Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8 Andre Perrault, :
9
Plaintiff : Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-0002
10
-vs- : Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro
11
12 Board of Governors :
Marana Unified School District, et. al,
13 :
14 Defendants
15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16
I. INTRODUCTION, PARTIES, JURISDICTION
17
18 1. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff Andre Perrault entered into a Certified
19 Employee Contract with the Defendant Board of Governors, Marana Unified School
20
District [hereafter, the Board]. A copy of that agreement is appended hereto as Exhibit
21
A. Plaintiff was employed as a teacher of foreign language at Marana High School;
22
23 2. On December 8, 2016, Defendant Board voted to non-renew Plaintiffs
24
contract, ending his employment with the District;
25
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Lewandowski, Carlson, Hopkins,
26
27 Lopez and Post were members of the Board [hereafter the Board Defendants], who
28 were authorized to make employment decisions and did, in the instant case, took the
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 11
1 actions and made the decisions at issue. The actions were taken in reckless disregard of
2 Plaintiffs rights under federal law. The Defendants are sued in their collective capacity
3
as the Board and also in their individual capacities;
4
5 4. At all times pertinent here, Defendants Wilson, Dumler and Mandel were
6 employees of the Board acting in capacities of administrators, and their actions taken
7
were done within the scope and course of employment with the Board. The actions were
8
taken in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights under federal law. These Defendants are
9
10 sued in their individual capacities;
11 5. The Court has jurisdiction of this case under federal question jurisdiction,
12
28 U.S.C. 1331;
13
14 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391;
28
2
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 11
1 12. In meetings on September 1st, 12th and 19th, Plaintiff was questioned by
2 Dumler and/or Mandel, and, in one meeting, Officer Litten of the Marana Police
3
Department. Plaintiff denied any improper conduct. At the conclusion of the meeting on
4
5 September 12th, Mandel issued Plaintiff a non-disciplinary suspension;
15 his previous statements, and repeatedly pointed out alleged inconsistencies between his
16
statements in that meeting and the earlier encounters;
17
18 16. At the conclusion of the meeting, Dumler informed Plaintiff of the decision
19 that had previously been made, and demanded that he execute a resignation rather than
20
contest the decision to terminate him;
21
17. Plaintiff declined the inducement to resign and left the meeting;
22
23 18. On or about October 12, 2016, Defendants Wilson, Dumler and Mandel,
24 with the approval of the Board Defendants, prepared a document titled Statement of
25
Charges. The substance of accusations levelled at Plaintiff was that [d]uring most or all
26
27 of the period of time Mr. Perrault has been employed by the District, he has knowingly or
28 recklessly engaged in a pattern of conduct with females who are in high school and/or
3
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 11
1 under 18 years of age that has included engaging in activities of sexual nature.
15 20. Defendants had secured this document after September 19, 2016, but had
16
never notified Plaintiff that they had the document, nor had they questioned Plaintiff about
17
18 the accusations;
28 23. Defendants knew that the accusations against Plaintiff in all particulars were
4
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 11
1 substantially false, but, fearing reaction by some parents in the District if the anonymous
15 28. Defendants knew, at the time they formulated and considered the Statement
16
of Charges, that they were precluded by law from basing any discipline of Plaintiff on
17
18 accusations of criminal acts which are unadjudicated and not admitted, pursuant to Johnson
19 v. Board of Education, 101 Ariz. 268, 270-71 (1966) and Winters v. Arizona Board of
20
Education, 207 Ariz. 173, 178 (Ariz. App. 2004);
21
29. On or about November 14, 2016, pursuant to his rights under A.R.S. 13-
22
23 539, Plaintiff served on the Board a demand for a hearing, and a related motion, pursuant to
24 A.R.S. 13-541, requesting the Board appoint a hearing officer to conduct the hearing on
25
the charges against Plaintiff. A copy of Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Hearing
26
27 Officer is appended hereto as Exhibit B;
28 30. In the Motion, Plaintiff asserted that the Board Defendants had pre-judged
5
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 6 of 11
1 the matter, and that the Boards participation in any hearing would constitute a denial of
6 be unable to establish just cause for termination of Plaintiffs contract if a hearing was held;
7
32. Defendants thereupon determined to rescind the notice of intent to terminate
8
in order to deny Plaintiffs opportunity to clear his name through a hearing;
9
10 33. Defendants further determined to issue a second notice of non-renewal,
11 based upon the allegations of Plaintiffs concealment and lies;
12
34. Defendants then published the alleged, but false, ground for a denial of the
13
14 statutory-mandated hearing that the economics of proceeding with a dismissal hearing
15 did not warrant Plaintiff receiving due process, leaving in the record the documents which
16
led to the Boards previous vote to proceed to terminate Plaintiff on the false charges;
17
18 35. Defendants set a second meeting of the Board for December 8, 2016, to
19 formally adopt the decisions already made. On or around December 8, Defendants received
