superintendent susan kegerise's lawsuit against susquehanna township school district, karl, rawls...

7/27/2019 Superintendent Susan Kegerise's lawsuit against Susquehanna Township School District, Karl, Rawls and Sussman

1/156

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 423 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 43Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 43


2/156



3/156



4/156



5/156



6/156



7/156



8/156



9/156



10/156


C 3 02 t 06000 D t 423 Fil d 04/17/14 P 11 f 43C 1 14 00747 WWC D t 1 Fil d 04/17/14 P 11 f 43


11/156


Case 3:02 at 06000 Document 423 Filed 04/17/14 Page 12 of 43Case 1:14 cv 00747 WWC Document 1 Filed 04/17/14 Page 12 of 43


12/156




13/156




14/156

Case 3:02 at 06000 Document 423 Filed 04/17/14 Page 14 of 43Case 1:14 cv 00747 WWC Document 1 Filed 04/17/14 Page 14 of 43



15/156

g g



16/156



17/156



18/156



19/156



20/156



21/156



22/156



23/156



24/156



25/156



26/156



27/156



28/156



29/156



30/156



31/156



32/156



33/156



34/156



35/156



36/156



37/156



38/156



39/156



40/156



41/156



42/156



43/156

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-1 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 1Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-1 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 1


44/156

SECTION: COMMUNITY

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-2 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 oCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-2 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1


45/156

SECTION: COMMUNITY

TITLE: SCHOOL VIS

ADOPTED: October 28, 20

REVISED:

SUSQUEHANNA

TOWNSHIP

SCHOOL DISTRICT

907. SCHOOL VISITORS

1. AuthoritySC 510

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

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

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

for the Board to establish policy governing school visits.

2. Delegation of

Responsibility

The Superintendent or designee and building principal have the

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

The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative re

implement this policy and control access to school buildings an

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

school office in that building.

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

their presence in the building.

A visitors badge will be issued to guests to be worn throughou

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

departure.

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

All staff members shall be responsible for requiring a visitor de

has registered at the school office and received authorization to

purpose of conducting business

907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 2



46/156

907. SCHOOL VISITORS Pg. 2

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

regulations, school rules and federal and state law and regulatio

A person who enters or remains on school property without aut

charged with trespassing.

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

maintaining security.

Classroom Visitations

SC 510

Title 22

Sec. 14.108

Parents/Guardians may request to visit their childs classroom,

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

The building principal or program supervisor must grant prior a

and shall notify the classroom teacher prior to the visit.

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

school for classroom visitations, in order to minimize disruptio

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

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

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

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

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

Under exceptional circumstances and upon request of the build

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

Military Personnel

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

907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 3



47/156

g

Pol. 002 School Board Members And Other Officials

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

2. The Superintendent or designee shall be notified of the builof the visit.

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

References:

School Code24 P.S. Sec. 510State Board of Education Regulations22 PA Code Sec. 14.10

Military Visitors24 P.S. Sec. 2402

Board Policy000, 002, 250, 709



48/156



49/156



50/156



51/156



52/156



53/156



54/156



55/156



56/156



57/156



58/156



59/156



60/156



61/156



62/156



63/156



64/156



65/156

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1370 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 ofCase 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-5 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 ofCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-5 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1


66/156

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

: CIVIL ACTIONv. :

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

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

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN

(collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against the

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (

the SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT (STSD), and

SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to e

Defendants from violating Plaintiffs Constitutional rights and to nullify

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

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



67/156

following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendants Board aKegerise have entered into an employment contract (Contract) and th

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement violate Plaintiffs right

Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylva

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

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

2. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementenforcement, violates:

a. Plaintiffs rights to free speech under the FirstAmendment of the United States Constitution;

b. Plaintiffs rights to perform their constitutionastatutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions

the United States and Pennsylvania.

3. Express terms of the Contract violate the plain langu

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to nullify and declare invalid



68/156

Contract, permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Contract, u

Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution and enjoin Defend

committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or stat

rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of theresides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays

STSD.

