J.T. ex rel. M.L. v. Uplift Educ.

679 F.Supp.3d 540

J.T., individually and as next friend of M.L., a minor, Plaintiff, v. UPLIFT EDUCATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-3443-D

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Signed June 27, 2023

Jason A. Itkin, Cory Daniel Itkin, Michael Rothburn Darling, Ryan S. MacLeod, Andrew Robert Gould, Arnold & Itkin LLP, Houston, TX, Jeffrey S. Levinger, Levinger PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Oleg V. Nudelman, Kathryn E. Long, Thompson & Horton LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, SENIOR JUDGE

Plaintiff J.T., individually and as next friend of her daughter M.L., brings this action against defendant Uplift Education ("Uplift"), alleging that Uplift is liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the sexual abuse and harassment that M.L. suffered as a kindergarten student at the hands of her male classroom teacher, an Uplift employee.¹ Uplift moves for summary judgment. Despite the tragic facts of this case, the court must faithfully apply the law to the summary judgment record and dismiss the case. The court therefore grants Uplift's motion and dismisses this action with prejudice.²

I

During the 2018-2019 school year, M.L. was a kindergarten student at Grand Primary, an open-enrollment college-preparatory public charter school operated by Uplift.³ Several times throughout the school year, M.L.'s male classroom teacher, Jamil Wazed ("Wazed"), sexually abused her and several other female students in his class. To facilitate this abuse, Wazed showed movies to the class, during which he turned off the classroom lights, separated certain children from the remaining ones, and demanded that these students perform sexual acts on him behind a "wall" of privacy folders⁴ that he created on his desk. The barrier that Wazed created was roughly three feet wide and two feet high and would have been visible to anyone who glanced in the window of Wazed's classroom.

On August 5, 2019, two days before the beginning of the new school year, A.C. emailed Grand Primary's Academic Director, Chermanda Frazier ("Frazier"), to report that her daughter J.G. had mentioned that Wazed "would kiss her on her neck and that his beard tickled her neck." D. App. (ECF No. 120-5) at 1342. J.G. was a female student who had been a kindergartner in Wazed's class during the 2018-2019 school year. On August 8, 2019 Frazier saw A.C.'s email and immediately responded. Because the allegation that Wazed kissed a student amounted to possible professional misconduct and violated teacher-student boundaries, Frazier immediately placed Wazed on administrative leave. Consequently, he was prohibited him from teaching, interacting with students, and entering Uplift property without invitation and supervision.

The following day, Frazier, together with Grand Primary Deans Yvonne Cooper ("Cooper") and Christian Martinez-Canchola ("Martinez-Canchola") and Social Counselor Catherine Savoie ("Savoie") (collectively, the "Administrators") began an investigation. During the investigation, the Administrators spoke with A.C., who related that, according to J.G., Wazed had kissed her on the neck and would also cuddle with students during story time. Savoie spoke with J.G. and did not observe anything out of the ordinary or hear any reports of inappropriate conduct. The Administrators then spoke with J.G. together. J.G. called Wazed her "favorite teacher," said that she missed him, and stated that Wazed would kiss her on the neck when the students were good. Id. at 1281. Neither J.G. nor A.C. reported that Wazed had engaged in any other misconduct.

The Administrators then selected four students from Wazed's 2018-2019 class—female students M.L., J.A., and Y.Q., and male student L.B.⁵—to inquire further about the allegations that Wazed had kissed a student. In M.L.'s conversation with the Administrators, she stated that she missed Wazed and she called him her favorite teacher. To investigate J.G.'s report that Wazed had kissed her as "a reward" when she was "good," Frazier asked M.L. how Wazed rewarded her when she did well in class and whether he kissed her. M.L. responded that Wazed kissed her on the cheek but not the neck. M.L. did not report that Wazed had engaged in any other misconduct. J.A. told the Administrators that she missed Wazed and that he hugged her, but never kissed her. Y.Q. also said that she missed Wazed and remembered how he taught reading. She stated that he had given her hugs and had kissed her "on the forehead like when you kiss your brain." D. App. (ECF No. 121-3) at 1589. L.B. stated that he missed Wazed but denied that Wazed had ever kissed him.

Grand Primary then asked Wazed to submit a statement responding to the allegation that he had kissed a student. Wazed denied the allegation and stated that he "never kissed a scholar." D. App. (ECF No. 120-5) at 1368.⁶ Despite Wazed's denial, Frazier believed the students. She determined that Wazed had acted inappropriately, but not maliciously, when he kissed at least three female students. She then provided Uplift's Human Resources team a draft Employee Relations Investigation Packet in which she recommended that Wazed receive a disciplinary warning regarding violation of standards regarding appropriate physical contact with students. She also recommended that Wazed be allowed to return to teaching after meeting with school leadership to "reiterate the expectations regarding student and staff physical space and touch." Id. at 1285.

Uplift's HR Director Gaylon Curry ("Curry") and Managing Director Priscilla Pharms reviewed Frazier's recommendation and rejected it on the ground that Uplift did not tolerate any inappropriate physical contact with students and terminated employees for any physical touching that failed to maintain appropriate boundaries. Curry directed Frazier to revise her report, get a more detailed statement from Wazed, and prepare to terminate him. Frazier did as instructed, and Uplift terminated Wazed's employment on August 16, 2019, eight days after Frazier first saw A.C.'s email.

On August 19, 2019 Uplift reported to the State Board for Educator Certification ("SBEC") that it had terminated Wazed's employment for failure to maintain appropriate educator-student relationships and boundaries. Savoie also filed a report with Child Protective Services ("CPS"), stating that J.G. had disclosed that Wazed had kissed her. CPS screened the report, noted that Wazed had been terminated, and closed the matter after determining that the allegations did not involve abuse, neglect, or risk. Frazier also contacted A.C. to inform her that Uplift no longer employed Wazed and that Uplift had reported his alleged conduct to CPS and SBEC. A.C. did not return Frazier's call.

Nearly one year later, on July 16, 2020, J.T., the plaintiff in this lawsuit, contacted Martinez-Canchola, who had replaced Frazier as Academic Director at Grand Primary. J.T. reported that her daughter M.L. had disclosed to her that "something" had happened with Wazed and that J.T. had filed a police report. J.T. did not provide additional details at that time regarding Wazed's wrongdoing. Later in July, however, the Grand Prairie Police Department notified Uplift that Wazed was under criminal investigation for different and more serious conduct than what had been discovered during Grand Primary's August 2019 investigation. In September 2020 Wazed was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. He ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to seven years in prison.

In November 2020 J.T. filed the instant lawsuit. In her second amended complaint, she brings claims against Uplift under Title IX and § 1983. Uplift moves for summary judgment on all of J.T.'s claims.⁷ J.T. opposes the motion. The court has heard oral argument.

II

Where, as here, a party moves for summary judgment on claims on which the opposing party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can meet its summary judgment obligation by pointing the court to the absence of admissible evidence to support the nonmovant's claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party does so, the nonmovant must go beyond her pleadings and designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The nonmovant's failure to produce proof as to any essential element of a claim renders all other facts immaterial. See TruGreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott, 512 F.Supp.2d 613, 623 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (Fitzwater, J.). Summary judgment is mandatory if the nonmovant fails to meet this burden. Little, 37 F.3d at 1076.

III

Uplift moves for summary judgment on J.T.'s Title IX claim.

A

Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. § 1681. An "education program," such as a charter school, that receives federal funds⁸ may be held liable under Title IX via a private action for damages when its employees sexually abuse students. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 281, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). Title IX, however, does not create vicarious liability for the acts of school employees. Id. at 288, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Instead, to establish liability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a school official with authority to address the harassment had actual...