to provide a fair and impartial manner for
seeking appropriate remedies.
Any misunderstandings between the public and the School District shall be resolved by
direct discussions of an informal type among the interested parties. It is only when such
informal meetings fail to resolve the differences that more formal procedures will be
employed.
Any requests, suggestions or complaints reaching Board members and the Board shall
be referred to the Superintendent for consideration and action. In the event that further
action is warranted, based on the initial investigation, such action shall be in accordance
with the following procedures.
A.
Matters Regarding a Teaching Staff Member
First Level A matter specifically directed toward a teaching staff member shall be
addressed initially to the concerned staff member who may discuss it with the
complainant and make every effort to provide a reasoned explanation or take
appropriate action within his/her authority. As appropriate, the staff member shall
report the matter and whatever action may have been taken to the Building Principal.
Second Level If the matter cannot be satisfactorily resolved at the First Level, it shall
be discussed by the complainant with the Building Principal.
Third Level If a satisfactory solution is not achieved by discussion with the Building
Principal, the Principal shall attempt to schedule a conference with the appropriate
Assistant Superintendent or Assistant to the Superintendent. The Principal will
furnish to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent or Assistant to the
Superintendent a report which will include:
1.
The specific nature of the complaint and a brief statement of the facts giving rise
to it;
2.
The respect in which it is alleged that the complainant (or child of the
complainant) has been affected adversely; and
3.
The action which the complainant wishes taken and the reasons why it is felt that
such action should be taken.
Fourth Level If the matter is not resolved by the Assistant Superintendent or

Assistant to the Superintendent, it shall be referred to the Superintendent. If it is
beyond the Superintendents authority and requires Board action, the
Superintendent shall furnish the Board with a complete report.
The Board, after reviewing all material relating to the case, shall:
1.
Provide the complainant with its written decision; or
2.
Grant a hearing before the Board or a committee of the Board.
The complainant shall be advised, in writing, of the Boards decision, no more than
ten (10) days following the hearing.
B.
Matters Regarding an Administrative Staff Member
In the case of a complaint directed toward an administrative staff member, the

general procedure specified in Part A shall be followed.
The complaint shall be discussed initially with the person toward whom it is directed
and, if a satisfactory resolution is not achieved at this level, the matter shall be
brought as required to higher levels in accordance with the Organizational Chart of
the District, terminating with the Board.
C.
Matters Regarding a Classified Staff Member
In the case of a complaint directed toward a non-instructional staff member, the

same procedure is to be followed as in Part A; except the Second Level discussion
shall be with the Building Principal or the head of the non-professional department in
which the staff member is employed.
D.
Matters Regarding a Program, Operational Materials or Instruction
A request, suggestion or complaint relating to a matter of District or school policy,

procedure, program, operation or instructional materials should be addressed initially
to the Building Principal or the head of the non-professional department who is
mostly directed concerned and then referred to higher levels of authority in the
manner prescribed in Part A.
E.
Matters Regarding Student Progress and Well-Being
The general procedures specified in Part A shall be followed for complaints relating
to student progress and well-being.
Approved by the School Board October 23, 1967

Amended by the School Board June 8, 1987
Amended by the School Board November 23, 1998
Amended by the School Board May 19, 2008
Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-12 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1No.

of 4 304
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
EMPLOYEES
TITLE:
EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT
STAFF
ADOPTED:
July 22, 2013
REVISED:
304. EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT STAFF

1. Authority
SC 406, 508,
1089, 1106,
1107, 11421152
Title 22
Sec. 4.4
Pol. 328
The Board places substantial responsibility for the effective management and
operation of district schools and the quality of the educational program with its
administrative, professional and support employees.
The Board shall, by a majority vote of all members, approve the employment; set the
compensation; and establish the term of employment for each administrative,
professional and support employee employed by the district.
Approval shall normally be given to the candidates for employment recommended

by the Superintendent.
SC 1111
No teacher shall be employed who is related to any member of the Board, as defined
in law, unless such teacher receives the affirmative vote of a majority of all members
of the Board other than the member related to the applicant, who shall not vote.
The Board authorizes the use of professional and support employees prior to Board
approval when necessary to maintain continuity of the educational program and
services. Retroactive employment shall be recommended to the Board at the next
regular Board meeting.
An employee's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or
determination of salary shall constitute grounds for dismissal by the Board.
SC 1109, 1201
Title 22
Sec. 49.1 et seq
A candidate for employment in the district shall not receive a recommendation for
employment without evidence of his/her certification when such certification is
required.
Page 1 of 4
304. EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT STAFF - Pg. 2
SC 111
Title 22
Sec. 8.1 et seq
23 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 6301 et seq
A candidate shall not be employed until s/he has complied with the mandatory
background check requirements for criminal history and child abuse and the district
has evaluated the results of that screening process.
SC 111
Each candidate shall report, on the designated form, arrests and convictions as
required by law. Failure to accurately report such arrests and convictions may,
depending on the nature of the offense, subject the individual to criminal
prosecution.
SC 1204.1
The district shall use the Standard Application for Teaching Positions but may also
establish and implement additional application requirements for professional
employees.
2. Delegation of
Responsibility
Pol. 104
The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative regulations for

