Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN Plaintiffs, v. DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, Defendant : : : : : : : : 1:13-CV-02867-JEJ

(Judge John E. Jones, III.)

AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN (collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin Defendant from violating Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitutional rights, and in support thereof, aver the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendant has systematically

violated their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to free speech under

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 24

3.

Defendant has violated Plaintiffs rights to perform their

constitutional and statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to uphold Plaintiffs rights under the

United States Constitution and enjoin Defendant from committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the

Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors (Board), resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to the Susquehanna Township School District (STSD). 6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD, and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD. 7. Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as

superintendent of STSD. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 which conveys

subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 24

9.

Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a). 10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)

because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. THE FACTS 11. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant

superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act. 12. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new

Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 13. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all

power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of this AGREEMENT. (Emphasis added.) 14. Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: Criticisms, complaints,

and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the
3

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 4 of 24

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of School Directors as appropriate. 15. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of

Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers, residents, and taxpayers. 16. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been

employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval. 17. It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013

and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf. 18. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the

front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and always in direct view of both Plaintiffs. 19. Although public meetings of the School Board are normally

held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 5 of 24

School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those related to this litigation. 20. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of

STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out for intimidation. 21. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended

board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and did so on Dr. Kegerises behalf and with her knowledge and approval. 22. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs. 23. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff

Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr. Kegerise by STSD. 24. In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to

look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 6 of 24

25.

In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting

on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February 22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 26. Further, Kutulakis stated [p]lease accept this correspondence

as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr. Rawls. 27. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.

Kegerise, and Blunt, and informed them that in response to an inquiry from a reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the board was taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations, Ferguson stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would implore you to do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment. 28. Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you

choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 7 of 24

29.

On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.

Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this correct? 30. Several additional emails followed, including one where

Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township High School athletic director. 31. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the

school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr. Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 32. In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with

and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and with her knowledge and approval. 33. Discovery will show whether other Board members or other

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such correspondence included threats of litigation.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 8 of 24

34.

In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and

claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. 35. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify

the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke. 36. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by

midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortiously interfering with Dr. Kegerises Contract. 37. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis

repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2

May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence. The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.

It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email when it clearly was written after.
8

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 9 of 24

38.

In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written

correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on the written correspondence. 39. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide Dr. Kegerise

with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013. 40. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F. 41. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the

same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,
9

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 10 of 24

specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G. 42. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to

threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls, Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him. 43. Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about

Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents. 44. As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the

relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval. 45. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to STSD. 46. In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized

the community survey by stating: Some members are attempting to end run the contractual prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the first
10

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 11 of 24

instance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents may make sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations roles. It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt. See Exhibits E and F appended hereto. 47. 48. The community survey was never undertaken. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the recipients constitutional and statutory rights. 49. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance

where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis attempts to interfere with Board business or Board members activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of the Board. 50. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt

explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their elected positions. 51. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members

they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.
11

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 12 of 24

52.

In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote: I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact that Sues attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are wellfounded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity to liability the law provides when they are acting within their role as Board members. When they are acting as individuals and not as members of the Board, they are subject to the same risk of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues in determining whether a Board member is acting as a Board member is whether their actions are in accordance with the advice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only protect individual Board members if and when their actions are authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing to disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . . Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or the District unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain board members] on behalf of the District and Board. 53. In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote: It has come to my attention that some of you attended a community meeting sponsored and organized by Peter Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-register effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attend any meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is illadvised to attend such meetings precisely because it engenders the appearance and invites the assumption that you are representing the Board and District. 54. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to

communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address -schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board members.
12

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 13 of 24

55.

The official STSD website explains that [w]hen using this

email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding to the School Board. 56. Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has

the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors or even if an email will be disseminated. 57. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emails

sent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account information or passwords necessary to access the official account. 58. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other

Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send emails from it. 59. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident

Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD, sent an email to schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org to ask a question related to a criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant
13

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 14 of 24

principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled student (the Sharkey Matter). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener emails referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H. 60. members. 61. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School Board

even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark Sussman. 62. Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one

week prior had not been disseminated to the Board. 63. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any

member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or feedback prior to sending the email to the Board. 64. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not

allowed to discuss the substance of the email. 65. Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to

threatening letters he had received from the Superintendents personal attorney, Kutulakis, as well as legal guidance from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.
14

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 15 of 24

66.

Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldnt

discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wieners concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors. 67. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have

Wieners email disseminated to the Board. 68. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wieners email,

which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board. 69. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute

Wieners email to the Board. 70. On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at

schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org, stating in part I was informed that the e-mail had not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it] has been as of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H appended hereto. 71. Despite Sussmans email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise

that she distribute Wieners October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent the second email.

15

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 16 of 24

72.

