Dipippa v. Union School DistrictDipippa v. Union School District
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- McVerry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge.Pending now before the Court is the MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendants Union School District, Larry Bornak, Stephen Shutters, and Scott Kindel, Doc. No 9, with brief in support, Doc. No. 10, and PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, Doc. No. 11.
Plaintiffs Michael Dipippa and Mary Jane Dipippa, in their individual capacities, and as parents and natural guardians of their minor daughter, J.D., initiated this action on January 4, 2011, with the filing of a three count complaint against Defendants. Counts I and II are alleged against Defendant Union School District, with Count I alleging a civil rights violation claim brought under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871,
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In the aftermath of Twombly and the decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and the interpretation of those two cases by the United States Court of the Appeals for the Third Circuit in a series of precedential opinions, the pleading standards which allow a complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to
after Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiffs entitlement to relief. A complaint has to show such an entitlement with its facts. As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, “[w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-211 (quotations and citations omitted.)
The Third Circuit’s latest summation of the standard is that “[w]e must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, but we require more than mere assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Dawson v. Frias, 397 Fed.Appx. 739, 741 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted.) “The assumption of truth does not apply, however, to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations or to [tjhreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.’ ” Bamigbade v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 391 Fed.Appx. 131, 133 (3d Cir.2010), quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. “A complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will ultimately prevail on the merits. The Supreme Court’s formulation of the pleading standard in Twombly does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage, but instead simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element.” McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 646 (3d Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted.)
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Defendants present various arguments with respect to each count of Plaintiffs’ complaint, the combination of which, if granted, would result in the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. See generally Doc. No. 9. In view of the fact that Defendants advance two somewhat overlapping arguments directly challenging Count I, the 1983 action against Defendant School District, and three relatively distinct arguments seeking dismissal of other aspects of the complaint, the Court will address each argument in sequence.
1. Defendant School District’s Motion to Dismiss Count I, the 1983 action.
The Court begins with two arguments of Defendant School District, the sole party against which Count I is brought, that essentially move to dismiss Count I for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted above, Counts I and III are brought under
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ...
In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant School District violated their rights to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, Count III of the complaint asserts a substantive due process claim against the individually named Defendants. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Defendant School District’s first argument turns upon the theory of recovery pursued by Plaintiffs for Count I. Generally, Defendant School District argues that it had no affirmative duty to protect J.D. from the alleged harm perpetrated by Pryor. See Doc. Nos. 9 and 10 (referencing D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1368-69 (3d Cir.1992) and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989)). As Defendant School District correctly notes, under DeShaney, the Due Process Clause does not generally impose upon the state an affirmative obligation to protect its citizens from harm inflicted by private individuals. While there is an exception to this general rule in cases in which a “special relationship” exists between an individual and the state, Defendant School District also notes that such a “special relationship” is not recognized between a school district and its students. Id. (citing D.R., 972 F.2d at 1368-73). As an alternative argument, Defendant District moves to dismiss Count I for failing to allege that a policy, practice, or custom played an affirmative role in causing the sexual abuse of J.D., and that Plaintiffs have failed “to allege a factual basis to show a deliberate indifference towards the alleged abuse of J.D.” Doc. No. 10 at 17-18.
Plaintiffs oppose both bases seeking dismissal. As to Defendant’s argument that no “special relationship” exists between the School District and J.D., Plaintiffs contend that unlike the circumstances of DeShaney, here Defendant School District is liable because of its own actions, and not those taken by a third party non-state actor, specifically alleging that the District established and maintained a practice, custom or policy with a deliberate indifference to the consequences that resulted in a constitutional harm. See Doc. No. 11 (referencing Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District, 882 F.2d 720, 725 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1044, 110 S.Ct. 840, 107 L.Ed.2d 835 (1990) (holding that a school district can be liable under
Plaintiffs note the factual allegations set forth in their complaint that provide the factual basis for the claim of deliberate indifference to J.D.’s due process rights. See Doc. No. 11, referencing Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 12 (alleging, inter alia, that teacher/coach Alan Pryor was under the direction of Defendant School District during the operative period); id. at ¶ 18 (alleging that Defendants Bornak and/or Shutters were approached by “several teachers” during the 2009-2010 school year and informed that “Pryor was spending an inordinate amount of time with
It is well established that a municipality may be held liable under
In order for a school district to be liable pursuant to
As the complaint does not identify a specific statement of policy by the District, Plaintiffs’ 1983 claim against Defendant School District appears to implicate the third scenario. Plaintiffs allege a number of occurrences and interactions involving faculty members, the individually named Defendants acting on behalf of the School District, minor J.D., Alan Pryor, and Plaintiff mother that, at a minimum, clearly and explicitly allege a degree of notice on the part of school officials of some kind of relationship between Pryor and J.D. that raised official concern, all of which preceded the sexual abuse alleged to have occurred at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege acts of open and obvious physical contact between Pryor and J.D. at school functions. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Kindel met with Pryor to discuss the concerns raised by other faculty members regarding Pryor and J.D. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Shutters and Bornak. met with J.D. toward the end of the 2009-2010 school year to specifically discuss the situation and to direct J.D. not to go to Pryor’s classroom anymore. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Shutters called Plaintiff mother and informed her of the concerns toward the end of the 2009-2010 school year, and further advised her that the Defendant School District is investigating the matter. In spite of these occur-x-ences, Plaintiffs allege that the contact between Pryor and J.D. continued throughout the summer and was known by School District officials. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a custom, practice, or policy of deliberate indifference that may have played a part in bringing about the constitutional deprivation suffered by minor J.D.
