C.K. v. Bd. of Educ.

1

C.K., a minor child, by and through his mother and next friend, B.M., Plaintiff, v. WEST CARROLL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01133-JDB-jay

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

June 13, 2024

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the motion of Defendants, West Carroll Special School District Board of Education (“West Carroll”), Clayton Morris (“Coach”), and Preston Caldwell (“Superintendent”), for partial judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 27.) Plaintiff has submitted a response (D.E. 28) to which Defendants replied (D.E. 29). For the following reasons Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2022, C.K., a minor student at West Carroll High School and a member of the West Carroll football team, travelled to Hopkinsville, Kentucky, with his team and their Head Coach Morris, for a two-night, school-approved football camp.^[1] (D.E. 1 at PageID 3.) That evening players selected their roommates for the hotel stay. (Id. at PageID 3-4.) E.S. and D.L two other minors on the team, indicated that they would room with C.K. and J.M, as each room could accommodate four people. (Id.) However, E.N., a teammate who had behavioral issues that included acting in an inappropriate sexual manner, asked Morris if he could join the four of them.^[2](Id.) The Coach reluctantly agreed after E.S. and D.L. voiced their approval. (Id. at PageID 4.) Morris cautioned, though, that E.N. could only stay in the room if he “acted right.” (Id.)

Once at their lodgings, the Coach sent the students to their rooms without furnishing them with his contact information or that of any other chaperone. (Id.) After the five boys went to their room, E.N. proceeded to act erratically. (Id.) He removed his clothes, played loud music, jumped from bed to bed, and “used a water bottle to simulate ejaculating on C.K. and E.S.” (Id.) Eventually, C.K. fell asleep despite the disruptive environs. (Id.) Thereafter, C.K. woke up to E.N. forcefully penetrating C.K.'s mouth with his penis while D.L. recorded the incident. (Id. at PageID 5.) Traumatized and shocked, C.K. defended himself by putting E.N. in a headlock before D.L. and J.M. separated them. (Id.) Then, D.L. asked C.K., “It's three against one, what are you going to do?” (Id.) Outnumbered and unable to contact a chaperone, C.K. returned to bed. (Id.)

The next day, D.L. exhibited the video to other members of the team. (Id.) One player notified Morris of the video and assault, so he contacted the school's principal, who told the Coach to contact the affected students' parents. (Id.) When he called B.M., C.K.'s mother, Morris assured her that C.K. and E.N. would not come into contact during the remainder of the trip, but that apparently did occur. (Id.) E.N. harassed C.K. about the assault and cautioned him not to tell people about it. (Id.) In fact, E.S. overheard E.N. say that he would “get C.K. for snitching” while another member of the team threatened violence toward C.K. if Morris got fired because of the assault. (Id.) That night, B.M. arrived in Kentucky to check on her son. (Id. at PageID 6.) After learning more about the circumstances, she helped C.K. pursue criminal charges against E.N. (Id.)

On July 19, B.M. and her spouse, D.M., met with the principal, athletic director, and Morris about the incident. (Id.) The principal assured B.M. that the students would be separated but indicated that no disciplinary action would be forthcoming for E.N. because the school's handbook did not have a policy on sexual assault. (Id.) Nevertheless, it was the principal's understanding at the time that E.N. would be voluntarily transferring to another school. (Id. at PageID 6-7.) At no point during this meeting did any of the school's representatives inform B.M that C.K. could file a Title IX complaint or suggest that the school might initiate an investigation. (Id. at PageID 7.)

Once school resumed, E.N. in fact did not transfer schools and C.K. continued to be harassed about the assault. (Id.) School officials initially told B.M. that E.N. would receive a year-long suspension; however, she learned that Caldwell lowered the punishment to thirty days because he believed a year was too punitive. (Id.) As a result, B.M. publicly addressed this issue at the next school board meeting. (Id.) At that session on August 5, 2022, according to B.M., the Superintendent informed her that punishments were determined by the principal, disciplinary actions were not her concern, and she would not receive notice of any punishments. (Id. at PageID 7-8.) When B.M. indicated that E.N. shared a lunch period with C.K. and still had class with him, Caldwell responded, “There is nothing in the policy that covers this type of sexual assault, again B.M. what would you like me to do about it?” (Id. at PageID 8.) Thereafter, the victim's mother asked for steps to be taken to protect C.K., to which the Superintendent responded by threatening to call security. (Id.)