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of tresides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxe

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Board is comprised of nine members elecvoters of Susquehanna Township.

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

9 Defendant Dr Susan Kegerise is employed by the B



69/156

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

11. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdictioto 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a).

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

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.Cbecause all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylva

events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

THE FACTS

14. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 assuperintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board i

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

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

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



70/156

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

in each respective partyby the laws and the Constitution of the Com

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

this AGREEMENT.(Emphasis added.)

17. Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: Criticisms, cand suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be ref

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the

School Directors as appropriate.

18. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain lanSection 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere w

direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, t

residents, and taxpayers.

19. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquiremployed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on he

and with her knowledge and approval.

20. It is believed and therefore averred that between Feb

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



71/156

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

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

22. Although public meetings of the School Board are nheld in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Bo

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

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

related to this litigation.

23. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis

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

for intimidation.

24. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attboard meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaint

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected off

did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

25. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

26. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 201R l S i d h i l d h hi i f l i



72/156

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

Kegerise by STSD.

27. In response, the Board decided to retain a special invlook into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

28. In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakon behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of perso

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

special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless

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

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson date

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

29. Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this corresas a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise

privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations mad

Rawls.

30. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members,

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

i l t d th P l [Bl t ] l fi



73/156

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

31. Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also schoose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal l

32. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an emKegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball ga

correct?

33. Several additional emails followed, including one whSussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna To

High School athletic director.

34. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directedschool board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman e

violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls

interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District an

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

Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended

incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

36. Discovery will show whether other Board members individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such



74/156

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.

37. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Suclaimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman sta

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

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

appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.

38. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediatethe names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

39. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to commidnight on Saturday, May 19, 20131, litigation would be initiated the f

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

Dr. Kegerises Contract.

40. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kuturepeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013

and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated Ma

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E2

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1370 Filed 11/25/13 Page 10 ofCase 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 10 oCase 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-5 Filed 04/17/14 Page 10 oCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-5 Filed 04/17/14 Page 10


75/156

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E.

41. In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the writtecorrespondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman im

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

the written correspondence.

42. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr.with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has

the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occ

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.

43. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wRawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have

personal email made public so residents of the district may communicat

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

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

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

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

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F



76/156

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.

44. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentisame letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal emai

public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G.

45. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD

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

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

46. Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing hRawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he

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

48. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered tacommunity survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues relat



77/156

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues relat

STSD.

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

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

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.

50. The community survey was never undertaken.51. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery w

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with th

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

recipients constitutional and statutory rights.

52. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any inswhere STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with

53. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mexplained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in th



78/156

p g g

be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity

elected positions.

54. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Boardthey may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are no

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

55. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

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

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

protect individual Board members if and when their authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are w

disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board meWorse still, I cannot protect innocent Board memberDistrict unless I am allowed to disavow those actionboard members] on behalf of the District and Board

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



79/156

p p

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

57. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wantscommunicate by email with school directors, there is a single email add

[email protected] for email correspondence to be sent to

members.

58. The official STSD website explains that [w]hen usiemail address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then for

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

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

to the School Board.

59. Under the single email address scheme, the superintethe absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to

or even ifan email will be disseminated.

60. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly acc

61. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or noBoard members have been shown how to directly access this account or

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


80/156

emails from it.

62. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna TownshiAdam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled

sent an email [email protected] ask a question related

criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into ST

handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assis

principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled studen

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

referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit H.

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

64. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no reseven an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener c

Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plain

66. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional info

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


81/156

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.

67. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman waallowed to discuss the substance of the email.

68. Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions threatening letters he had received from the Superintendents personal a

Kutulakis, as well as legal guidance from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.

69.

Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she cou

discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wien

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal

as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board direc

70. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt Wieners email disseminated to the Board.

71. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wienwhich was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the B

72. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise d

not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it]

of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H



82/156

hereto.

74. Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kthat she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to B

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wi

the second email.

75. On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr

and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply fr

any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1

believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question wi

response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?]

added.)See Exhibit H appended hereto.

76. Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt Wiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding

information.

any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the allege

(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.



83/156

78. Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that hpreviously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported th

District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.

79. At no time, up to and including the date of filing of tComplaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wie

emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails wer

disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were add

the Board and sent to the official Board email address.

80. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunsupporter of the superintendent and her administration.

81. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characteadversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

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

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers a

83. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery wnumerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and r



84/156

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

84. The Contract was approved by a 6-3 vote of the Scho85. Plaintiffs first received a copy of the Contract at an e

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

86. Plaintiffs had approximately 37 minutes to review thContract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted

87.

Plaintiffs voted against entering into the proposed Co

did Board member John Dietrich.

88. Plaintiffs do not know which other Board members mreceived the proposed Contract before Plaintiffs did.

89. Although Kutulakis handled Contract negotiations oDr. Kegerise, Blunt was quoted in local media defining his own role as

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

new law.

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

91. Notwithstanding Blunts review of the draft documeContract contains numerous provisions that conflict with the express lan



85/156

the Act.

92. Section 5-508 of the Act states in part:The affirmative vote of a majority of all the member

board of school directors in every school district, du

showing how each member voted, shall be required itake action on the following subjects: . . . Appointindismissing district superintendents, assistant distrisuperintendents, associate superintendents, principalteachers.

24 P.S. 5-508. (Emphasis added.)

93. Section 10-1080(a) of the Act states: District superand assistant district superintendents may be removed from office and h

contracts terminated, after hearing, by a majority vote of the board of sc

directors of the district, for neglect of duty, incompetency, intemperanc

immorality 24 P.S. 10-1080.

94. Section 8.00(a) of the Contract states [r]emoval shaproper after a hearing followed by a two thirds(6 members of a 9 mem

vote of the Board of School Directors for removal. (Emphasis added.)

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



86/156

24 P.S. 5-514.

96. Section 8.00(b)(1) of the Contract states:The only valid causes for terminationof a contraheretofore or hereafter entered into with a professio

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

97. The language contained in Section 8.00(b)(1) expresreferences 11-1122 of the Act as grounds for termination, even though

applies only to professional employees.

98. Dr. Kegerise, as a superintendent, is not considered aprofessional 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 boardirectors shall post the mutually agreed to objective performance standa

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

website 24 P S 10 1073 1(b 1)

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

refused to comply.



87/156

101. Section 10-1073.1(b) of the Act states: The board ofdirectors shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the d

superintendent and assistant district superintendent annually. A time fra

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

102. Section 7.01 of the Contract calls for an annual perfoassessment of the Superintendent, however the only rating categories al

under the Contract are exemplary, good and satisfactory.

103. An exemplary rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 5%good rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 3% stipend and a satisfactory

entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 2% stipend.

104. It is believed and therefore averred that the performais classified as a stipend in order to avoid calculating the bonus as inc

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

Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System.

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

106. Since becoming superintendent in 2009, Dr. Kegerisreceived an annual performance review, notwithstanding the fact that th



88/156

performance review is mandated by the Act.

107. Section 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) provides that the Contractschool district and its superintendent shall [i]ncorporate all provisions

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

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

108. STSD policy provides that a non-resident who attendshall pay tuition in the amount of $941 monthly for an elementary stude

109. Since 2009, Dr. Kegerises grandchild has been enroSTSD.

110. It is believed and therefore averred that the grandchiand has never resided in the Susquehanna Township School District.

111. It is believed and therefore averred that no one has pdistrict tuition for the non-resident grandchild since she began attending

2009.

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

113. Authorization for Dr. Kegerises grandchild to attendtuition-free does not appear in Board minutes dating back to 2009.



89/156

114. The benefit conferred on Dr. Kegerise to send her grSTSD tuition-free is not reflected in the Contract.

COUNT I

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

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

115. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorpreference as if fully set forth herein.

116. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by tAmendment to the United States Constitution.

117.

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

118. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at relevant hereto under color of state law.

119. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired totheir First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate wi

120. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with the



90/156

School Board members, including Plaintiffs.

