Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cnty.

252 Md.App. 342

259 A.3d 144

Brandon GAMBRILL, et al.,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DORCHESTER COUNTY, et al.

No. 0886, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 7, 2021

Argued by: Cary J. Hansel (Hansel Law, PC, Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.

Argued by: Andrew G. Scott (Adam E. Konstas, Pessin Katz, Law, PA, Towson, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Reed, Friedman, Gould, JJ.

Friedman, J. The Gambrills brought a negligence action against teachers and administrators at their daughter's middle school for injuries their daughter suffered at the hands of her fellow students. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As we will explain, we hold that the trial court correctly granted the motion for summary judgment and, therefore, affirm.

FACTS¹

During the 2016-17 school year, the Gambrills’ daughter, S., was involved in several physical and verbal altercations with other students while in her sixth-grade year at Mace's Lane Middle School, a public school in Dorchester County. The first incident occurred on October 25th, 2016 when S. was attacked by Students 5 and 9 while in class with Substitute Teacher 1. The attack resulted in a concussion. Assistant Principal Cynthia Woolford completed Student Behavior Reports for Students 5 and 9 and issued them in-school suspensions. Principal Michael Collins apologized to the Gambrills for the incident and admitted that, "substitute teachers are not the best trained and cannot control the classroom." S. informed Woolford that she was having issues with Students 4 and 7 as well.

Woolford met with the Gambrills the day after the incident. The morning after her meeting with the Gambrills, Woolford changed S.’s schedule to minimize contact with the students S. identified. The change could not be given immediate effect, so Woolford modified S.’s schedule to ensure that she would have limited contact with those students in the interim. With the new schedule, S. had no classes with Students 4, 5, and 9. Woolford was unable to move S. and Student 7 into separate classes, but instructed S.’s teachers to "keep [S. and Student 7] away from one another, as it is reasonably possible, and immediately report any interaction between these students."

In late November, Student 4 "walked out in the hall without permission to verbally attack [S.] who was standing in line across the hall. [Student No. 4] began shouting at [S.] saying, ‘come on and fight me’ and other inappropriate words." Woolford issued Student 4 an in-school suspension, and also arranged for external mediation between S. and Student 4, at which both S.’s mother and Student 4's mother were present. Then in early December, Woolford instructed S.’s teachers to change seating assignments because S. and Student 2 now had issues.

In mid-December, Student 8 grabbed S. by the neck and flipped her backwards. S. struck her head on a table, resulting in another concussion. This happened under the supervision of Substitute 2, who, according to the Gambrills’ complaint, "ignored it because [he] was complaining of a headache." The Gambrills kept S. home from school until December 19th.

When S. returned to school, she yelled at Student 8, and "ran up and punched [Student 8] in the face." Woolford completed behavior reports for both students and issued each a two-day out of school suspension. On December 20th, the Gambrills notified the Board of Education of Dorchester County of their concerns regarding S.’s safety at school.

After the Gambrills contacted the Board, James C. Bell, the Supervisor of Student Services for Dorchester County, spoke with the administration at Mace's Lane Middle School about the Gambrills’ concerns. To ensure S.’s safety going forward, the administration (1) issued S. a "flash pass" that she could use to immediately go to guidance or administration if she felt a conflict may escalate; (2) changed her locker location as the Gambrills requested; (3) changed her schedule as requested; and (4) continued to pursue external mediation as a possible solution.

Regardless, the altercations continued. On January 17th, Student 1 reported that S. threatened to fight her, and bumped into her on purpose. Woolford spoke to both students and issued a school-based "cease and desist." Woolford noted that S. and Student 1 are "neighbors and have been having community issues. Both parents have been through the court system to get resolution to this problem." Woolford also noted that, "[she has] never observed [Student 1] interacting with S. at any time, although S. states that [Student 1] has made threatening remarks."

