Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Reg'l Sch. Comm.

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE, LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BELLA WONG, AIDA RAMOS, PETER ELENBAAS, JASON MEDEIROS, SANDY CRAWFORD, ELEANOR BURKE, and LESLIE PATTERSON, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-11564-FDS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 27, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

F Dennis Saylor IV, Chief Judge.

This is an action concerning the response of a high school to a reported case of sexual assault. Plaintiff John Doe, a former student at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, has sued Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee, Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District, and several school officials. The complaint alleges that they violated John's due-process rights, and committed various other violations of federal law, after an allegation of sexual assault was made against him by another former student.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. For the following reasons, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are set forth as alleged in the complaint.

1. The Parties

In the fall of 2013, “John Doe” was a freshman at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School (“LSRHS”). (Compl. ¶ 1). He was then 14 years old. (Id.). He attended LSRHS until his graduation in June 2017. (Id. ¶ 8).

Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District is the governing body that operates LSRHS. (Id. ¶ 9). Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee is the policy-making body for the district. (Id. ¶ 10).

Bella Wong is the superintendent of the district and the principal of LSRHS. (Id. ¶ 11). Aida Ramos and Peter Elenbaas are the Title IX Co-Chairs of LSRHS. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). Leslie Patterson is the Housemaster of East House, the LSRHS house to which John was assigned. (Id. ¶ 14). Jason Medeiros, Sandy Crawford, and Eleanor Burke are housemasters of other LSRHS houses. (Id. ¶¶ 15-17).

2. The November 1, 2013 Incident

On November 1, 2013, John and “Jane Roe, ” then a sophomore at LSRHS, attended a football game on the school's campus. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 27). John and Jane had previously been in a relationship. (Id. ¶ 22). John ended that relationship in October 2013, and Jane began dating “Female Student 2.” (Id. ¶¶ 23-25).

The complaint alleges that Jane texted John during the football game and asked him to meet her at a location away from the game. (Id. ¶ 29). According to the complaint, Jane arrived at that location with “Male Student 2” and “Male Student 3.” (Id. ¶ 30). After Male Student 3 left the area, Jane, John, and Male Student 2 began to engage in sexual touching. (Id. ¶ 31). The complaint alleges that Jane initiated the contact by kissing and touching John, and then engaged in further sexual contact with Male Student 2. (Id.). While the contact was occurring, Jane was giggling and using FaceTime to communicate with Female Student 2. (Id.). After ending the FaceTime call with Female Student 2, Jane began to cry and left the area. (Id.).^[1]

3. Jane's Report of the Incident

About one week later, on November 7, 2013, Jane reported the incident to an LSRHS counselor and alleged that John and Male Student 2 sexually assaulted her. (Id. ¶ 32). The next week, on November 12, John's housemaster, Leslie Patterson, informed John and his parents of Jane's allegations and asked that John not attend school the next day. (Id. ¶ 33).

Jane also provided a statement concerning the incident to the Sudbury Police Department. (Id. ¶ 38). Ultimately, the Police Department and the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office did not bring charges against John or Male Student 2. (Id. ¶ 40).

The complaint alleges that descriptions of the incident given by Jane at different times have substantial discrepancies. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36). It further alleges that information provided by Female Student 2, who was communicating with Jane via FaceTime during the incident, contradicts Jane's allegations. (Id. ¶ 37).

4. LSRHS's Internal Policies and Procedures

LSRHS's “Program of Studies and Policy Handbook” governed the school's investigation and adjudication of Jane's allegations against John. (Id. ¶ 42). Students accused of an infraction have “the right to due process, ” which includes “the right to respond to the charge and explain their actions and perceptions.” (Compl. Ex. 1, at 17 (“LSRHS Handbook”)). They also have “the right to appeal disciplinary decisions to the Superintendent/Principal.” (Id.). For “very serious offenses, ” students are given “a hearing in front of a committee of at least three Administrators.” (Id.). Students “who commit particularly egregious offenses” can be “excluded from the L-S community for an appropriate period of time.” (Id.).

