Doe v. Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education
837 F. Supp. 2d 742
S.D. Ohio2011Background
- John Doe is a cognitively disabled student in Big Walnut Local School District with an IEP.
- Defendants are the School Board, Principal Stephen House, and Superintendent April Domine.
- Prior to April 17, 2007, John Doe experienced harassment and incidents involving other students; on that date he was involved in a fight in which his nose was broken and he was not disciplined.
- A safety plan was implemented in summer 2007 to protect John Doe, including routine counseling, schedule adjustments, supervision measures, and explicit reporting of incidents.
- Plaintiffs allege substantive due process violations, ADA peer-to-peer harassment claims, and a state-law claim; the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.
- The court granted the motion to file a supplemental affidavit and ultimately dismissed all claims against the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process against school officials | Doe asserts a right to bodily integrity and protection from private harm | No government duty to protect from private violence; no special relationship; no state-created danger | Summary judgment for defendants; no constitutional violation |
| ADA peer-to-peer harassment claim | John Doe harassed due to disability creating an abusive environment; defendants were deliberately indifferent | Insufficient evidence of discrimination or adverse impact; defendants acted to protect John Doe | Summary judgment for defendants; no actionable ADA harassment |
| State-law claim under Ohio Rev. Code 2744.03 | Defendants acted maliciously and wantonly | §2744.03 provides defenses, not independent liability; no malice shown | Summary judgment for defendants; state-law claim defeated |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F.3d 495 (6th Cir.1996) (establishes exclusivity of due process private-actor liability; distinguishes students from teachers)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no duty to protect from private harm absent special relationship)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local governments liable only for policies or customs; no vicarious liability)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (five elements for Title IX/ADA peer harassment claims)
- Soper ex rel. v. Hoben, 195 F.3d 845 (6th Cir.1999) (no individual liability under DeShaney absent duty)
- Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.2002) (deliberate indifference standard for due process)
- Klemencic v. Ohio State Univ., 10 F. Supp. 2d 911 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (defines abusive educational environment under Title IX framework)
- S.S. v. Eastern Kentucky Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.2008) (not deliberately indifferent where school responds to incidents)
- Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702 (6th Cir.2003) (deliberate indifference and risk-awareness standards)