The Court’s analysis does not stop there, however. Liability under
The final policy maker for a school district in Pennsylvania is typically the school board or the superintendent. See 24 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-508, 5-510, 5-514, 10-1081(superintendent duties); McGreevy, 413 F.3d at 369. In this case, Plaintiff attributes to Defendant School District a “custom, practice, and/or policy of deliberate indifference to and/or concealment of instances of known improper contacts and relationship by Pryor with J.D. and known sexual assaults upon and abuse of J.D. by Pryor” by way of specific actions, or inactions, taken by the District superintendent (Defendant Bornak), the high school principal (Defendant Shutters), and the athletic director for the high school (Defendant Kindel). Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 41-42. In view of the facts as pled, the complaint provides sufficient notice to Defendant School District for the purpose of its motion to dismiss. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (holding that notice pleading is sufficient for suits against local governments pursuant to
At this juncture, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it has stated a cause of action against Defendant School District in Count I. Furthermore, the Court finds that Count I does not aver a “special relationship” theory of liability under DeShaney. Count I is clearly analogous to that of Stoneking, wherein the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held:
Nothing in DeShaney suggests that state officials may escape liability arising from their policies maintained in deliberate indifference to actions taken by their subordinates. As the Supreme Court recently reconfirmed in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989), a municipality may be liable undersection 1983 where its policymakers made “a deliberate choice to follow a course of action ... from among various alternatives,” (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati 475 U.S. 469, 483-84, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1300-01, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (plurality op.)), and the policy chosen “reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of [the city’s] inhabitants,” 109 S.Ct. at 1206. See also Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. at 2036-37 (government body may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental “custom”, “practices” or “usage”).
This is an independent basis for liability previously pled and preserved by Stoneking which is unrelated to the issue decided in DeShaney. Liability of municipal policymakers for policies or customs chosen or recklessly maintained is not dependent upon the existence of a “special relationship” between the municipal officials and the individuals harmed, (citation omitted).
882 F.2d at 725. The Court has little difficulty in finding that Plaintiffs have adequately pled an independent basis for liability attributable to Defendant School District. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss in this regard will be denied.
2. Claims brought by Plaintiff parents in their individual capacities
Defendants move to dismiss the claims for damages of Plaintiff parents individually. According to the complaint, “As a direct and proximate result of the customs, practices and/or policies of the Union School District, Michael A. Dipippa and Mary Jane DiPippa have been required to provide medical treatment and counseling for J.D. and have been required to pay fees associated with such treatment and counseling.” Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 51 & 74. Defendants argue that the claims brought by Plaintiff parents in their individual capacities should be dismissed because the harm alleged is not a deprivation of a constitutionally or federally recognized right. Doc. Nos. 9 & 10. More specifically, Defendants contend that the individual claims brought by Plaintiffs are essentially impermissible attempts to recover for the deprivation of the civil rights of a third party, namely their daughter. See Doc. No. 12 at § V.B. (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980) for the general proposition that, to successfully assert a cause of action under
Although styled as a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Pursuant to
Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests, and their contours are shaped by the interests they protect. Our legal system’s concept of damages reflects this view of legal rights. “The cardinal principle of damages in Anglo-American law is that of compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.” 2 F. Harper & F. James, Law of Torts § 25.1, p. 1299 (1956) (emphasis in original) ... The Court implicitly has recognized the applicability of this principle to actions under§ 1983 by stating that damages are available under that section for actions “found ... to have been violative of ... CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO HAVE CAUSED COMPENSABLE INJURY....” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S., at 319, 95 S.Ct., at 999 (emphasis supplied); see Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 630-631, 97 S.Ct. 882, 885-886, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 232, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1641, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 2005, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (action for damages directly under Fourth Amendment); id., at 408-409, 91 S.Ct., at 2010-2011 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). The lower federal courts appear generally to agree that damages awards under§ 1983 should be determined by the compensation principle....
The Members of the Congress that enacted§ 1983 did not address directly the question of damages, but the principle that damages are designed to compensate persons for injuries caused by the deprivation of rights hardly could have been foreign to the many lawyers in Congress in 1871----Two other sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 appear to incorporate this principle, and no reason suggests itself for reading§ 1983 differently____ To the extent that Congress intended that awards under§ 1983 should deter the deprivation of constitutional rights, there is no evidence that it meant to establish a deterrent more formidable than that inherent in the award of compensatory damages. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S., at 442, 96 S.Ct., at 1000-1001 (White, J., concurring in judgment)....
