Teacher Who Used 'Killer' Language Can't Sue Over School's Response

Charles Toutant
New Jersey Law Journal
April 22, 2009
Post a Comment
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions


A teacher who allegedly said she was under a degree of stress that could kill people has no cause of action against school officials for calling police and sending her for psychiatric evaluation, the New Jersey Supreme Court said Thursday.

In an opinion that strove to balance teachers' rights and students' protection, the court found that Jersey City school officials' actions were justified, noting that school district was party to an agreement between the state attorney general, the Hudson County prosecutor and local police that required an "appropriate and decisive response" to safety threats in schools.

"This matter stands at the intersection between the rights of a school employee who, it is alleged, uttered words that threatened the safety of the children then in her care, and the obligations of the other school employees who claim to have heard those words or who, when advised of them, exercised what they believed was their authority to act to ensure the safety of those students," Justice Helen Hoens wrote in Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education, A-21/22-08.

The appeal sprang from summary judgment rulings below, so the court articulated the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Sopharie Leang, a Cambodian immigrant who taught English as a second language at P.S. 11 in Jersey City, said to another teacher in front of a class of 22 students on June 24, 2002, that her laryngitis that day was brought on by stress. Leang says she said, "my doctor said the amount of stress in my body could have killed some people." But the other teacher, Vladimir Ashworth, says she said, "I'm so stressed out I can kill 22 people."

Ashworth, citing what he described as Leang's odd behavior and unkempt appearance, reported her remarks to the school nurse and the principal. Leang was escorted to the nurse's office under the pretext that the principal wanted to speak to her about extending her contract, which expired at the end of the school year. Leang waited in the office three hours until principal Angela Bruno returned from a graduation ceremony.

When Leang learned she had been taken to the nurse's office based on allegations that she would try to kill 22 people, she became agitated. Bruno then used a walkie-talkie to summon the Jersey City Police Department Emergency Services Unit, stating there was an "emotionally disturbed person" at the school. A clause in the memorandum agreement requires school officials to immediately notify the Jersey City Police Department whenever a school employee believes a student threatens, plans or otherwise intends to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Leang was taken by ambulance to Christ Hospital, where she was found to have high blood pressure and anxiety but no "homicidal ideation." Doctors wanted to keep her for evaluation overnight but she left the hospital after five hours against medical advice. She did not undergo further medical or psychiatric evaluation and received no treatment of any kind, according to the court.

Leang sued the Jersey City Board of Education, Bruno, Ashworth and the school nurse, alleging employment-related claims -- breach of contract, violation of due process, sexual harassment, workplace retaliation and wrongful or constructive discharge -- along with federal constitutional claims and state tort claims of false arrest, assault and battery, defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She later sued the city, the police department, Jersey City Medical Center and the two individual emergency medical technicians who responded.

The claims were consolidated in one suit, which Superior Court Judge Frances Antonin dismissed on summary judgment based on qualified immunity and on her finding an absence of evidence supporting damages.

The Appellate Division reinstated the tort claims and some employment claims, including breach of contract based on an implied-in-fact contract theory pursuant to which the board of education could be liable for any economic damages Leang might be able to establish.

On appeal, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed parsing of the multiple claims raised. Hoens' 46-page opinion reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division to the extent that it reinstated Leang's breach of contract and employment claims of federal claims against any of the school defendants. The breach of contract claim failed because Leang was paid for her work for the entire school year, had no right to renewal of her contract and had no other statutory basis for claiming damages.

Hoens said some of the state tort claims could proceed, notably defamation, for which school employees are not entitled to Tort Claims Act immunity, since a reasonable person could consider the school defendants' accusation that plaintiff had threatened to kill 22 students, if untrue, to be defamatory. Hoens found that Leang's factual assertions, if they meet the actual malice standard, could support an award of punitive damages and recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also found that Leang's invasion of privacy claim against Ashworth could survive, since the suggestion that he might have inaccurately reported her words, and his knowledge that such a report would trigger a call to police, constitute a "bare minimum" factual basis to withstand summary judgment.

The court affirmed the decision below that the emergency medical technicians were not entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, but were entitled to immunity under Title 30, which is intended to protect persons caring for the mentally ill.

Leang's lawyer, Jersey City solo Daniel Sexton, criticizes the court's reliance on a safety memorandum that was the basis of the principal's report to the police, which speaks only of behavior by students, not adults. The court also failed to mention that the two teachers' aides in the classroom during the incident corroborated Leang's version.

School district lawyer Howard Nirenberg of Nirenberg & Varano in Hackesack, N.J., and Catherine Flynn Tafaro, of Lindabury McCormick Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield, N.J., representing the medical center and crisis unit, did not return calls.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430077806

SCAM!!!

What a waste of time and money. They both sound like a couple of idiots IMO.

These are the folks into whose care Jersey City parents leave their children each day in hopes of having them educated.

Teacher wins ruling, can sue JC ed board

Friday, April 17, 2009
By MARY FUCHS
THE STAR-LEDGER

TRENTON - A Jersey City teacher who was taken to a hospital after another teacher said she had threatened her students may sue the school district for "defamation" and causing "emotional distress," the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

But the court said Sopharie Leang could not accuse the city's Board of Education of "assault" and "battery" because her medical records did not show she was harmed after the police brought her to the hospital.

The justices said public school teachers are first and foremost responsible for students' safety in the event of a threat. But even while trying to protect students, teachers and administrators are still accountable for their actions if they falsely accuse someone, the court said in a 6-0 decision.

While counting books in front of 22 students at School 11, Leang told her colleague, Vladimir Ashworth, that she was sick with laryngitis and that the "amount of stress in (her) body could have killed someone," according to court documents.

Ashworth, who had been previously accused of sexual harassment by Leang, told the school nurse and principal, Angela Bruno, that Leang intended to "kill 22 people."

Because of the court's decision, Leang will now be able to sue Jersey City's Board of Education for invading her privacy and forcing her to go through a physical and psychological examination.

Howard Nirenberg, the lawyer for the Jersey City Board of Education, said the decision "pretty much addresses the reality of the world we live in today."