On August 17, 2022, West Carroll provided B.M. with contact information for Crystal Polinski, its Title IX representative, who supplied her with a formal complaint form. (Id.) B.M. completed and filed the complaint the next day. (Id.) On August 19, B.M. met with Polinksi and another school representative where B.M. discussed the assault and expressed concern that C.K. was in an unsafe environment around his abuser. (Id.) Polinksi acknowledged that she had no prior knowledge of the assault despite it occurring more than a month ago. (Id.) Additionally, B.M. shared a photograph with Polinski that students were circulating around the school which depicted C.K. with an eggplant emoji on his mouth to indicate a penis. (Id.) She also told Polinski that C.K. was still enduring peers calling him sexually related names. (Id. at PageID 9.)

Shortly thereafter, Polinski issued her report. (Id.) In it, she made conclusory remarks that Plaintiff disputed:

[T]hat 1) the students involved in the assault were immediately picked up and sent home [from the football trip], 2) that E.N. was completely separated from C.K. at school ([though] they still shared a lunch period and, for a period, shared a class), and 3) that the investigations were completed, and the students received disciplinary actions.

(Id.) Apparently, according to B.M., Polinksi never interviewed C.K., E.N, or any other student involved in the assault. (Id.) Polinski recommended that the school separate E.N. and C.K. “as best as [it could] without interrupting the education of either student or any other student.” (Id.)

On September 19, B.M. voiced concern that Polinski had not investigated D.L. for videoing the assault. (Id. at PageID 10.) She construed this as an appeal of her report, and, as such, West Carroll appointed a local attorney, Anthony Minor, as an independent hearing officer. (Id.) On October 3, he released an Amended Written Decision accepting that the assault occurred and that D.L. recorded it. (Id.) However, Minor recommended maintaining communication with prosecutors in Kentucky and awaiting release of the video and the final disposition of the criminal case before proceeding further. (Id.) During this time, West Carroll took no remedial action. (Id.)

Finally, on October 6, D.L. allegedly confronted C.K. in a school bathroom and pretended to unbutton his pants while saying that he was going to give Plaintiff “flashbacks” to his assault. (Id.) B.M. reported this incident to Defendants, who took no action. (Id.) After asking to speak to the school board about the Title IX complaint and investigation, B.M. did so on November 3. (Id. at PagelD 10-11.) Apparently only then did West Carroll investigate D.L.'s conduct in the bathroom. (Id. at PageID 11.) Ultimately, Polinski prepared a final report advising that “sexual harassment and bullying, and consequences of bullying, [should] be discussed with the perpetrators.” (Id.) However, she suggested no disciplinary or protective measures. (Id.) Because of continued harassment and feeling that Defendants were not protecting him, C.K. transferred schools. (Id. at PageID 12.) C.K. apparently still plays sports against West Carroll where he competes with his alleged abusers. (Id.) According to the complaint, the abuse traumatized C.K., who has since engaged in self-harm for which he has been hospitalized. (Id.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Bates v. Green Farms Condo. Ass'n, 958 F.3d 470, 480 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing D'Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 383 (6th Cir. 2014)). Thus, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true, asks whether there are any material factual issues, and, if not, may grant the movant's request if they are “clearly entitled to judgment.” See JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581-82 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Ohio Bank v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir. 1973)). The court need not treat legal conclusions or unplausible assertions as true. Id. at 582 (quoting Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)).

LAW & ANALYSIS

Of the seven counts alleged by Plaintiff (D.E. 1), Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to all except for Count I (D.E. 27). The counts subject to the motion are: Title IX retaliation against West Carroll (“Count II”) (D.E. 1 at PageID 13-14); an equal protection violation against West Carroll and Caldwell (“Count III”) (Id...