Brinkley v. Waters

ASHTON BRINKLEY and JARED SPELL, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL GLENN WATERS, an individual; APPLING COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;DR. SCARLETT M. COPELAND, in her official and individual capacities;DR. GENE A. STARR, in his official and individual capacities;VIOLET MARCHMAN, in her official and individual capacities; JAMES CAROL WATERS,an individual; WANDA L. WATERS, an individual; JOHN/JANE DOES Nos. 1-5, Defendants.

No. 2:18-CV-89

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division

March 31, 2021

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. no. 88, filed by Defendants Appling County School District, Dr. Scarlett Copeland, and Dr. Gene Starr (collectively, "Defendants"). Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Strike, dkt. no. 113, filed by Plaintiff Ashton Brinkley and Jared Spell (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). The motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Factual Background

This case involves inappropriate sexual conduct by a high school teacher toward Plaintiffs, two former students. Plaintiffs both started their freshman year at Appling County High School in the fall of 2012. Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 21. At some point in the fall of 2010, Defendant Michael Waters ("Waters")¹ applied for employment with the Appling County School District ("A.C.S.D") and was hired as a math teacher for Appling County High School. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.

In Waters' application for hire, he answered "yes" to the following questions: (1) have you ever had a teaching certificate or credential denied, revoked or suspended in any state and (2) have you ever been placed on disciplinary probation or been suspended from a job, college or university. Id. ¶ 12.

In a written explanation attached to his application, Waters outlined that the Professional Standards Commission ("PSC")² had suspended his teaching certificate for twenty days following a 2009 incident at his prior place of employment—the Camden County School District. Dkt. No. 107-7 at 67. In his attached explanation,Waters indicated that multiple students had made allegations against him for "inappropriate actions" but he claimed that the "only action [he] acknowledged for the suspension was having an inappropriate conversation with a student." Id. at 68. Before hiring him, an A.C.S.D. interview committee³ probed Waters about the written explanation he provided in his employment application. Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 14. Waters further indicated that the previous allegations were turned over to the PSC and the Camden County Sheriff's Department. Dkt. No. 88-1 at 11.

Upon receiving the Camden County allegations, the PSC conducted an investigation and issued a Probable Cause Case Report (the "PSC Report") on Waters' conduct. Dkt. No. 102-5 at 2. The PSC Report contains allegations that Waters "inappropriately touched students. Specifically, several male students reported that the male educator had discussed sexual matters and touched them inappropriately." Id. at 2. The report detailed the following relevant investigative findings, which are undisputed:

The system discovered that four students alleged inappropriate conduct by the educator [Waters]. The students alleged that the educator discussed sexual matters and touched them inappropriately.

The system notified DFCS. DFCS turned the investigation over to law enforcement.

The law enforcement investigator assigned to the case interviewed numerous witnesses. He felt that the mostcredible of the witnesses was Student 1 that reported the educator touched him when he was a freshman (now a senior) at the high school. Student 1 reported that after the educator touched him he told the educator that he would kill him if he ever touched him again. Student 1 dropped out of the FFA program and avoided the educator.

The investigator interviewed two other students ([students] 2 & 3). These two students had apparently collaborated with each other. Student 2 stated that the educator had inappropriately touched him on four different occasions. Student 3 stated that he had witnessed the educator touching Student 2. The statement of Student 3 was not consistent with Student 2's statement. The investigator discounted these statements. The DA did not proceed with criminal charges based on this information.

. . .

The students' statements were consistent that the educator talked to them about their personal lives. The students related that the topic often involved sexual questions and information.

The educator [Waters] wrote a four page single spaced email explaining why he thought students would tell lies about him. The educator specifically mentioned student 1 who had not been in the FFA program since his freshman year.

. . .

[The associate principal] was involved in the investigation of the educator. She believes that the students were truthful. She thinks that the students have difficulty with their statements, but overall, they were truthful.

The educator's direct supervisor and the investigator of the current matter stated that he felt that the students were attempting to discredit the educator. He did think that student 1 was credible.. . .

The educator states that he may have discussed sexual topics with students.

Id. at 2-3.

