Doe v. Torrington Bd. of Educ.

179 F.Supp.3d 179

John Doe, Plaintiff

v.Torrington Board of Education, Cheryl Kloczko, Joanne Creedon, Charles McSpirit, Michael McKenna, Daniel Dunaj, Johannah Dezurik, Gerald Carbone and James Dziekan, Defendants.

No. 3:15-cv-00452 (MPS)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed March 30, 2016

Elizabeth Knight Adams, Law Offices of Elizabeth Knight Adams, P.C., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Nicole D. Dorman, Law Office of Nicole D. Dorman, LLC, Glastonbury, CT, Thomas R. Gerarde, Alan Raymond Dembiczak, Christopher A. Clark, Lynn McCormick, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff John Doe filed a fourteen-count amended complaint against the Torrington Board of Education and several of its employees alleging violations of the following federal laws: the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts One and Two); the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under § 1983 (Counts Three and Four); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”) (Count Five); Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“ADA”) (Count Six); and Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (“Title IX”) (Count Seven). Defendants move to dismiss Doe's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF Nos. 23 and 28.) The Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss. The federal claims—Counts One through Seven—are dismissed with prejudice because they fail to allege facts that make it plausible that the Defendants violated the federal laws listed above. The state law claims—Counts Eight through Fourteen—are dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

I. BACKGROUND

The following factual allegations are taken from the FAC and are accepted as true for the purpose of deciding Defendants' motions to dismiss.

A. Factual Background

Doe is a resident of Connecticut. (FAC, ECF No. 22 ¶ 1.) He was diagnosed with a learning disability that qualified him for services and accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504.¹ (Id. ¶ 16.) Doe attended Torrington High School (“THS”) from August 2011 until April 5, 2013. (Id. ¶ 15.) From April 23, 2013, until July 2013, instead of attending THS, Doe received three hours of tutoring per day at the office of defendant Torrington Board of Education (the “Board”). (Id. )

Defendant Cheryl Kloczko was Superintendent of the Board during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 3.) Doe alleges that, “[a]s Superintendent, Kloczko was the individual primarily responsible for ... formulating and implementing policies and ensuring that the Board followed the law, including, but not limited to, equal access to education and equal treatment for all students, and was the ultimate authority and decision-maker of the Board.” (Id. ) Defendant Joanne Creedon was the Principal of THS during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 4.) As Principal, Creedon was responsible for “the welfare of the students” and “the implementation of policies and procedures governing the schools.” (Id. ) Doe alleges that Creedon failed to “ensure that staff were properly trained regarding their obligations to report[ ] and address bullying.” (Id. ) Defendant Charles McSpiritt was Vice Principal of THS during the relevant time period, and was responsible for overseeing students' welfare, investigating students' misbehavior, and “disciplin[ing] students.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Michael McKenna, as the Athletic Director at THS during the relevant time period, was responsible for THS sports programs, including drafting and implementing polices on discipline and safety of student-athletes. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant Dan Dunaj was the Head Football Coach at THS during the relevant time period, and was responsible for “ensur[ing] the safety and well-being of each of his players.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendant Johanna DeZurik, as a guidance counselor at THS, was responsible for “providing assistance, planning, and support for students ....” (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant Gerard Carbone was a special education teacher for Doe. (Id. ¶ 9.) Carbone was also Doe's special education case manager and, as such, was responsible for checking on Doe's educational and social progress as well as scheduling Planning and Placement Team (“PPT”) Meetings and performing other administrative tasks. (Id. ) Finally, Defendant James Dziekan was “a school social worker assigned to counsel ... Doe.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Doe alleges that Creedon, McSpiritt, McKenna, Dunaj, DeZurik, Carbone, and Dziekan personally participated in and/or directed actions that they knew or should have known violated Doe's rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal law and state law. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-10.)

1. Doe's Freshman Year (Fall 2011-Spring 2012)

In October of 2011, approximately two months after Doe joined the THS football team in August “Student A”² threw Doe down to the floor of the locker room, causing his glasses to break. Student A then took Doe's hat and rubbed it on Student A's genitals. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Doe reported the incident to school officials, and Student A was suspended for what Doe alleges was fewer than 10 days. (Id. ¶ 20.) Doe “was assured that his disclosure to school officials would remain private, however, students and staff on the football team learned” that Doe had reported the incident to school officials “and began to retaliate against him.” (Id. ) McSpiritt provided Principal Creedon with a written report about the incident, and thereafter, continued to inform Principal Creedon of Doe's allegations of bullying and harassment. (Id. ¶ 21.) Doe alleges, upon information and belief, that “Principal Creedon personally approved McSpiritt's actions and inactions.” (Id. ¶ 22.)