The school district's Discrimination Grievance Procedures, which are also set forth in LSRHS's handbook, governed the school's response to charges of discrimination. (Id. at 26). The handbook states that “for each federal and state statute regarding discrimination, ” there is a district administrator who “act[s] as an advisor to any/all parties at any stage of these procedures to ensure that proper steps are followed.” (Id.). It further states that “[a]ll hearings and investigations must follow due process procedures that guarantee that both parties will have the right and opportunity to present evidence and witnesses and to question witnesses at all steps.” (Id.). The procedures provide that “[t]he Superintendent/Principal will conduct an investigation of the formal complaint and give a written decision to both parties.” (Id.). If a party disagrees with that decision, he must appeal it “in writing, to the School Committee within five school days after [his] receipt of a written decision.” (Id.).

5. LSRHS's Investigation of the Incident

After the Sudbury Police Department closed its investigation, LSRHS began its own investigation. (Compl. ¶ 55). Patterson notified John's parents of that investigation on November 22, 2013, three weeks after the incident. (Id.).

On December 2, Patterson sent a letter informing John's parents that John would need to attend a disciplinary hearing in accordance with the procedure set forth in the LSRHS handbook. (Id. ¶ 56). That letter categorized John's offenses as “physical assault” and “inappropriate sexual behavior” and stated that John could bring advocates and an attorney to the hearing. (Id.; see also Compl. Ex. 2).

The hearing was held three days later. (Compl. ¶ 58). It was attended by the four housemasters, John, John's parents, John's attorney, and an attorney for the district. (Id.). No. witnesses were present. (Id. ¶ 59).

The next day, Patterson informed John's parents that based on the investigation and the hearing, the housemasters had determined that John was “an instigator of both physical and sexual harassment.” (Compl. Ex. 3, at 1). He further informed them that John could appeal the decision. (Id.). John was suspended from school for 16 days, prohibited from participating in extracurricular activities, and required to participate in counseling. (Compl. ¶¶ 61-65).

6. John's Request for Expungement

One year later, in December 2014, John's mother requested that LSRHS remove the December 6, 2013 decision from John's record due to alleged errors leading to the decision. (Id. ¶¶ 66-67). In response, the principal of LSRHS, Bella Wong, invited John's mother to supplement the record, meet with Patterson to discuss her concerns, or formally appeal the decision. (Id. ¶ 68).

On January 12, 2015, John's mother formally requested that the decision be expunged from his record. (Id. ¶ 69). On March 26, 2015, Patterson informed John's mother that “all are on board with [Patterson] editing the language in the behavior report, but the report will still exist, as will the record of suspension.” (Id. ¶ 70). Two weeks later, John's mother appealed. (Id. ¶ 71). In response, Wong told John's parents that legal counsel had advised her to not modify John's record, but that she planned to reevaluate information and confer with legal counsel again. (Id. ¶ 72).

On May 4, 2015, John's parents again requested that LSRHS expunge John's suspension from his record and stated that John “would not be checking the ‘No' box concerning his suspension [on his college applications] unless [LSRHS] cleared it from his record.” (Id. ¶ 73).

Later that month, Wong informed John's mother that she was still speaking with the district's counsel. (Id. ¶ 74).

7. The Department of Education's Investigation into the District's Title IX Compliance

On April 30, 2014, Jane filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) contending that LSRHS violated Title IX in its response to the November 1, 2013 incident. (Id. ¶ 81). OCR opened an investigation into Jane's allegations and sent a data request to the district concerning the incident. (Id. ¶ 84). As part of its response to that request, the district described its findings concerning the November 1, 2013 incident involving Jane, John, and Male Student 2:

Lincoln-Sudbury did not feel that it had enough evidence to confirm whether the incidents on [] constituted sexual harassment, sexual assault, physical assault, and/or consensual sexual activity. . . . Lincoln-Sudbury did feel there was sufficient evidence to support that Male Student #1 and Male Student #2 had engaged in inappropriate conduct in violation of the core values of the District.

(Id. ¶ 89 (emphasis omitted)).^[2]

The district continued to communicate with OCR concerning OCR's investigation. (Id. ¶ 91). On September 30, 2015, OCR notified the district that it would resolve its investigation of Jane's complaint if the district issued the results of its own Title IX...