On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or

acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a 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 replied to

Wiener by email, referring to Wieners repeated missives demanding information. 74. In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: Contrary to reports by

the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires; and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim. (Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto. 75. Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had

previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email. 76. At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this

Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wieners

16

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 17 of 24

emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails were ever disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were addressed to the Board and sent to the official Board email address. 77. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch

supporter of the superintendent and her administration. 78. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as

adversarial to the superintendent and her administration. 79. Board members who are perceived as favorable to the

Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise. 80. In correspondence dated December 17, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

undersigned counsel, complaining that Plaintiff Rawls had placed a telephone call to Kegerise, and that Kegerise would not accept any further calls from Rawls, notwithstanding that a school district superintendent works for the school board. A true and correct copy of the December 17, 2013 correspondence is incorporated herein and appended hereto as Exhibit I. 81. Notwithstanding the assertion in the December 17, 2013

correspondence, Rawls had not placed any call to Kegerise for at least 6 weeks prior to the correspondence.
17

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 18 of 24

82.

Oddly, the December 17, 2013 asserted without citation to

supporting authority that the contents of the letter may not be used in litigation except to enforce the directive contained herein. See Exhibit I. 83. On January 10, 2014, Kegerise filed a lawsuit in the Court of

Common Pleas for Dauphin County against Plaintiffs Rawls and Sussman requesting emergency injunctive relief. 84. On January 15, 2014, Plaintiffs removed that lawsuit to federal

court (docketed in this Honorable Court at 1:14-CV-00067-JEJ). 85. In the state court complaint, Kegerise alleged: Sussman attempted to make service of the Complaint [filed in the instant matter] on an assistant district solicitor during a recess of the December 17, 2013 meeting of the School Board. Sussman dropped the papers on the floor of the men's restroom while the assistant solicitor was making use of the facilities and requested the papers be picked up. A true and correct copy of the Complaint seeking injunctive relief is incorporated herein and appended hereto as Exhibit J. 86. On January 16, 2014, undersigned counsel spoke in person with

Brian Taylor, Esq., the assistant district solicitor referenced above. 87. When asked about the averment that Sussman dropped papers

on the floor and told Taylor to pick them up, Taylor told undersigned counsel I told Jason twice that it never happened, I dont know why he put that in the complaint.
18

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 19 of 24

88.

It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis knowingly

included false information in that complaint in dereliction of his professional responsibilities and rules of court. 89. Kegerise signed a verification of the state court complaint

verifying that the statements contained therein were true and correct subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification. 90. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce

numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise. COUNT I Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. 1983; First Amendment to the United States Constitution 91. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 92. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 93. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors. 94. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times

relevant hereto under color of state law.

19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 20 of 24

95.

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise

their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents. 96. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected School Board members, including Plaintiffs. 97. In addition to examples provided above, discovery will show

numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval. 98. Under authority invested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her

contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional violations be stopped. 99. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional

violations continue. 100. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions and the actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individual and official capacities. 101. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First Amendment rights of free speech.
20

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 21 of 24

102. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and other costs.

COUNT II Punitive Damages Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity 103. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 104. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or should have known that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in discovery, constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. 105. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, and/or wantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the public at large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights generally and more specifically as follows: a. the Board; b. c. By withholding correspondence sent to the Board; By delaying correspondence sent to the Board; By monitoring correspondence sent to and from

21

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 22 of 24

d.

By repeatedly threatening legal action against

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for exercising their First Amendment rights; e. By acting to intimidate individuals, including but

not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights; and f. By punishing or threatening to punish Board

members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights. 106. Kegerises continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious actions. 107. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive be awarded against Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y. Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against Defendant Kegerise, as follows: A. B. Declaratory Relief against the Defendant; Nominal Relief against the Defendant;
22

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 23 of 24

C. D. E. F.

Compensatory Relief against the Defendant; Punitive damages against the Defendant; Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and, Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. The Keisling Law Offices, P.C.

/s/ Bret Keisling Bret Keisling, Esquire Attorney ID #201352 17 S. Second Street, Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 303-3446 (Phone) (717) 801-1786 (fax) Email: Bret@KeislingLaw.com Date: January 21, 2014

23

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 24 of 24

Certificate of Service

I, Bret Keisling, Esq. certify that on January 21, 2014, the foregoing Amended Complaint was served on the following parties by electronic means at the addresses listed below:

jef@kingspry.com jpk@abomkutulakis.com cek@abomkutulakis.com

_______________/s/_________________ Bret Keisling, Esq.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 4 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 5 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 6 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 7 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 8 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 9 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 10 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 11 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 12 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 13 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 14 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 15 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 16 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 17 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 18 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 19 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 20 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 21 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 22 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 23 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 24 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 25 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 26 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-1 Filed 01/21/14 Page 27 of 27

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-2 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-2 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-3 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-3 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-3 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-4 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 1