In late October or early November of 2011, Student B, a player on the football team, tackled Doe and “said he wanted to fight” Doe. (Id. ¶ 23.) Doe alleges that “[b]ecause prior reports were not handled properly by staff and coaches, and because coaching staff perpetrated, condoned, and acquiesced to retaliation between team members, the Plaintiff did not feel safe to report the incident to anyone immediately after it occurred.” (Id. ) Doe's mother reported the assault to administrators at some later date. (Id. )

In January of 2012, Doe suffered an injury that limited his ability to play football. (Id. ¶ 25.) Doe alleges that “[h]e was ridiculed both by coaches and students, and called a ‘pussy,’ ‘bitch,’ and ‘baby’ ” and “[t]he football coaches, led by Dunaj, participated in, encouraged, and condoned this harassment.” (Id. ) The amended complaint does not allege that Doe reported this harassment to school officials.

In the spring of 2012, Doe was at track practice when Student C, who, like Doe, was a member of both the track and football teams, threw Doe to the ground and threw rocks in his face, which caused Doe to swallow a rock. (Id. ¶ 26.) Doe did not feel safe reporting the incident to school officials; Doe's mother reported it to administrators at some later date. (Id. ) Doe alleges that “[f]rom that point until the end of his freshman year, [he] was assaulted by Student B and/or C, or other students nearly every day.” (Id. ¶ 27.)

Also in the spring of 2012, Student D, a football player, hit Doe on the back of the neck with a “karate chop.” (Id. ¶ 30.) Doe “then defended himself by executing the same on Student D.” (Id. ) Both Doe and Student D received In-School Suspension (“ISS”) as punishment. (Id. ) Dunaj told the football team that Doe received ISS and “disciplined the entire team for the Plaintiff's ISS by forcing all players to run ‘gassers,’ or a series of sprinting exercises.” (Id. ¶ 31.) Doe alleges Dunaj and the other football coaches were aware that “requiring the entire team to run gassers as a result of one student's discipline would encourage players to retaliate within the team.” (Id. ¶ 32.) After practice, other football players, including Students B and E, sought out Doe and “retaliated against him by repeatedly striking him on the neck.” (Id. ¶ 33.) The amended complaint does not allege that Doe reported these assaults to school officials.

2. August 2012 Incident

In August of 2012, Doe and several others were playing football in a park when Student B committed a sexual assault on Doe in the presence of several other students. (Id. ¶ 34.) Again, Doe did not feel safe reporting the incident immediately after it occurred. (Id. ¶ 35.)

3. Sophomore Year (Fall 2012-Spring 2013)

Beginning in the fall of 2012, Doe alleges that other students repeatedly harassed him in class, calling him a “faggot” and a “fat ass.” (Id. ¶ 36.) An unnamed teacher “heard the harassment and failed to discipline the other students.” (Id. ) On September 12, 2012, DeZurik left a voicemail for Doe's mother in which she indicated that she had spoken to Doe and was aware that he was being harassed. DeZurik told Doe's mother that “she would not take direct action because the Plaintiff declined to offer names.” (Id. ¶46.) Doe “began to stay home from school out of fear for his physical safety and because of severe anxiety related to the bullying that was occurring at school. He was absent numerous days and his grades began to drop.” (Id. ¶ 47.)

On November 12, 2012, THS convened a PPT meeting—at the request of Doe's mother—to address, among other things, the “severe and ongoing patterns of bullying, sexual harassment, and retaliation by students and the impact of this bullying on” Doe. (Id. ¶ 48.) During this meeting, Doe's mother informed school officials and/or referenced several of the previous incidents involving Doe. (Id. ) Also during the meeting, Carbone “became visibly agitated with and angry” at Doe for refusing to name the harassers. (Id. ¶ 49.) Carbone told Doe, “I am sick of hearing about phantom bullies.” Doe then “reluctantly provided names of some of the perpetrators.” (Id. ¶ 50.)

On January 18, 2013, the school convened...