Under a subsequent section labeled "Findings of Fact," the PSC Report concluded the following:

Students alleged that the educator touched them inappropriately and discussed sexual topics with them. The students' statements regarding inappropriate touching were not consistent. The educator acknowledged discussing sexual topics with the students.

Id. Ultimately, the PSC recommended a twenty-day suspension of Waters' teaching certificate. Dkt. No. 102-2 ¶ 2. It is undisputed that the A.C.S.D. obtained and relied upon the PSC Report prior to hiring Waters. Dkt. No. 109 ¶ 2. However, no monitoring or restrictions, other than normal supervision of teachers, were placed on Waters at Appling County High School until the August 2014 incident discussed below. Dkt. No. 109 ¶ 7.

Plaintiffs met Waters during their freshman year at Appling County High School when they joined Envirothon—a school club for which Waters was the faculty sponsor.⁴ Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 22-23. One of the other students in Envirothon was C.F., who was a ward of Waters and living with him during this time. Id. at 27. From 2012until August 2014, A.C.S.D. had no knowledge of any allegations of possible inappropriate conduct by Waters with either Plaintiffs or any other students. Id. ¶ 32.

However, in August of 2014, an incident involving Waters and Plaintiff Brinkley was reported to school officials. Specifically, Gina Brinkley, Plaintiff Brinkley's mother ("Ms. Brinkley"), and Gina Brinkley's boyfriend, Steve Clinich, spoke to Principal Gene Starr ("Defendant Starr") about the fact that Plaintiff Brinkley did not come home after band practice the previous night. Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 33. After Plaintiff Brinkley did not come home at his usual time, Ms. Brinkley tracked her son's location to Waters' home. According to Defendants, Clinich informed Starr that when Brinkley's mother arrived, all that she saw was Plaintiff Brinkley come out of a "darkened room." Dkt. No. 88-1 at 4.

Plaintiffs' version of these facts, however, give a much more detailed depiction of the events. As stated in her deposition, Ms. Brinkley called Plaintiff Brinkley multiple times before tracking his location and driving over to Waters' house. Dkt. No. 102-10 at 3. Upon arriving at the Waters' residence, she beat on the door until she was let in by C.F. Id. at 4. She then went straight to Waters' bedroom and turned the knob, which was locked. Id. at 8. At that point, Ms. Brinkley said she was "about to bust the door down." Id. When Plaintiff Brinkley opened the bedroom door, the bedroom lights were off and Waters was "in his underwear only,laid up in the bed." Id. Further, it appeared that Plaintiff Brinkley had been crying uncontrollably. Id. at 9. The next day, Ms. Brinkley relayed all of this to Defendant Starr. Id. at 10. This included her telling Starr that Waters was "laid up in his bed in underwear only." Id.

After Defendant Starr was made aware of this possible inappropriate conduct by Waters, Starr informed Superintendent Scarlett Copeland ("Defendant Copeland") about the allegations, and Copeland directed Starr to conduct an investigation. Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 9. As a part of the investigation, Defendant Starr called PSC Investigator John Grant to see if any other complaints had been filed against Waters. Dkt. No. 102-25 at 5. Grant indicated that two prior complaints regarding Waters had been filed; there was one complaint in 2006 which PSC did not investigate and another incident in 2009 for which Grant claimed, "[Waters] received a one-month probation for inappropriate touching of male students." Id. Grant suggested that Defendant Starr turn the current matter over to the Division of Family and Children Services ("DFACS"). Id.

Defendant Starr—along with other staff at the school—also spoke to Waters and Plaintiff Brinkley. Id. ¶ 37. When questioned why he was at Waters' house that night, Plaintiff Brinkley indicated that he thought Waters was mad at him, so he went to Waters' house after band practice to speak with him. Id. ¶ 38.Plaintiff Brinkley stated that nothing inappropriate occurred with Waters that night. Id. ¶ 39. Nonetheless, Defendant Starr turned the matter over to DFACS for further investigation.⁵ Dkt. No. 107-1 at 45.

In addition to turning the matter over to DFACS, Starr also informed Defendant Copeland of his investigative findings and issued a directive letter to Waters regarding the incident. Dkt. No. 102-1 ¶ 42. The directive letter instructed Waters to only maintain appropriate and professional communication with students and not to have students in his home or bedroom alone; the directive...