From: "J kutulakis" <jpk@abomkutulakis.com> Date: May 18, 2013 7:50 AM Subject: Comments To: "mark.yale.sussman@gmail.com" <mark.yale.sussman@gmail.com> Cc: "pblunt@kingspry.com" <pblunt@kingspry.com> Mr. Sussman: I hope that this email finds you well. I am out of town and am unable to develop a formal letter, however one will follow. It has been brought to my attention that you have been making comments about the state of the Susquehanna Township School District including but not limited to statements that its teachers are afraid and the students are out of control. I am informed that you specifically indicating that the administration must go as a result. I write to formally ask that you immediately provide me the names of the teaches with whom you have specifically discussed this matter. I also write to inform you that I believe you are tortiously interfering with Dr. Kegerise's contract with the District. I ask that you immediately retract these statements with whomever you shared them and do so in writing, also copying me. I believe an apology to Dr. Kegerise with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as the District's Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by midnight, Saturday, May 19th. If you are unable and unwilling to follow these requests, I will be taking swift legal action on Monday. If you have retained independent legal counsel, please forward this immediately to that attorney and provide me his/her contact information. I am copying Solicitor Blunt on this out of professional courtesy, but do not believe his capacity as the Solicitor covers your conduct as it appears you are acting independent of the Board on this matter. I will defer to him on the capacity of his representation of you. I want to be crystal clear. I have individuals who have provided very specific information about what you have said to them. It is unconscionable to knowingly make such blatantly false statements about the Districts outstanding administration. Your failure to correct this situation by day's end will undoubtedly result a a legal battle. Thank you in anticipation of you prompt attention to this matter.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-5 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-5 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-6 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-6 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-7 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-7 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-8 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 3

From: Adam adamsw91@yahoo.com To: "schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org" <schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:20 AM Subject: student safety

Dr. Kegerise and School Board Members: My name is Adam Wiener. I am the parent of two students in our district. My son is in 5th grade and my daughter is on 2nd. I am writing to you out of grave concern not only for my children, but all of the children in our schools. My concern is related to the recent charges filed against Mr. Sharkey, specifically the handling of the issue by the administration. Are there plans to put the administrators who are currently the subject of a police investigation on leave pending the outcome of the investigation? If not, please explain why. Thank you, Adam Wiener
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 11:04 AM, Adam < adamsw91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dr. Kegerise and School Board Members: Please see my email below that was sent on October 1st. I was told by Dr. Kegerise that evening that my email would be sent to the school board. I was informed that the e-mail had not been sent to the memebers of the board, and I am still unsure if is has been as of today. I have the right to have my question answered. These types of actions are what perpetuate the belief that the administration will not answer questions or even respond to very important issues. Thank You Adam Wiener

From: Adam < adamsw91@yahoo.com Date: October 21, 2013 at 2:44:07 PM EDT To: "schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org" <schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org> Subject: Fw: student safety Reply-To: Adam < adamsw91@yahoo.com Dr. Kegerise I still have board member believe that and School Board Members not received a reply from you or any other school to my email that was sent on October 1st. I it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-8 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 3

question with a response. explore to get a reply. Thank you, Adam Wiener

Is there another avenue I should

On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Paul Blunt <pblunt@kingspry.com> wrote: Mr. Wiener: I am the solicitor for the Susquehanna Township School District. In response to your repeated missives demanding information regarding the District administrators, please advised of the following: 1. Personnel matters are not public information and so no information will be provided regarding any District employee. 2. Your demand appears to be based on some inaccurate factual and legal assumptions. Contrary to reports by the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires; and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim. 3. Per a request by the DA, we can give you no further information regarding the matter. Paul K. Blunt, Esq.

From: adamsw91@yahoo.com Date: October 25, 2013 at 11:54:09 AM EDT To: Paul Blunt <pblunt@kingspry.com> Cc: Michael Ferguson , "SKegerise@hannasd.org" <SKegerise@hannasd.org> Subject: Re: Mr. Blunt: Thank you for responding to my email. I would like to clarify a few things based on your response. In addition your response has me asking a few more questions. 1. Is there a policy in place on what the procedure is when a district employee is being investigated in a criminal matter. Just to clarify- I'm not accusing anyone of criminal behavior. I'm also not asking you to comment on the investigation regarding Mr. Sharkey or the investigation regarding the reporting responsibilities by the administration.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-8 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 3

I don't believe that the safety of our children is a personnel issue. We may have to disagree on this matter, but my thoughts are that if someone is being investigated on how a situation was handled (again- not saying they are guilty of any wrongdoing). It would make sense, to me, that person should not be put in a position to still be responsible for the same duty that is being investigated. Given the facts that your third bullet point may, in your opinion, preclude you from responding to me, and the fact that it took three weeks and three emails for an initial response, my expectations for a reply are low. However, I do appreciate the fact that my concern was at least given the required attention. Thank you Adam Wiener

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-9 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 4 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 5 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 6 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 7 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 8 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 9 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 10 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 11 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 12 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 13 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 14 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 15 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 16 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 17 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 18 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10-10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 19 of 19