20
request from a reporter employed by the Arizona Daily Star seeking documents related to
21
the termination and non-renewal proceedings;
22
23 36. On December 8, Defendants Wilson and Dumler met with the Board, and
24 Defendants formally voted to rescind the intent to terminate, and voted to re-issue the non-
25
renewal notice;
26
27 37. On the same date, Defendants provided to the media the documents
28 addressed above, including those generated for the second Board meeting on December 8th;
6
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 7 of 11
1 38. On December 9, 2016, articles were published in the Arizona Daily Star and
2 Tucson.com, in which, among other falsehoods, the charge statement set out in Paragraph
3
18, above, was quoted, thus publicizing Defendants claims that Plaintiff had engaged in a
4
5 pattern of felony sexual contact with minor females;
6 39. As a result, the Defendants charges have been published world-wide on the
7
internet;
8
40. On December 9, 2016, Defendant Wilson issued the notice of non-renewal;
9
10 III. FIRST CLAIM: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS LIBERTY INTEREST
11 41. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 40 as if fully set forth herein;
12
42. This claim is brought pursuant to the Fifth, First and Fourteenth
13
14 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;
15 43. Defendants actions, as set forth above, have violated Plaintiffs liberty
16
interest in that they have (1) precluded him from obtaining employment as a teacher;
17
18 and/or (2) have stigmatized Plaintiff by painting him as a degenerate pedophile, who, in
19 addition, lies and conceals information on matters of the most profound importance;
20
44. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional
21
distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem; has lost income and will continue to lose income
22
23 in the future; has suffered permanent loss of earning capacity, and will continue suffer
24 injuries and losses in the future;
25
IV. SECOND CLAIM: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIAITION
26
27 45. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully set forth herein;
28 46. This claim is brought pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
7
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 8 of 11
6 citizens petition for redress of grievances and implicated matters of public concern
7
including, among others, questions of mismanagement by, and corruption of, public
8
officials;
9
10 48. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for his petition by, among other
11 actions, (1) rescinding the notice of intent to terminate, thus denying Plaintiff the
12
opportunity to clear his name; (2), issuing a non-renewal notification based on false
13
14 charges; (3) not redacting from the public file the charge of a a pattern of felony sexual
15 contact which they knew was unsupportable; and, (4) publicizing false charges that
16
Plaintiff engaged in a pattern of felony sexual contact with minors;
17
18 49. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional
19 distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem; has lost income and will continue to lose income
20
in the future; has suffered permanent loss of earning capacity, and will continue suffer
21
injuries and losses in the future;
22
23 V. THIRD CLAIM: CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS WILSON, DUMLER AND
MANDEL: FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
24
25 50. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein;
26 51. This claim is brought under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
27
Constitution of the United States;
28
8
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 9 of 11
1 52. Plaintiff enjoyed a property interest in his teaching contract, and his liberty
6 evidence;
7
54. Defendants prepared and presented false and misleading evidence to the
8
Board of Governors to secure the Boards non-renewal of Plaintiffs contract, which the
9
10 Board confirmed and published the false and misleading evidence in order to substantiate
11 the action;
12
55. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional
13
14 distress, humiliation, loss of self-esteem; has lost income and will continue to lose income
15 in the future; has suffered permanent loss of earning capacity, and will continue suffer
16
injuries and losses in the future;
17
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment of Defendants, jointly and severally, as
19 follows:
20
1. Awards of compensatory damages, including past and future income loss and
21
loss of earning capacity in such amounts as the jury deems just;
22
23 2. Awards of punitive damages against the individual Defendants in such
24 amounts as the jury deems just;
25
3. An Award of reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
26
27 1988, for a total award of no less than five million dollars;
9
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 10 of 11
6 position as Certificated Educator, with full seniority, pay and benefits from the date of his
7
non-renewal;
8
c. Ordering the Board to place an agenda item on the next meeting date
9
10 after entry of Judgment, at which time the Board will vote, unanimously, to issue an
11 apology to Plaintiff for the actions of the Board and individual Defendants;
12
13 6. Such other equitable relief as the Court deems just;
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
/s/ Michael Garth Moore
17 Michael Garth Moore (023742)
18 9040 North Placita Verde
Tucson, Arizona 85704
19 Telephone: 888-318-0075
20 mike@mgmoorelaw.com
25
26 /s/ Michael Garth Moore
27
28
10
Case 4:17-cv-00002-DTF Document 3 Filed 01/04/17 Page 11 of 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11