IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
JOSEPH SCHRADBR )
)
91mm ) CASE NO sx 2016 CV 00413
v )
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ; 2022 v1 Super 79
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and ST )
CROIX EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS )
ASSOCIATION )
)
Defendants )
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
1] 1 Before the Court is Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of
Education’s (“DOE”) Motion to Dismiss, filed September 8, 20l6, Plaintiff Joseph Schrader’s
Response filed November 16 2016 Defendant DOE 3 Reply filed July 7 2017 and Defendant
DOE’s Addendum to Motion to Dismiss, filed December 20, 2019 DOE seeks dismissal pursuant
to V I R Civ P 12(b)(6) ' alleging that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against it upon which
relief can be granted arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive remedies available to
him pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA‘) between DOE and Defendant St
Croix Education Administrators’ Association (‘ STXEAA”), of which Plaintiff is a member For
the reasons that follow, DOE’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied
BACKGROUND
1| 2 Plaintiff is employed by DOE as an Assistant Principal and is a member of the STXEAA,
which represents all public school administrators employed with DOB DOE and STXBAA are
parties to the CBA with an effective date of October 1, 2006 and an expiration date of September
30, 2010, which has since been renewed on a year to year basis
' The Motion was filed prior to the March 31 2017 effective date of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure
and
is based upon Fed R Civ P 12(b)(6) than applicable pursuant to Super Ct R 7 Substantivelyidentical V] R Civ
P 12(b)(6) applies here as the Count does not find that its application is infeasible or would work an injustice See
Vl
R Civ P l l(c)(2)(B)
Schrader v CV] Department ofEducauon and St Croix BAA SX 2016-CV 004l3
Memorandum Opinion and Order
202! VI Super 79
Page 2 of 8
13 The CBA provides that ‘First preference to qualified members of the Association
bargaining unit shall be considered in the filling of acting and temporary administrative position
s
within the bargaining unit ’2 Article V of the CBA includes a mandatory Grievance Procedu
re for
the determination of a complaint submitted by an employee (1) that there has been a violation
or misinterpretation ofthe provisions of this Agreement, or (2) that he has been treated
unfairly or
inequitany by reason of any act or condition which is contrary to established policy or
practices
governing or affecting employees ‘ DOE and STXEAA agreed by the CBA that delineat
ed steps
including informal discussion then written grievance to the member’s immediate supervis
or,
appeal to the Superintendent then appeal to arbitration are the procedures [that]
shall be the
means of settlement of all grievances arising under this Agreement ”“
114 Plaintiff holds both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in vocational education and
had been employed by DOE for twenty years at the time he filed his Verified Complai
nt, sewing
as Assistant Principal of both Central High School and the St Croix Career and Technic
al
Education Center at the St Croix Educational Compiex (‘CTEC”) Plaintiff had also
served both
as a General Motors certified master technician and as an auto/diesel instructor
on the high school,
technical school and college levels for over ten years 5
1] 5 In a February 5 2014 letter to then Superintendent Gary MoIloy, certain CTEC teachers
and staff requested Plaintiff’s removal as Assistant Principal, alleging various
acts of
unprofessional conduct, including exhibiting poor leadership and communication
skills, lack of
respect for faculty and staff failure to actively participate in social activities
with faculty and
students in an effort to build school culture and climate, misdirecting mechani
cal and building
trade instructors from participating in common core workshops, and failure
and refusal to
participate with the accreditation team etc "
1] 6 On or about April 19 2015 Plaintiff applied for the position of CTEC Principa
l In late
April 2015, while Plaintiff‘s application was pending, Assistant Commiss
ioner Charmaine
2 DOE Motion to Dismiss Exhibit A CBA Article VI, Section 16
3 Id , Article V, Section I
‘ CBA Article V Sections 1 5 (emphasis added)
5 Verified Complaint, fl 8 12
‘ Id 1 l6
Schrader v 0V! Department ofEducation and Sr Cram 5AA SX 20 I 6 CV 004]}
Memorandum Opinion and Order 202] VI Super 79
Page 3 of 8
