You’d think that a principal’s knowledge of inappropriate text messaging involving a teacher would at least be enough to have a jury decide whether there was sufficient notice of misconduct to impose liability for the sexual abuse of a student.
Yesterday, however, the 8th Circuit concluded that the parents of a high school student who was sexually abused by her basketball coach could not proceed in their civil rights lawsuit against the Delight School District in Arkansas.
According to court records, during the 2006- 2007 school year the plaintiffs’ daughter had a sexual relationship with Chad Smith, her high school basketball coach.
Upon learning of the relationship, the plaintiffs sued the Delight School District under §1983 and Title IX, alleging that school officials acted with deliberate indifference in failing to protect their daughter from sexual abuse.
As is typical in these cases, the key issue was whether school officials had a duty to act based on “actual knowledge” of the illicit relationship.
The plaintiffs claimed that Tanya Wilcher, the former principal of Delight High School, had sufficient notice of the relationship between their daughter and Smith.
The key evidence was that school officials had received a series of complaints about text messages involving the coach.
One parent reported that Smith had sent her daughter a text message that read, “Are you drunk yet?” Another parent expressed discomfort over the fact that her daughter had received text messages from Smith throughout the summer regarding practice times.
In another incident, a teacher who confiscated a female student’s cell phone during class discovered a text message that read, “OMG you look good today.” The message had been sent from Smith’s phone.
Then there was an incident in which a male student received from a female student a vulgar text message that supposedly had been meant for Smith.
When confronted by Wilcher about the text messages, Smith explained them away as mistakes in judgment on his part or claimed he was in no way responsible for a particular transmission.
But while the various text message controversies were popping up during the course of the school year, there were also reports that the plaintiffs’ daughter was missing class time to be with Smith, and rumors circulating throughout the school that “something was going on” between the two.
In any event, Wilcher took no steps against Smith for the text messages beyond issuing a reprimand. That was until things came to a head in March 2007.
The school district had already decided not to renew Smith’s contract based on parent complaints against the basketball coach. Spurred by more rumors, Wilcher did some serious investigating and uncovered the sexual relationship between Smith and the plaintiffs’ daughter.
Smith was sent to prison for sexual assault and the plaintiffs went to federal court to sue the school district.
Tuesday, the 8th Circuit decided that the plaintiffs could not show that school officials had actual knowledge of Smith’s illicit conduct. Accordingly, the court directed the entry of judgment for the school district and the individual defendants named in the plaintiffs’ complaint.
On the issue of texting, the court concluded that Smith’s messages to female students did not provide Wilcher with actual notice of sexual abuse.
“The inappropriate comments in those messages, without more, did not alert Wilcher that Smith was involved in a sexual relationship with a student. Smith’s first message to provoke a parental complaint, asking a female student — ‘Are you drunk yet?’ — did not rise to the level of showing sexual abuse or harassment of [the plaintiffs' daughter] or any other student, especially in light of the context that the recipient allegedly had been charged with public intoxication. …
“Even the most suggestive text message, which was sent from Smith’s phone to a female student stating, ‘OMG you look good today,’ did not go so far as to suggest actual sexual conduct or sexual abuse,” the court said. (Doe v. Flaherty)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 at 8:37 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий