C.R. v. Novi Cmty. Sch. Dist.

C.R. and J.R., individually and as Next Friends of JOE R., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. NOVI COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 14-14531

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

February 9, 2017

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN

CONSOLIDATED ORDER RESOLVING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkts. 78, 79, 83, 84)

This case is before the Court because one special-needs middle school student, "J.J.," allegedly sexually abused his classmate, "Joe R.," also a male special-needs student, while a third boy recorded the incident on his cell-phone. The response of the school district, teachers and administrators, as well as their conduct preceding the incident, caused Joe R.'s parents to file this lawsuit on his behalf.

Plaintiffs—Joe R., his mother J.R. and his father C.R.—filed an eleven-count Amended Complaint bringing claims against two Novi Middle School (NMS) administrators, an NMS teacher, an NMS substitute teacher and her staffing agency employer and the Novi Community School District (NCSD) and its Superintendent under Title 20 U.S.C. § 1681, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title 42 U.S.C. § 12101 and several Michigan state statutes and common law causes of action. (Dkt. 12).

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment by both Defendants and Plaintiffs. Defendants NCSD's Superintendent Steven Matthews, NMS Principal Stephanie Schriner, NMS Assistant Principal Andrew Comb, NMS math teacher Vera Williams (Dkt. 83); NCSD (Dkt. 84); and Jean Solomon, a substitute teacher, and EDUStaff, LLC, her employer staffing agency (Dkt. 78) are all seeking summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims against them. Plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment on two of their claims. (Dkt. 79). On October 17, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on all four motions in Flint, Michigan.

For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Novi Community School District's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 84), GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Andrew Comb, Steven Matthews, Stephanie Schriner and Vera Williams's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 83), DENY Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 79), and GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Jean Solomon and EDUStaff's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 78).

I. Background

NCSD and NMS Student Behavior Policies

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter apprising federal funding recipients, including NCSD, of the need to train school staff on recognizing sexual harassment and their responsibilities to prevent and respond to it under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 4). According to NCSD policy,Superintendent Steven Matthews had a duty to oversee this training. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 1 at 15).¹ Matthews testified that he is unsure whether NMS staff received such training during the 2013-14 school year—i.e. the year J.J.'s alleged harassment of Joe R. took place. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 1 at 15). According to NMS Principal Stephanie Schriner, as of 2013 NMS had not offered its staff any training on sexual abuse protocol, but the faculty had discussed the topic "informally." (Dkt. 79, Ex. 2 at 28).

In addition to NCSD's responsibilities under Title IX, the school district's internal policy requires the Superintendent to promulgate administrative guidelines for providing intervention when students show warning signs of troubling behaviors. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 1 at 29-30; Ex. 7). Superintendent Matthews testified, however, that he had never promulgated such guidelines and did not know whether his district has any. (Id.). Matthews further stated that he believed NCSD has a system for transitioning students that teachers believe to be dangerous between the elementary and middle schools, but added that he was unaware of the system's details because individual school principals administered it. (Id. at 30-32). Principal Schriner, however, testified that NMS has no such transition system. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 2 at 16). In addition, Assistant Principal Comb, in charge of discipline at NMS, testified that it was the school's practice not to check incoming or current students' past behavioral records. When asked whether he told Joe R.'s parentsthat he gave all students a "clean slate," Mr. Comb acknowledged that he may have said something like that, and added, "we don't go dig into what a student may have done at a school before our school." (Dkt. 79, Ex. 3 at 97-98).

J.J.'s Alleged Harassment of Joe R.

Plaintiffs allege that in or about September 2013, J.J. began sexually harassing Joe R. (Dkt. 12 at 5). At that time, each boy was either twelve or thirteen years old,² in seventh grade and received special education services. (Id. at 2, 4; Dkt. 79 at 25). Joe R. qualified for special education support under the eligibility category of Autism Spectrum Disorder. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 10 at 4).³ J.J. qualified for special education programming under the eligibility category of EmotionallyImpaired. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 11).⁴ Vera Williams, the boys' special education math teacher, testified that she would "describe the emotional level of both children to be similar to that of a child who is seven to eight years old." (Dkt. 79, Ex. 21 at 34; Ex. 18 at 4).

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that from September 2013 through February 26, 2014, J.J. touched Joe R.'s groin area and penis above and below his clothes and engaged him in kissing and other sexually inappropriate behaviors. (Dkt. 12 at 7-8). The incidents are alleged to have occurred (1) on a regular basis in a small, side-room, adjoining a class room, in which teacher Vera Williams allegedly placed J.J. and Joe R. during math class,⁵ (2) once during an enrichment period called "Academic 20," (3) once in an empty classroom, (4) once in a bathroom stall and (5) on February 26, 2014 during Stacey Becker's special education English class. (Dkt. 79 at 27-28). According to Detective Bender, J.J. admitted to most of this conduct. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 20 at 27-30).⁶ At his deposition, Joe R. used the name "the beast" todescribe J.J. and referred to the sexual harassment incidents as J.J. "conquering" him. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 25 at 55-56). Additionally, Joe R. testified that he and J.J. "always tried to hide" their behavior, and that on February 14, 2014 he asked J.J. to be his valentine. (Id. at 36-37).

Regarding the February 26, 2014 incident in Ms. Becker's English class, another student, J.P., who was a classmate of J.J. and Joe R., admits to having taken a cell phone video of J.J. touching Joe R., a short segment of which is in the record and the Court has reviewed. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 28 at 11; Ex. 33).⁷ In the video, J.J. and J.P. are seated at desks to the right and left of Joe R.'s desk respectively, forming a semicircle. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 33). J.J.'s hand is rested, under the desks, on Joe R.'s upper right thigh. (Id.). J.P. testified that, while filming, the boys were all reading and J.P. "kind of like put [his] head down" and put his cell phone "on [his] lap so [he] could [film J.J. and Joe R.] and the teacher wouldn't notice." (Dkt. 79, Ex. 28 at 17). Neither the video nor any other non-testimonial evidence in the record indicates how many other students were in the class. According to Ms. Becker, there were, at most, three other students in the room in addition to J.J., J.P. and J.R. (totaling six), but it may have been only the three boys involved in the incident. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 22 at 11-13).

In addition, neither the video nor anything else in the record establishes with certainty which teacher was present while J.P. filmed J.J. touching Joe R. in Ms.Becker's English classroom. There is evidence that both Ms. Becker and Ms. Jean Solomon, a substitute teacher employed and placed at NMS by EDUStaff, a staffing agency and Michigan Limited Liability Company, were in the school building that day, but testimony conflicts on the question of which teacher was present when the incident occurred. (Dkts. 85, Ex. 73; 78, Ex. C). J.P. testified that his "regular teacher—" Ms. Becker—was in the classroom. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 28 at 15). Assistant Principal Comb, who viewed the original four-minute cell phone video before it was destroyed, testified that, although only the lower extremities of the teacher were visible, they did not appear to him to belong to Ms. Becker. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 3 at 81, 140). Ms. Becker testified that she was in the NMS building on the date and during the time period when the video would have been made, but that she was not then in her classroom, as Ms. Solomon was covering for her. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 22 at 59-61). Ms. Solomon admits to having been at NMS on the date and time in question, but testified that she was not in Ms. Becker's classroom when J.P. filmed J.J. touching Joe R. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 34 at 15-16). NMS and NCSD records show only that on February 26, 2014, Ms. Solomon was assigned to substitute at NMS for teacher Sara Lieberman for the entire day. (Dkt. 78, Ex. C at 2; Dkt. 79, Ex. 36 at 2).⁸

The Discovery of J.J.'s Alleged Harassment of Joe R. and the NMS and Novi PD

Investigations

Before the incident on February 26, 2014 occurred, the evidentiary record indicates that at least three NMS teachers had seen J.J. and Joe R. holding hands or touching during classes on at least five occasions. Math teacher Ms. Vera Williams testified that in September 2013 she saw J.J.'s hand on Joe R.'s leg, and that on February 25, 2014 she also saw Joe R. put his hand on J.J.'s leg. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 21 at 29-31). According to Detective Bender, Academic 20 teacher Ms. Margaret Sheeran saw J.J. and Joe R. holding hands on one occasion during the 2013-14 school year. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 20 at 25).⁹ Ms. Becker testified that she saw the boys holding hands around December, 2013 or January, 2014 and again in February, 2014. (Dkt. 79, Ex. 22 at 32-34; Ex. 86). In addition, Ms. Becker testified that on February 14, 2014 Joe R. entered her classroom crying and told her that he was upset because he asked J.J. to be his valentine and J.J....