Hobson Johnson, Superintendent Coleen Williams and other administrators conducted a meeting
with various CTEC teachers and staff, without Plaintiff‘s participation, that included a discussion
of the February 5 2014 letter 7
1| 7 In mid May 2015 Plaintiff interviewed for the CTEC Principal position By June 15, 2015
letter, Superintendent Williams advised Plaintiff that he had not been selected, but that then Acting
Principal Myrle Hendricks had been selected as Principal The June 15, 2015 letter also advised
Plaintiff that he would be reassigned from his position at CTEC to the Assistant Principal position
at John H Woodson Junior High School, which does not provide vocational occupational
education 8 By correspondence dated June 16 2015, Principal Willard S John of St Croix
Educational Complex informed Plaintiff that, based on his investigation, the petition to remove
Plaintiff as CTBC Assistant Principal had “no merit” and that he “cannot recommend that it
be
considered or held against [Plaintiff] in any way "°
‘8 Subsequently, Plaintiffcomplained to STXEAA requesting that the Union file a grievance
on his behalf regarding DOE’s failure to promote him to CTBC Principal '0 He also lodged
complaints regarding his involuntary transfer to John H Woodson Junior High School as well
as
DOE’s failure to reimburse him for travel expenses and purchases made for DOE in addition
to
compensation for work he had previously completed
19 On June 22 2015 STXBAA filed two grievances with DOE on behalf of Plaintiff each
subsequently followed by a demand for arbitration one in response to the D013
3 involuntary
transfer of Plaintiff to Woodson; and the other related to DOE’s failure to compens
ate Plaintiff for
work completed and for reimbursement of expenses The Union, however,
declined to file a
grievance regarding DOE’s failure to promote Plaintiff to CTEC Principal 1‘
V 10 The Verified Complaint, filed July 20 2016 alleges two causes of action against DOE
in
Count I, for breach of the contract of employment and the CBA by failing to promote
Plaintiff to
Principal of CTEC; and in Count II for violation of Plaintiff‘s due process rights by
failing to
WT”—
3 Id 1‘} 20 23
9 STXEAA Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 7
‘° Verified Complaint, 1] 25
” SCBAA Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavit of Rosa White '11 12 16
Schrader v 0V1 Department ofEda 0110» and SI ( rot: EA 4 SX 2016 CV 00413
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2021 VI Super 79
Page 4 of 8
provide him notice and an opportunity to be heard at the April 2015 meeting regardi
ng the February
2014 letter Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendants‘ actions, he
suffered defamation in his
employment loss of income loss of benefits loss of employability, loss of
reputation, mental
anguish, embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of life continuing into the foresee
able future '2
DISCUSSION
1} II By its Motion DOE challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff‘s Verified Compla
int pursuant
to V I R Civ P 12(b)(6), for its ‘ failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted ” The
Virgin Islands ‘is a notice pleading jutisdiction,’ and a plaintiff must meet
the notice pleading
standard in VI R Civ P 8(a)(2) to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
See Mills Willia ms v
Mapp 67 V I 574 585 86 (V I 2017) (citations omitted) (explaining
that Rule 8(a)(2) eliminated
the former plausibility standard applicable prior to adoption of Virgin
Islands Rules of Civil
Procedure) By the language of Rule 8 a trial court is to ‘apply an approa
ch that declines to enter
dismissals of cases based on failure to allege specific facts which if establi
shed plausibly entitle
the pleader to relief M1118 Williams 67 V 1 at 585 (citing V I R Civ P
8 Reporter’s Note)
‘5 12 Under the notice pleading regime a plaintiff must provide ‘a short and
plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief VI R Civ P 8(a)(2) Rule 8(a)(2)
eliminates the former Twomny plausibility standard of federal practic
e and instead permits a
complaint so long as it “adequately alleges facts that put an accused
party on notice of claims
brought against it 1d (citing Brathwazte v H D V I Holdmg ( o 2017 V 1 LEXIS 76,
at *3 (V 1
Super 2017))
i 13 To state a claim for breach of contract in Count 1 Plaintiff must set
forth a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief To establi
sh a breach of contract claim,
a plaintiff is required to demonstrate (1) an agreement, (2) a duty
created by that agreement, (3) a
breach of that duty and (4) damages Phillip v Marsh Monsan
to 66 VI 612 621 (V1 2017)