121. In addition to examples provided above, Discovery wnumerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has bee

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

122. Under authority vested in Dr. Kegerise by state law acontract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitu

violations be stopped.

123. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitviolations continue.

124. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions aactions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individu

official capacities.

125. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actiinactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to

Amendment rights of free speech.

COUNT II

Declaratory Judgment Action to Declare the Employment Contr

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



91/156

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

Plaintiffs v. All Defendants


128. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementenforcement, is the vehicle through which Plaintiffs and others constitu

rights have been repeatedly violated.

129. As stated more fully above, sections of the Contract express language of the Act as follows:

a. Section 8.00(a) violates 24 P.S. 5-5010-1080(a); and

b. Section 8.00 (b)(1) of the Contract viola24 P.S. 5-514.

130. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementenforcement violates 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) which requires that the

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

implementation and enforcement of the Contracts provisions have been

vehicle through which Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated

di d i l f h ill l



92/156

132. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal terms,interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Contract, Plainti

incurred attorneys fees and other costs.

COUNT III

Punitive Damages

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacit


134. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or shoulknown that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in

constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.

135. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, andwantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the

large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights genera

more specifically as follows:

c. By delaying correspondence sent to the d. By repeatedly threatening legal action a

l i di id l i l di b t t li it d t Pl i tiff f



93/156

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, f

exercising their First Amendment rights;

e. By acting to intimidate individuals, inclnot limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from

their First Amendment rights; and

f. By punishing or threatening to punish Bmembers including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other S

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

136. Kegerises continued and persistent violations of PlaFirst Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or

actions.

137. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive damages be awaagainst Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs Jesse Rawls Sr and Mark Y

B. Nominal Relief against all Defendants;C. Compensatory Relief against Defendant Dr. Susan L

i h i di id l d ffi i l iti



94/156

in her individual and official capacities;

D. Punitive damages against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Keher individual capacity;

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

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C.

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

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

Date: November 25, 2013

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


95/156



96/156



97/156



98/156

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and : 1:13-CV-02867-JEJ

MARK Y. SUSSMAN :Plaintiffs :

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 oCase 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-7 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 ofCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-7 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1


99/156

Plaintiffs, :: (Judge John E. Jones, II

v. :

:

DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, :Defendant :

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN

(collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against DR.

KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin De

from violating Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the Unite

Constitutional rights, and in support thereof, aver the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendant has systeviolated their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to free speec

3. Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to perform tconstitutional and statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitu

laws of the United States and Pennsylvania.



100/156

y

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to uphold Plaintiffs rights uUnited States Constitution and enjoin Defendant from committing acts o

omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of theSusquehanna Township School Board of Directors (Board), resides in

registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to the Susq

Township School District (STSD).

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of tresides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxe

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Bsuperintendent of STSD.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdictioto 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a).

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



101/156

because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylva

events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

THE FACTS

11. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 assuperintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

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

12. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a nContract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four an

years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of th

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

13. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retainpower, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon a

in each respective partyby the laws and the Constitution of the Com

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

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the

School Directors as appropriate.

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



102/156

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

direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, t

residents, and taxpayers.

16. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquireemployed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on he

and with her knowledge and approval.

17. It is believed and therefore averred that between Feband September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly

monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number

Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.

18. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he woulfront row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Raw

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

19. Although public meetings of the School Board are no

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

related to this litigation.

20. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only c



103/156

STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis

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

for intimidation.

21. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attboard meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaint

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected off

did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

22. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sentcorrespondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board Pres

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/o

the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.

23. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 201Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relativ

Kegerise by STSD.

25. In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakon behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of perso

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



104/156

special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless

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

true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson date

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

26. Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this corresas a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise

privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations mad

Rawls.

27. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Kegerise, and Blunt, and informed them that in response to an inquiry fr

reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-Newsreporter about whether the boa

taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations, Fe

stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would impl

do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment.

29. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an emKegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball ga

correct?



105/156

30. Several additional emails followed, including one whSussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna To

High School athletic director.

31. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directedschool board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman e

violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls

interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District an

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

Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended

incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

32. In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interand/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. K

with her knowledge and approval.

33. Discovery will show whether other Board members

34. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Suclaimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman sta

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



106/156

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

appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.

35. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediatethe names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

36. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to commidnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013

1, litigation would be initiated the f

Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortiously interferin

Kegerises Contract.

37. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kuturepeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013

and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated Ma

is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E.2

1May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the corresp

38. In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the writtecorrespondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman im

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



107/156

the written correspondence.

39. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr.with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has

the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occ

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.

40. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wRawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have

personal email made public so residents of the district may communicat

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

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

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

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

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.

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

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

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

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

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 10 Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 423-7 Filed 04/17/14 Page 10 oCase 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 1-7 Filed 04/17/14 Page 10


108/156

Exhibit G.

42. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD

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

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

43. Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing hiRawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he

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

teachers, taxpayers, and residents.

44. As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrorelevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and appr

45. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered tacommunity survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues relat

STSD.

instance . . . while a survey permitting input from resmake sense to allow community outreach, it may not

to obtain anonymous allegations into the administratIt may not become an additional tool to conduct a wi

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.



109/156

47. The community survey was never undertaken.48. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery w

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with th

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

recipients constitutional and statutory rights.

49. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any inswhere STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with

business or Board members activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an em

the Board.

50. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mexplained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in th

be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity

elected positions.

52. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over theSues attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns



110/156

y

founded. Board members only enjoy the extensive imliability the law provides when they are acting within

as Board members. When they are acting as individunot as members of the Board, they are subject to the

of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues determining whether a Board member is acting as a B

member is whether their actions are in accordance wadvice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly,

protect individual Board members if and when their authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are wdisavow the unauthorized actions of other Board me

Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board memberDistrict unless I am allowed to disavow those action

board members] on behalf of the District and Board.

53. In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and adBoard members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:

It has come to my attention that some of you attendecommunity meeting sponsored and organized by P

Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the

effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the righany meeting you choose, I must again advise that it i

advised to attend such meetings precisely because it the appearance and invites the assumption that you a

representing the Board and District.

54 If t t d t t h id t l t t

55. The official STSD website explains that [w]hen usiemail address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then for

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



111/156

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

to the School Board.

56. Under the single email address scheme, the superintethe absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to

or even ifan email will be disseminated.

57. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly accsent to the official school board email address, nor have they been show

send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the acco

information or passwords necessary to access the official account.

58. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or noBoard members have been shown how to directly access this account or

emails from it.

59. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna TownshiAdam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled

principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled studen

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

referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and



112/156

incorporated herein as Exhibit H.

60. The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and Schoomembers.

61. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no reseven an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener c

Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plain

Sussman.

62. Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sweek prior had not been disseminated to the Board.

63. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, emailmember of the District administration contact Wiener for additional info

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.

64. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman waallowed to discuss the substance of the email.

66. Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldiscuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wien

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal

S h h h d S b h l d B d di



113/156

as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board direc

67. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt Wieners email disseminated to the Board.

68. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wienwhich was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the B

69. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise dWieners email to the Board.

70. On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to [email protected],stating in part I was informed that the e

not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it]

of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H

hereto.

71. Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kthat she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to B

72. On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr

and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply fr

th h l b d b t il th t t O t b 1

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


114/156

any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1

believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question wi

response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?]

(Emphasis added.)See Exhibit H appended hereto.

73. Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt rWiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding

information.

74. In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: Contrary to the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law

and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District emplo

any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the allege

(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.

75.

Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that h

previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported th

emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails wer

disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were add

the Board and sent to the official Board email address.

77 Mrs DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staun



115/156

77. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunsupporter of the superintendent and her administration.

78. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characteadversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

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

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers a

Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.

80. In correspondence dated December 17, 2013, Kutulaundersigned counsel, complaining that Plaint

superintendent susan kegerise's lawsuit against susquehanna township school district, karl, rawls...

Documents