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254-255, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1047-48, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (footnotes 7, 8, 9, and 10 omitted). The Supreme Court further noted “[i]n order to further the purpose of
At the same time, however, Defendants’ concern is not wholly without application here. A parent’s ability to seek compensation for past and future medical expenses incurred in the care of a minor child does not further provide an independent cause of action for the parents’ own claims of injuries given the facts as pled within the complaint. Defendants note that a parent’s ability to recover damages with their own independently pled
At this juncture, the Court finds the same reasoning to hold in terms of Plaintiffs’ demand for damages under Count II, the claim brought under Title IX. Generally speaking, parents of a student whose rights were violated do not have standing to assert personal claims under Title IX, but do have standing to assert claims on the student’s behalf. Accord., Haines v. Metropolitan Government of Davidson County, Tenn., 32 F.Supp.2d 991 (M.D.Tenn.1998); Doe v. Londonderry School Dist., 970 F.Supp. 64 (D.N.H.1997); Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf, 956 F.Supp. 741 (E.D.Ky.1996); Burrow By and Through Burrow v. Postville Community School Dist., 929 F.Supp. 1193 (N.D.Iowa, 1996). On its face, the statutory language of Title IX,
3. Count II against Defendant School District brought under Title IX
Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 proscribes discrimination, exclusion, or denial of benefits on the basis of sex in educational institutions or programs which receive federal funding.
Title IX encompasses sexual harassment of a student by a teacher and is enforceable through an implied private right of action for damages against a school district. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75-76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see also, Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Similar to 1983 claims, the Supreme Court has rejected a respondeat superior basis for liability. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 285, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Edüd 277 (1998). To succeed on a Title IX sexual harassment claim, a student must show: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment, or a sexually hostile educational environment; (2) actual notice by an “appropriate person” who has the authority to take corrective measures; and, (3) a response to the harassment that amounts to deliberate indifference. Bennett v. Pa. Hosp. Sch. of Nurse Anesthesia, No. Civ.A. 01-CV-4098, 2002 WL 32341792 at *3 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2002) (citing Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291-92, 118 S.Ct. 1989). An “appropriate person” is “an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the
... [district’s] behalf.” Id. at 290, 141 L.Ed.2d 277. “Actual notice” must amount to “actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs.” Id. It is important to note that knowledge of the mere possibility of harassment is insufficient to constitute awareness, but an appropriate person need not be absolutely certain that harassment has occurred in order to satisfy the knowledge requirement. See Dawn L. v. Greater Johnstown Sch. Dist., 586 F.Supp.2d 332, 367 (W.D.Pa.2008) (citing Bostic v. Smyrna Sch. Dist., 418 F.3d 355, 360 (3d Cir.2005)). “An educational institution has actual knowledge’ if it knows the underlying facts, indicating sufficiently substantial danger to students, and was therefore aware of the danger.” Bostic, 418 F.3d at 361 (quoting 3C Fed. Jury Prac. & Instr. § 177.36 (5th ed.2001)). Further, “the response must amount to deliberate indifference to discrimination.... The premise, in other words, is an official decision by the recipient not to remedy the violation.” Id.
Based upon the factual averments alleged within the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a Title IX cause of action against Defendant School District. Plaintiffs have sufficiently averred that numerous officials, namely the superintendent, the high school principal, and the athletic director, had actual notice of Pryor’s inappropriate interactions with J.D., and that the interactions continued after such notification. Whether the facts rise to the level of deliberate indifference on the part of these officials cannot be decided at this stage of the action. Nevertheless, the allegations are sufficient to allow Plaintiffs to proceed to discovery. Whether they will prove true, or legally sufficient based on the facts as they are discovered, is a question for another day. Defendant School District’s motion to dismiss Count II, the Title IX count, will be denied.
4. Count III against Individual Defendants
Defendants move to dismiss Count III, the 1983 action against the individual Defendants, on the basis that it is duplicative of Count I, the
Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he/she takes under color of state law. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237-238, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686-1687, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Official-capacity suits, in contrast, “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell, infra, 436 U.S. at 690, n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035, n. 55, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. On the merits, to establish personal liability in a
In terms of the availability of defenses to liability, an official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. See, e.g., Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967) (absolute immunity); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) (same). In an official-capacity action, however, these defenses are not available. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980); see also Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 105 S.Ct. 873, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985). Additionally, punitive damages are not available under
Plaintiffs’ complaint does not explicitly assert the capacity in which the causes of actions are brought against the individual Defendants, but that, in and of itself, does not impose a limitation on Plaintiffs’ claims. As the Supreme Court has recognized, that is not dispositive. In many cases, the complaint will not clearly specify whether officials are sued personally, in their official capacity, or both. Graham, 473 U.S. at FN. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3099. “The course of proceedings” in such cases typically will indicate the nature of the liability sought to be imposed. Id. (quoting Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 469, 105 S.Ct. 873, 877, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985)). Given the early stage of these proceedings, particularly in light of the fact that Defen
CONCLUSION
For the reasons hereinabove set forth, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 9, will be denied. An appropriate order follows.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’ MOTION TO DISMISS, (Doc. No. 9), and the response in opposition thereto filed by Plaintiff (Doc. No. 11), and in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendants are further ORDERED to file an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on or before May 18, 2011.