Estate of D.B. v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist.

169 F.Supp.3d 320

Estate of D.B., by Administrator Amy Briggs, Plaintiff,

v.Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist.; Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.; Frank House, Superintendent, John P. Warnek, President of Bd. of Educ.; and Joseph Gilfus, Principal, Defendants.

Case No. 7:15-CV-0484 (GTS/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed March 14, 2016

MICHAEL D. METH, ESQ., METH LAW OFFICES, P.C., Counsel for Plaintiff, 10 Moffatt Lane, Suite 2, P.O. Box 560, Chester, NY 10918, STEPHEN BERGSTEIN, ESQ., BERGSTEIN & ULLRICH, LLP, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, Chester, NY.

CHARLES C. SPAGNOLI, ESQ., FRANK W. MILLER, ESQ., LAW FIRM OF FRANK W. MILLER, Counsel for Defendants, 6575 Kirkville Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Administrator Amy Briggs (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of the estate of D.B. (a student with a disability) against the Thousand Islands Central School District (“the District”) and various of its officials (together, “Defendants”) pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), New York State Education Law §§ 12 and 81, and the Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”), is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 11), and Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her Complaint (Dkt. No. 15). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is denied, and Plaintiff's cross-motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action. (Dkt. No. 1 [Pl.'s Compl.].) First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Thousand Island Central School District (“TICSD”), Frank House, John P. Warneck and Joseph Gilfus violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. (Id. at ¶¶ 169–76.)

Second, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck and Joseph Gilfus violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment through their deliberate indifference to students' harassment of D.B. (Id. at ¶¶ 177–93.)

Third, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated the IDEA. (Id. at ¶¶ 194–97.)

Fourth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated N.Y. Education Law § 12 and DASA. (Id. at ¶¶ 198–201.)

Fifth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated N.Y. Education Law § 801–a. (Id. at ¶¶ 202–06.)

Sixth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD and the Board of Education are liable for negligent supervision. (Id. at ¶¶ 207–13.)

Seventh, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). (Id. at ¶¶ 214–19.)

Eighth, and finally, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus are liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). (Id. at ¶¶ 220–26.)

B. Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

1. Defendants' Arguments

Generally, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for five reasons. (Dkt. No. 11, Attach. 2 [Defs.' Mem. of Law].) First, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with regard to those claims. (Id. at 3.) The federal claims consist of the first three causes of action listed above in Part I.A. of this Decision and Order.

Second, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's state claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, because of the Court's dismissal of her federal claims. (Id. at 6.) The state claims consist of the remaining causes of action listed above in Part I.A. of this Decision and Order.

Third, Defendants move to dismiss all claims to the extent that they involve acts occurring before April 20, 2012, because the statute of limitations governing those claims has run. (Id. at 7.)

Fourth, Defendants move to dismiss the claims asserted under DASA, N.Y. Educ. Law § 11, and N.Y. Educ. Law 801–a, because those statutes do not allow a private cause of action. (Id. at 8.)

Fifth, and finally, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims of negligent supervision, IIED, and NIED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 10–13.)

2. Plaintiff's Response

Generally, Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motion to dismiss for two reasons. (Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 3 [Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. of Law].) First, Plaintiff argues that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over her federal claims, because (a) it would have been futile for her to have tried to exhaust her administrative remedies with regard to those claims, and (b) her federal claims, which are based on misconduct by Defendants that continued until D.B.'s suicide, are timely. (Id. at 4–9.)

Second, Plaintiff argues that her Complaint states claims for relief for negligent supervision and NIED under state law. (Id. at 10.)

3. Defendants' Reply

Generally, in reply to Plaintiff's response, Defendants assert two arguments. (Dkt. No. 16 [Defs.' Reply Mem. of Law].) First, Defendants argue that D.B.'s suicide does not retroactively make timely Plaintiff's resort to the idea that her exhaustion of administrative remedies would have been “futile.” (Id. at 2–9.)

Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff misconstrues Defendants' argument regarding her claim of NIED. (Id. at 18–19.)

C. Parties' Briefing on Plaintiff's Cross–Motion to Amend

1. Plaintiff's Arguments

As part of her response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed a cross-motion for leave to amend her Complaint. (Dkt. No. 15, at 12–17 [Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. of Law].) Plaintiff's affirmation in support of her cross-motion explains that she intends to amend her Complaint “to assert gender discrimination claims under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Rights Law §§ 40–c and 40–d.” (Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 1, at 1 [Pl.'s Affirm.].) In addition, Plaintiff seeks to withdraw four claims that were present in her original Complaint: (1) her DASA claim; (2) her claim under N.Y. Educ. Law § 12 ; (3) her claim under N.Y. Educ. Law § 801–a ; and (4) her IDEA claim. (Dkt. No. 15, Attach. 2 [Proposed Am. Compl.].)

More specifically, Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint asserts eleven causes of action. (Id. ) First, Plaintiff claims that TICSD and the Board of Education violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Id. at ¶¶ 169–76.) Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint therefore removes Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus from the § 504 cause of action, and adds the Board of Education.

Second, Plaintiff claims that Defendants TICSD, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated Title II of the ADA. (Id. at ¶¶ 177–84.) This cause of action appears in Plaintiff's original Complaint, but has been separated from the first cause of action and amended to include additional facts. (Id. at ¶¶ 180–83.)

Third, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment for discrimination involving D.B.'s disability. (Id. at ¶¶ 185–92.) This cause of action has also been amended to include additional facts. (Id. at ¶¶ 186–91.)

Fourth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment for discrimination involving D.B.'s actual or perceived sexual orientation.

(Id. at ¶¶ 193–201.) This cause of action appears for the first time in the proposed Amended Complaint.

Fifth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment for discrimination involving D.B.'s sex. (Id. at ¶¶ 202–10.) This cause of action appears for the first time in the proposed Amended Complaint.

Sixth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD and the Board of Education violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq., for discrimination based on D.B.'s sex. (Id. at ¶¶ 211–17.) This cause of action appears for the first time in the proposed Amended Complaint.

Seventh, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated New York Civil Rights Law §§ 40–c and 40–d, for discrimination based on D.B.'s actual or perceived sexual orientation. (Id. at ¶¶ 218–24.) This cause of action appears for the first time in the proposed Amended Complaint.

Eighth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus violated New York Civil Rights Law §§ 40–c and 40–d, for discrimination based on D.B.'s sex. (Id. at ¶¶ 225–31.) This cause of action appears for the first time in the proposed Amended Complaint.

Ninth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD and the Board of education are liable for negligent supervision. (Id. at ¶¶ 232–38.) This cause of action is unchanged from the original Complaint.

Tenth, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus are liable for IIED. (Id. at ¶¶ 239–44.) This cause of action is unchanged from the original Complaint.

Eleventh, and finally, Plaintiff claims that TICSD, the Board of Education, Frank House, John P. Warneck, and Joseph Gilfus are liable for NIED. (Id. at ¶¶ 245–51.) This cause of action is unchanged from the original Complaint.

2. Defendants' Response

Generally, Defendants oppose Plaintiff's ...