(citations omitted) To the extent that Plaintiffs Verified Complaint
adequately alleges facts that
put DOE on notice that he claims the existence of the foregoing element
s, the pleading will be
accepted
‘1 Verified Complaint 1” 31 34 35 37 40
Schrader v GVI Department ofEducation and S! Crop: 5AA SX 20 [6 CV
00413
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2021 VI Super ‘79
Page 5 of 8
1[ 14 The Verified Complaint asserts the existence ofthe CBA, benefitting Plaintiff as a
member
of STXEAA By the CBA, Plaintiff alleges that DOE had a duty to follow provisi
ons of the V I
Code and Board of Education rules and policies in filling position vacancies, a
duty that DOE
breached by failing to promote Plaintiff to CTEC Principal when that position became
available,
despite the fact that he alone met the relevant criteria to fill the position Plainti
ff alleges damages
as a result of the breach, thereby providing a short and plain statement of his
breach of contract
claim, sufficient to put DOE on notice of the claim against it
1[ 15 Plaintiff asserts in Count II that Defendant DOE violated his due process rights
by its
failure to provide him notice and an opportunity to be heard at the April 2015
meeting called to
discuss the February 2014 letter of Plaintiff’s CTEC colleagues relating to his
unprofessional
conduct as CTBC Assistant Principal, which violation resulted in damages to
Plaintiff
1] 16 The Fourteenth Amendment to the U S Constitution and Section 3 of the Virgin
Islands
Revised Organic Act of 1954 provide procedural protection of a person’s proper
ty interests “For
such a procedural due process claim to succeed a plaintiff must establish that
‘(l) he was deprived
of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’
s protection of
life, liberty, or property, and (2) the procedures available to him did not provid
e due process of
law Fleming v Cruz 62 V I 702 713 (V I 2015) (citing 1123 v deJongh
55 V I 1251 1256
57 (3d Cir 2011))
1 17 To succeed on his claim alleging a violation of his procedural due process
rights Plaintiff
must prove that he had a property right in attaining a promotion to become Princip
al of CTEC and
was deprived of that right as a result of DOE’s failure to provide him an
opportunity to be heard
in response to the February 2014 letter In the Virgin Islands it is well
established that that a
regular government employee has a property interest in continued
employment See lies v
deJongh 55 VI at 1261
1 18 Plaintiff claims that he “sought to be heard ” but that DOE “improperly
and unreasonably
deprived [him] of the Opportunity to properly respond and rebut the Februa
ry 2014 letter and its
false accusation ”’ ‘ with the result that he was passed over for promotion
The Verified Complaint
adequately alleges facts that provide a short and plain statement of Plainti
ff's claim sufficient to
‘3 Verified Complaint fl 18 19
Schrader v 0V] Department of Edueanon and Sr Crow 5AA SX 2016
CV 004l3
Memorandum Opinion and Order
202] VI Super 79
Page 6 of 8
put DOE on notice that he claims a due process violation depriving him of a proper
ty right in the
promotion to CTEC Principal At this stage, Plaintiff need not establish his claim
by evidentiary
proof, but must only assert it sufficiently by a short and plain statement showm
g that he is entitled
to relief See V I R Civ P 8(a)(2) Plaintiff has done so here with regard to Count
II
i 19 Apart from the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims as pled, DOE moves for the
dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims against DOE, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust
his administrative
remedies pursuant to the CBA The CBA provides that the grievance proced
ure contained therein
shall be the means of settlement of all grievances arising under the Agreement
“As a general rule,
individual employees are required first to utilize the methods of redress provid
ed by a collective
bargaining agreement, as agreed upon by the employer and union, before
instituting a court
action Staflbrd v Hess 0:! VJ Corp 1998 V I LEXIS 10 * l6 17 (V I Super
1998)
1] 20 Either by design or gross oversight DOE falsely argues that “Plaint
iff‘s union has
concurrently filed a grievance and requested arbitration on the same issue
he now presents to the
Court’ " Plaintiff did complain to STXEAA seeking the filing of a grievance
on his behalf
regarding DOE’s failure to promote him to CTBC Principal, “the same
issue he now presents to
the Court The Union did file two grievances on Plaintiff's behalf Howev
er, those grievances, as
presented with DOE’s Motion, relate to different issues '5 As
to the issue before the Court,
