557 F.Supp.3d 645
D. Maryland2021Background
- On March 20, 2018, Great Mills High School student Austin Rollins shot and killed fellow student Jaelynn Willey; Plaintiffs are Jaelynn’s parents and the Estate.
- Plaintiffs allege a long pattern of stalking, sexual harassment, and violent behavior by Rollins at school, which teachers/coach and parents reported but the school did not meaningfully address.
- Plaintiffs sued the Board of Education, St. Mary’s County, individual board members, central-office administrators, GMHS officials (including teacher/coach Kroll), and Deputy Sheriff/School Resource Officer Blaine Gaskill under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (multiple theories), state torts (negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, survival), Maryland constitutional provisions, and respondeat superior.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (and the Board alternatively moved for summary judgment); the court declined to convert motions into summary judgment because discovery had not occurred.
- Ruling: Title IX (Count IV) survives against the Board but is dismissed with prejudice as to all individual defendants; several § 1983 claims and many claims against individual defendants were dismissed (some with prejudice, some without); state-law tort claims (negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, survival) may proceed against the Board and County; respondeat superior and certain Maryland constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX liability for student-on-student sexual harassment | School had actual notice of severe, pervasive harassment of Jaelynn and acted with deliberate indifference, denying her equal access | Board: insufficient notice to an "appropriate" official; individuals not proper Title IX defendants; harassment not severe/pervasive enough | Title IX claim may proceed against the Board; Title IX claims against individual defendants dismissed with prejudice |
| §1983 claims (special-relationship, state-created danger, conscience-shocking) against individual school officials and SRO | School officials (and SRO) deprived Jaelynn of constitutional protections by failing to act; special-relationship or state-created-danger exceptions apply | Defendants: pleadings lack specific individualized conduct; no special relationship or affirmative state-created-danger acts; qualified/immunity and pleading defects | §1983 claims against individual Board members, central-office officials, GMHS defendants, and Gaskill dismissed (mix of with prejudice and without); failure-to-train (Monell) claim against County dismissed without prejudice due to no surviving individual-violation allegations |
| State-law torts: negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, survival against Board/County and individuals | Board/County breached duty to protect students (foreseeable threats, prior incidents, failure to implement security), giving rise to negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, survival claims | Board: claims amount to barred educational-malpractice / discretionary-function claims; individual defendants immune absent malice/gross negligence; sovereign-immunity caps | Negligence, premises liability, wrongful death, and survival claims may proceed against the Board and County; tort claims against individual defendants dismissed without prejudice; respondeat superior fails (no underlying employee tort established) |
| Procedural: leave to amend and discovery | Plaintiffs seek leave to amend and discovery to develop facts | Defendants argue plaintiffs already have facts or that further amendment would be futile | Court allowed plaintiffs to move for leave to amend by set deadline (some claims already dismissed with prejudice so not amendable); stayed conversion to summary judgment pending discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX requires actual notice to an appropriate school official and deliberate indifference)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (student-on-student sexual harassment actionable under Title IX if severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive and school is deliberately indifferent)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (Title IX authorizes suits against funding recipients, not individuals)
- Doe v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., 1 F.4th 257 (4th Cir.) (actual-notice standard clarified: report to an appropriate official that can be objectively construed as alleging sexual harassment suffices)
- Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (no general constitutional duty to protect from private violence absent special relationship or state-created-danger)
- Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (‘shocks the conscience’ standard for due-process liability)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and state officials sued in official capacity are not “persons” under § 1983)
- Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674 (4th Cir.) (discusses individual liability and elements for equal-protection/deliberate-indifference claims)
- Hunter v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cty., 439 A.2d 582 (Md.) (limitations on judicial review for claims characterized as educational malpractice)