According to the nurse's records, another student hit S. on January 23rd. On January 25th, S. was sent to the school nurse after eating lip balm and hand sanitizer. S. claimed that students dared her, but the teacher who sent S. to the nurse said that she "didn't believe anyone dared [S.]. I believe [S.] did this all on her own to get attention. [S.] was causing a major disruption, and unfortunately, she was enjoying every bit of it."

On February 3rd, S. went to the nurse after an altercation with Student 2. That afternoon, S.’s father sent the following email to Bell, the Supervisor of Student Services:

Just want to know why no one called me to tell me my child was assaulted today by a boy and nothing was done. She told [Woolford] and [Woolford] just pushed it off like nothing happened. I am getting really pissed off with this school. Either you need to deal with it or I will just deal with this on my own terms. Because this is out of control!!

Bell referred the complaint to Charles Pinkett, a Pupil Personnel Worker with the Board of Education of Dorchester County. Pinkett investigated and emailed Bell on February 6th:

Mrs. Woolford is still conducting the investigation. She still has one more teacher to talk to and should be done before the day is over. At the same time, I have also talked to a couple of students and there was "no creditable evidence" of any assault on the student. Will update as soon as investigation is completed.

Woolford's investigation concluded that no teachers had witnessed the alleged incident, and Student 2 denied that there was any altercation with S.

Later in February, Student 7 smashed a cupcake in S.’s face after S. was following her and others around, calling them names. Woolford issued Student 7 an in-school suspension. In March, S. told a student that she "wanted to cut [the student's] fingers off and eat them," and "if your brother comes home with a couple of bruises, you know who did it ... would you mind if your brother comes home and dies, like I poisoned him?" On March 6th, Student 11's parent reported that S. would call Student 11 "penis" as a nickname, and told other students that she would "cut them and strangle them all while laughing."

There were other minor incidents throughout the spring semester, but the most serious occurred on May 8th. Student 4 ran out of her classroom and attacked S., and a full-blown fistfight ensued. Student 4 was suspended with a recommendation of expulsion, and law enforcement was notified.

PROCEEDINGS

On May 10th, the Gambrills filed a five-count Complaint in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County naming Bell, Collins, Woolford, Substitute 1, and Substitute 2 as defendants. The Gambrills also named the Board of Education for Dorchester County ("the Board") as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory of liability, and as provided below, for its allegedly negligent actions. Count 1 alleged violations of S.’s State constitutional right to a "thorough and efficient" education. Count 2 alleged violations of S.’s State constitutional right to due process. Count 3 alleged a pattern or practice of improper conduct. Count 4 alleged negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. And Count 5 alleged general negligence against the teachers and their employer, the Board. The Gambrills voluntarily dismissed Counts 1 and 3. The circuit court then granted summary judgment as to the remaining counts. The Gambrills have appealed only from the grant of summary judgment as to Count 5.²

In granting summary judgment as to Count 5, the circuit court said:

With regard to the negligence claim, Count [5], I find that the individual Defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because they are entitled to statutory immunity. They're protected by the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001.

The purpose of that statute is to provide teachers, principals, and other school professionals the tools they need to undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline, and an appropriate educational environment. Those defendants are entitled to summary judgment with regard to that claim for the reason that there are no substantive or procedural due process violations, therefore that Act squarely covers them and provides them with immunity.

I find that the Board also is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The negligent acts at issue here that are alleged were educational decisions and thus within the purview of Hunter [v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cty. , 292 Md. 481, 439 A.2d 582 (1982) ] and Gurbani [v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp. , 237 Md. App. 261, 185 A.3d 760 (2018) ].

No reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendants were negligent in supervising [S.] and other students at Mace's Lane [Middle School]. ... [N]o reasonable jury could find that the ... Defendant Board ... breached [its] duty to protect her from foreseeable harm. I conclude ... that a cause of action here would create that [sword] of Damocles^[3] hanging over the heads of well-intentioned educators who are tasked with the job of resolving peer disputes among adolescents.

Again, I find that there is, not just an absence of evidence to support the allegations that the Defendants failed to adequately respond to, investigate, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to [S.], it's to the

...