STXBAA specifically declined to file such a grievance ‘6
1] 21 Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, “Plaintiff complained to his union,
Defendant St Croix
Educational Administrators’ Association Inc and requested the union
file a grievance on his
behalf, which the union arbitrarily and capriciously failed to do '
Plaintiff attempted to exhaust
E
"‘ DOE Motion to Dismiss, at 3
'5 STXEAA (l) demanded arbitration by letter of July I3, 2015 relative
to ‘ Correspondence from you to Joseph
Schrader dated May 15, 2013 informing him that he is being involunt
arily transferred to the John H Woodson Junior
High School for school years 20l$ 2016 to help strengthen the
pre Vocational courses at that school and (2)
submitted Grievance on June 24 2015 regarding Plaintiff‘s work complet
ed during summer 2013 for which Mr
Schradet was never compensated Additionally Mr Schrader is also owed monies for purchasing
materials and for travel reimbursement to St Thomas Match 20l5 ASE testing
for which Plaintiff was not reimbursed DOE
Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit B
'6 ‘The Union did not file a grievance on Schrader s behalf when
he was not given the principal 5 position because
after a review of the CBA, a thorough investigation and consultation
with the Union 5 Counscl the Union concluded
there was no basis to file a grievance We informed member Schrade
r that we could not file a grievance and the basis
for our decision STXEAA Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavi
t of Rosa White,'J1 16 I7
'7 Verified Complaint ‘3 25
Schrader v 0V] Department ofEducation and SI Crmx 5AA SX 20l6 CV 004B
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI Super 79
Page 7 of 8
his administrative remedies prior to filing this hybrid action in which he couples his breach
of
contract claim against DOE with his claim of STXEAA’s “refusal and failure to represent
Plaintiff" '3 (breach of its duty of fair representation) See Joseph v Bureau ofCorrections 54 V
I
644 653 54 (V I 2011) Staflordv Hess 011 V1 Corp 1998 V I LEXIS 10 *l6 17
$1 22 Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to avail himself of all administrative remedies where
the Union breached its duty to fairly represent him “Under general principles of labor law, an
employee 5 only remedy for a breach of contract by an employer is the grievance and arbitratio
n
procedure provided by his collective bargaining agreement However, when that employee has
no
control over his grievance during the arbitration process and the union representing the employee
breaches its duty to fairly represent him, the employee by necessity has a cause ofaction to pursue
his rights under the contract in such an instance, an employee may bring suit against both
the
employer and the uni0n ’ Gomez v Government of Virgin Islands, 882 F 2d 733, 737 (3d Cir
1989) (citations and internal quotation omitted) “In the ‘hybrid’ suit, the plaintiff will have
to
prove that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement in order to prevail on
the
breach ofduty of fair representation claim against the union and vice versa ” Burns v Salem
Tube
Inc 381 Fed Appx 178 181 (3d Cir 2010) (quoting Felice v Sever
985 F 2d 1221 1226
(3d
Cir 1993) (citing DeICostello v Teamsters 462 U S 151 165 (1983))
1] 23 Pursuant to the notice pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2) Plaintiff has pied a hybrid claim
for breach of contract and violation of his due process rights against DOE and for breach
of the
duty of fair representation against STXBAA, sufficient to withstand DOE’s Rule
12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘9
'3 Id 1126
’9 Both Count I (Breach of Contract) and Count ll (Violation of Due Process Rights)
of the Verified Complaint allege
wrongs of both Defendants Although not set forth in a separate count (see V I R
Civ P 8(a)(2); lO(b)), Plaintiff
did complain that he requested that the Union file a grievance on his behalf, which
it arbitrarily and capriciously failed
to do (Verified Complaint 1 25). a sufficient short and plain statement of his
claim to put STXEAA on notice of his
claim of breach of its duty of fair represcntation
Schrader v GVI Department ofEducation and 31 Crow 5AA SX 2016 CV
00413
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2021 VI Super 79
Page 8 of 8
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant DOB 8 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and DOE shall
file its
Answer to Plaintiff‘s Verified Complaint within 30 days of the date hereof
//
DATED September / 5 2022 £2 [9/4 42*
DOUGH“ A BRADY JUDG’E
ATTE8T
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court
By /W
fCourt Clerk