employment of staff, in accordance with Board policy and state and federal laws and
regulations.
Staff vacancies that represent opportunities for professional advancement or
diversification shall be made known to district employees so they may apply for
such positions.
42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12112
The Superintendent or designee may apply necessary screening procedures to

determine a candidate's ability to perform the job functions of the position for which
a candidate is being considered.
The Superintendent or designee shall seek recommendations from former employers
and others in assessing the candidate's qualifications. Recommendations and
references shall be retained confidentially and for official use only.
SC 1109, 1201
Title 22
Sec. 49.1 et seq
Each certificated administrative and professional employee employed by the district

shall be responsible for maintaining a valid certificate when such certificate is
required by law.
Title I Requirements
Title 22
Sec. 403.2, 403.4
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319, 7801
All elementary, middle and secondary teachers employed by the district who teach
core academic subjects shall be highly qualified, as defined by federal law and state
regulations.
Page 2 of 4
Title 22
Sec. 403.4, 403.5
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319, 7801
The principal of a school providing Title I programs to students shall annually attest
that professional staff teaching in such programs are highly qualified and
paraprofessionals providing instructional support in such programs meet required
qualification, in accordance with federal law and state regulations. The written
certifications shall be maintained in the district office and the school office and shall
be available to the public, upon request.
Title 22
Sec. 403.2, 403.5
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319
All paraprofessionals providing instructional support in a program supported by

Title I funds shall have a secondary school diploma or a recognized equivalent and
one (1) of the following:
1. At least two (2) years of study at an institution of higher learning.
2. Associates or higher degree.
3. Evidence of meeting a rigorous standard of quality through a state or local
assessment.
Title I paraprofessionals who solely coordinate parental involvement activities or act
as translators are exempt from the above qualifications.
Special Education Paraprofessionals
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
Pol. 113
All instructional paraprofessionals hired on or after July 1, 2010, who work under
the direction of a certificated staff member to support and assist in providing
instructional programs and services to students with disabilities or eligible students
shall have a secondary school diploma and one (1) of the following:
1. At least two (2) years of postsecondary study.
2. Associates or higher degree.
3. Evidence of meeting a rigorous standard of quality through a state or local
assessment.
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
Instructional paraprofessionals shall provide evidence of twenty (20) hours of staff

development activities related to their assignment each school year.
Personal Care Assistants
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
A personal care assistant provides one-to-one support and assistance to a student,

including support and assistance in the use of medical equipment.
Page 3 of 4
Personal care assistants shall provide evidence of twenty (20) hours of staff
development activities related to their assignment each school year. The twenty (20)
hours of training may include training required by the school-based access program.
Educational Interpreters
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
An educational interpreter is an individual who provides students who are deaf or

hard of hearing with interpreting or transliterating services in an educational setting.
To serve as an educational interpreter, an individual shall meet the qualifications set
forth in law and regulations.
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 108, 111, 406, 508, 1089, 1106, 1107, 1109, 1109.2,
1111, 1142-1152, 1201, 1204.1
State Board of Education Regulations 22 PA Code Sec. 4.4, 8.1 et seq., 14.105,
49.1 et seq., 403.2, 403.4, 403.5
Criminal History Record Information Act 18 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 9125
Child Protective Services Law 23 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 6301 et seq.
No Child Left Behind Act 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6319, 7801
Americans With Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.
Board Policy 000, 104, 113, 328
Page 4 of 4
Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39-13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1No.

of 3 903
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
COMMUNITY
TITLE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
BOARD MEETINGS
ADOPTED:
REVISED:
903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS

1. Purpose
The Board recognizes the value to school governance of public comment on

educational issues and the importance of involving members of the public in
Board meetings. The Board also recognizes its responsibility for proper
governance of the district and the need to conduct its business in an orderly and
efficient manner.
2. Authority
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710
The Board shall adopt policy to govern public participation in Board meetings
necessary to conduct its meeting and to maintain order.
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710.1
In order to permit fair and orderly expression of public comment, the Board shall
provide an opportunity at each open meeting of the Board for residents and
taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation before
the Board prior to official action by the Board.
The Board shall allow public comment on agenda items or other matters of
concern at the beginning of each meeting. Before taking official action on a
matter which is not on the agenda, an opportunity shall be provided for public
comment on that matter. Attendees at the Board meeting shall be requested to
sign in prior to the public meeting and may indicate their request to address the
Board on the sign-in sheet.
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710.1
3. Delegation of
Responsibility
SC 407
Pol. 006
If the Board determines there is not sufficient time at a meeting for public
comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular meeting or to a
special meeting occurring before the next regular meeting.
The presiding officer at each public Board meeting shall follow Board policy for
the conduct of public meetings. Where his/her ruling is disputed, it may be
overruled by a majority of those Board members present and voting.
Page 1 of 3
903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS - Pg. 2
Pol. 906
4. Guidelines
Complaints about individual students or staff members, or criticism or remarks

