United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division
ORDER
BILLY
ROY WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 26, 31).
Plaintiffs have responded.[1] For the reasons below, the motions are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
were both teachers in the Little Rock School District.
According to their complaints, they were retaliated against
after they questioned how Defendants were treating the
special education programs and facilities where Plaintiffs
worked.
Mr.
James Richard Reynolds alleges that “[o]n May 19, 2015,
he was harassed by Fields”[2]and his “date of
separation” was June 16, 2015.[3] He filed his complaint on
June 15, 2018.[4]
Mr.
Rodney Reynolds filed his complaint on August 16, 2018
alleging that he was subjected to retaliation in the
“Spring of 2015.”[5] He asserts that his “last
day of school” was August 17, 2015, but that
“LRSD recorded the date of separation for [him] as
January 7, 2016.”[6]
Defendants
assert that the statute of limitation (and other defenses)
warrants dismissal of both Plaintiffs.
After
Defendants' filed the Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs
filed a 190-page Amended Complaint reciting grievances from
2008 through 2015.[7] Plaintiffs allege that they were
“constructively discharged . . . over the course of
2015.”[8] According to the Amended Complaint,
“on May 29, 2015, James Richard Reynolds submitted his
resignation notice to the Little Rock School
District.”[9] Rodney Michael Reynolds was on medical
leave at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, but
eventually resigned on December 17, 2015.
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs
do not dispute that the statute of limitations for their
claims is three years. However, they argue that “the
basis of the claim is the teacher's contract, which had
been renewed for both teachers for the 2015-16 academic
year.”[10] Plaintiffs appear to assert that the
statute of limitations runs from the official date of their
separation. I disagree. The statute of limitations commenced
when Defendants allegedly violated Plaintiffs' rights,
not when the employment contract concluded.[11]
A.
James Richard Reynolds
According
to the Amended Complaint, the last acts of alleged
retaliation against James Richard Reynolds occurred before he
resigned on May 29, 2015.[12] In fact, the original
complaint asserted that the last act of retaliation was on
May 19, 2015, when he was “harassed by
Fields.”[13]However, his complaint was filed on June
15, 2018 - outside the 3-year statute of limitations. No.
retaliatory actions are alleged to have occurred within the
statute of limitations, so James Richard Reynolds's case
is dismissed.
B.
Rodney Michael Reynolds
Originally
Plaintiff Rodney Michael Reynolds asserted that the last
retaliatory action against him happened in the Spring of
2015.[14] He filed his complaint on August 16,
2018. In the Amended Complaint Rodney Michael Reynolds
alleges that he was on medical leave at the beginning of the
2015-2016 school year and that on December 11, 2015,
“Eason told Reynolds that he could retire or be
terminated, and that he needed to decide
immediately.”[15] Although it is not clear how Eason's
actions are ...