G.C. v. Rock Island-Milan Sch. Dist. No. 41

1

G.C., By and Through Her Parent and Legal Guardian, A.C., Plaintiff, v. ROCK ISLAND-MILAN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 41, and ROCK ISLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

No. 4:23-cv-04128-SLD-JEH

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division

September 27, 2024

ORDER

SARA DARROW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff G.C., by and through her parent and legal guardian, A.C., has sued Defendants Rock Island-Milan School District No. 41 (“the District”) and Rock Island Board of Education (“the Board”), alleging that they are responsible for unknown students sexually assaulting G.C. See generally First Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. Pending before the Court is the Board's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND^[1]

G.C was a minor female diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and hearing loss when she began her freshman year as a new student at Rock Island High School (“School”). Autism impairs social interaction and communication and impacts behavior. The School is part of the District, which is in turn governed and operated by the Board. The District participated in and produced an individualized education program (“IEP”) for G.C., and which stated that G.C. had special needs due to her intellectual and physical disabilities. G.C. asserts that the IEP should have given the District notice that she: (1) required a high level of special education support; (2) needed specialized instruction and accommodations to help her navigate the daily aspects of friendships and other school relationships; (3) struggled to discern friend from foe; and (4) would be highly susceptible to injury if left alone and unsupervised.

On August 8, 2022, G.C. was attending a gym class outdoors which was supervised by Benjamin Hammer. G.C. injured her ankle and was temporarily unable to move from her location near the tennis courts on School property. G.C.'s requests for help were disregarded and she was left alone, injured, and unsupervised. She was then sexually assaulted by one or more School students. Later that day, A.C. noticed an unusual smell coming from G.C.'s private areas. The next day G.C. told A.C. about the assault, and A.C. went to the School to report that G.C. had been assaulted. A School employee told A.C. that no one was available to receive that report and told A.C. to return later. A.C. came back again that day and met with School staff members Tina Eygaboard and Lorelei Andedo to report the assault. “A.C. was told that G.C would have been with Hammer the entire time so the assault ‘couldn't have happened.'” Id. ¶ 42. Andedo viewed G.C.'s IEP on a laptop and stated that “G.C. received social skills classes so she ‘just probably needed social skills classes to learn what “no spots” are and how to tell people no.'” Id. ¶ 43. Andedo and Eyhaboard concluded that G.C. was probably not sexually assaulted and that the smell was likely due to the heat outside.

A.C.'s request that the District notify the police so the incident could be investigated was denied-A.C. was told that the District only notifies the police if the school liaison officer determined it necessary. That evening, Andedo called A.C. and stated that she had spoken with a few students, who reported that they had not seen G.C. sitting near the tennis courts. She also stated that the school's security cameras did not cover the area where the assault had occurred, which impeded the School's ability to better help G.C. She also stated that Hammer and some students had confirmed that G.C. asked for help, yet no action was taken to help G.C. or assess her circumstances. She asserted that the District was not denying that “something happened” to G.C., but described the situation as a “minor error.” Id. ¶¶ 49-50. She offered at-home counseling services and to switch G.C.'s gym class so she would have a female instructor.

Two days later, on August 11, 2022, A.C. reported the assault to the Rock Island Police Department. A.C. was informed by a detective the next day that he was unaware if the high school had reported the assault to them. On or about August 16, 2022, A.C. contacted the School and requested to collect G.C.'s belongings from the School. A few days later, A.C. was informed that the District had “reported an incident of failed supervision” to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services on August 16, 2022. Id. ¶ 55. Between August 26, 2022 and August 31, 2022, A.C. continued to speak with the District's representatives. The District's “only concern” was whether A.C. would bring G.C. back to the School, citing the obligation imposed upon the School by the IEP to provide an education for G.C. Id. ¶ 58. A.C. stated that she did not trust the School to adequately protect G.C. and requested that she be transferred to the alternative school in East Moline at Black Hawk Special Education Center. A.C. was told that such a transfer was not recommended because the School had the resources available to accommodate G.C.'s needs. On August 30, 2022, A.C. filed a complaint in person at the District's Human Resources Office. “In response to the complaint, former Superintendent Reginald Lawrence told A.C. ‘we weren't going to go there' and that A.C. ‘needed to understand [her] legal obligation to educate [her] child.'” Id. ¶ 68 (alterations in original).

On or about September 20, 2022, A.C. met with Alicia Sanders and Jenny Fuhr at the District's superintendent's office. A.C. asked about the protocols and policies that District employees were expected to follow when a student provides a credible report of sexual assault and asked for a copy of those policies. The District maintained a Title IX policy which (1) allowed individuals to report incidents to the Title IX coordinator, or “any employee with whom the person is comfortable speaking”; (2) required the District to investigate reports of sexual assault and maintain an educational program free of harassment; (3) mandated making and forwarding reports of sexual harassment to the Title IX Coordinator; and (4) required an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence after receiving a report. Id. ¶¶ 90-94. Sanders told A.C. that District staff members were trained and expected to notify the police and student services at the superintendent's office of such a report. She also stated that District staff members were obligated to engage the student's IEP team about the report. These steps were not followed after A.C. reported G.C.'s assault and A.C. never received the policies or any other documentation.

A.C. also asked about how other similar reports were handled in the District. She was told that: (1) there had been five or six other cases involving sexual assault;^[2] (2) the policies were followed in the other cases; and (3) G.C.'s case was the only time the policies were not followed. G.C. alleges upon information and belief that her case was the only one which involved a student with special needs and/or disabilities. G.C. suffered mental anguish and attended therapy to help her cope with the stress and anxiety she felt due to these events, manifesting as difficulty sleeping and focusing, panic attacks, flashbacks of the assault, and feeling unsafe. G.C. was unable to attend her scheduled classes, fell behind in her schoolwork, and ultimately withdrew from the School. As of the First Amended Complaint's filing, G.C. is home-schooled.

G.C.'s complaint was filed on August 7, 2023, Compl., ECF No. 1, and amended on August 28, 2024, First Am. Compl. G.C.'s First Amended Complaint asserts four counts: (I) deliberate indifference in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1689, id. ¶¶ 102-21; (II) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, id. ¶¶ 122-39; (III) violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, id. ¶¶ 140-46; and (IV) negligence, id. ¶¶ 147-54. The Board moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. Mot. Dismiss 1; Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 15, ECF No. 9. G.C. requests that the Court either deny that motion or give her leave to file another amended complaint. Resp. Mot. Dismiss 29, ECF No. 12.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). At the motion to dismiss stage, the key inquiry is whether the complaint is “sufficient to provide the defendant with ‘fair notice' of the plaintiff's claim and its basis.” Indep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). While “detailed factual allegations are unnecessary, the complaint must have ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Pierce v. Zoetis, Inc., 818 F.3d 274, 277 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[M]ere ‘labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'” are not sufficient to satisfy the plausibility standard. Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). A court must take “[t]he complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations, though not its legal conclusions, . . . [as] true,” Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of...