about problems involving such individuals, must first be brought to the
attention of the Superintendent or other appropriate staff member in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Board policy on public
complaints. First-time discussion of such matters is not permitted during the
public comment period. This is necessary to allow the administration an
opportunity to investigate, verify the facts and resolve such matters in a way
that safeguards confidential information and the privacy of those concerned. If
the required administrative complaint procedures have been exhausted without
resolving the problem, the Board may allow comment at an appropriate Board
meeting, in accordance with Board policy.
Whenever issues identified by the participant are subject to remediation under
policies and procedures of the Board, they shall be dealt with in accordance with
those policies and procedures and the organizational structure of the district.
The Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this
district or any representative of a firm eligible to bid on materials or services
solicited by the Board.
Participants must be recognized by the presiding officer and must preface their
comments by an announcement of their name, address, and group affiliation if
applicable.
Each statement made by a participant during the public comment period shall
be limited to three (3) minutes duration, unless otherwise approved by the
presiding officer.
No participant may speak more than once on the same topic, unless all others
who wish to speak on that topic have been heard, and only with permission
from the presiding officer.
All statements shall be directed to the presiding officer; no participant may
address or question Board members individually.
The presiding officer shall be responsible for maintaining proper decorum and
adhering to established time limits. Questions of fact asked by the public may,
when appropriate, be answered by the Superintendent or other administrator.
Questions requiring investigation shall be referred to the appropriate
administrator for later reporting to the Board.
Page 2 of 3
903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS - Pg. 3
The presiding officer may:

1. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too
lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant.
2. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not
observe reasonable decorum.
3. Request the assistance of law enforcement officers to remove a disorderly
person when his/her conduct interferes with the orderly progress of the
meeting.
4. Call a recess or adjourn to another time when the lack of public decorum
interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Electronic recording devices and cameras, in addition to those used as official
recording devices, shall be permitted at public meetings under guidelines established
by the Board.
No placards or banners will be permitted within the meeting room.
The meeting agenda and all pertinent documents shall be available to the press and
public at the meetings and posted on the district web site two (2) days prior to a
regularly scheduled Board meeting.
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 407
Sunshine Act 65 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 701 et seq.
Board Policy 006, 906
Page 3 of 3

Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kegerise vs. STSD Third Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff is the duly appointed Superintendent of Susquehanna

During Plaintiffs term as Superintendent, she has been subjected to

physical intimidation, verbal abuse, sabotage of district image and administration

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 42

performance, discrimination on the basis of race and sex, and micromanagement by

As a result, Plaintiff brings the instant action seeking an award of

Plaintiff, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, is an adult individual and citizen of

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 10 Meadowood Drive,

Defendant, Susquehanna Township School District (hereinafter

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 42

Defendant, Carol L. Karl, is an adult individual residing within STSD

Defendant, Jesse Rawls Sr., is an adult individual residing within STSD

Defendant, Mark Y. Sussman is an adult individual residing within

through the Board.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

Venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is proper pursuant to 28

Dr. Kegerise holds an Ed.D. in Education Administration from Widener

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 42

Dr. Kegerise served as a Principal in Central Dauphin School District

from 1995 until 2006.

In 2004, Dr. Kegerise was named Principal of the Year by the

Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals.

This accolade was honored by resolution of the Pennsylvania Senate,

House of Representatives and the Dauphin County Commissioners.

While employed by the Central Dauphin School District, Dr. Kegerise

Dr. Kegerise was Assistant Superintendent of STSD from 2006 until

Dr. Kegerise was promoted to Superintendent by the Board of School

Directors by contract to begin on January 6, 2010 and conclude on January 6, 2013.

Dr. Kegerise is at least 40 years of age.

Dr. Kegerise is qualified for the position of Superintendent of

During her term as Superintendent, Dr. Kegerise has administered the

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 42

In the final year of the initial contract as Superintendent, Defendant

Rawls was President of the Board of School Directors.

The School Code provides that a current superintendents term shall

Defendant Rawls, as Board President from December 2011 until

Defendant Rawls, as Board President, did not provide notice of

Dr. Kegerise is an ex-officio member of the Board by virtue of being

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

On August 20, 2012, the Board met in executive session, whereupon

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 42

On or about September 25, 2012, Defendant Rawls approached STSD

Defendant Rawls also approached a Union official to suggest the Union

file a grievance against STSD regarding a personnel issue.

STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection system (the

rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.

The rubric awards points for factors such as certifications, work

Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocated for, even

At one point, Defendant Rawls told Dr. Kegerise as Superintendent that

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 7 of 42

In the same conversation, Defendant Rawls relayed to Dr. Kegerise that

Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted to take job

On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applicant resume

On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted against the

hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the applicant.

Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the Board at a

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 39 Filed 02/27/15 Page 8 of 42

Defendant Rawls, as a member of the STSD School Board, has

Additionally, Defendant Rawls has publicly referred to Plaintiff

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

On or about December 12, 2012, the Board met in executive session.

In Dr. Kegerises absence, the Board, led by Defendant Rawls, rather