Jowett v. Churchill

DAVID JOWETT and BRITTNEY JOWETT, individually and as parents and natural guardians of S.J., Plaintiffs,

v.

MELISSA CHURCHILL, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-13083 (RMB/SAK)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 31, 2021

Jacqueline M. Vigilante On behalf of Plaintiffs

Benjamin Henry Zieman, Anderson Shah LLC On behalf of Defendants Steven Crispin, West Deptford Board of Education Jill Scheetz, and West Deptford School District

Erin Donegan Anderson & Shah, LLC On behalf of Defendants Steven Crispin, West Deptford Board of Education, Jill Scheetz, and West Deptford School District

James R. Birchmeier Birchmeier & Powell LLC On behalf of Defendant Melissa Churchill.

OPINION

RENÉE MARIE BUMB, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Motions to Dismiss brought by Defendants Steven Crispin, Jill Scheetz, the West Deptford Board of Education (the “Board”), and the West Deptford School District (the “District, ” and, collectively, the “West Deptford Defendants”), [Docket No. 25]; and Defendant Melissa Churchill, [Docket No. 26]. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the West Deptford Defendants' Motion and grant, in part, and deny, in part Churchill's Motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiffs David Jowett and Brittney Jowett are the parents of S.J., who was eight years old at the time of the incidents giving rise to this suit. [Docket No. 16, ¶¶ 1, 13.] During the 2018-2019 school year, S.J. attended Red Bank Elementary School (“Red Bank”) in person. [See id., ¶¶ 14-15, 58.] Red Bank is a public school operated by Defendant, the Board. [Id., ¶ 3.] The Board “is a public entity properly authorized to operate public schools in West Deptford, New Jersey.” [Id., ¶ 4.] At all relevant times to this lawsuit, Defendant Crispin was a Board employee and the Superintendent of the District, and Defendant Scheetz was a Board employee and the Principal of Red Bank. [Id., ¶¶ 5-6.] Defendant Churchill was a District employee and Lunch Playground Clerical Aide (“LPC”) at Red Bank. [Id., ¶ 7.]^[2]

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges the following, which for the purposes of the pending Motions, the Court assumes to be true. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). Churchill's duties included being present in the lunchroom during lunch at Red Bank. [Docket No. 16, ¶ 18.] Students would regularly invite her-whom they referred to as “Apples”-to sit with them at their tables during lunch, which other Defendants knew about and tolerated. [Id., ¶¶ 20, 22.]

On May 30, 2019, S.J. was at school at Red Bank. [Id., ¶ 15.] During lunch that day, S.J. asked Churchill to sit at her table. [Id., ¶ 24.] Churchill, who had been sitting at a different table, responded that she “would only move to S.J.'s table if S.J. scratched her back first.” [Id., ¶¶ 23-25.] S.J., not wanting to scratch Churchill's back, instead rubbed her knee against Churchill's back. [Id., ¶ 27.] Plaintiffs allege that Churchill immediately “rose to her feet in a fit of anger and grabbed S.J. by the arm” and proceeded to “violently drag[] S.J. through the cafeteria” by her forearm, “threatening her with detention and discipline.” [Id. ¶¶ 28-29.] Despite being present for Churchill's actions, Jane Does 11-20-“who were other LPCs and certified teaching staff”-“did not intervene.” [Id., ¶ 30.] Nor did Jane Does 11-20 “report abusive conduct” to anybody. [Id., ¶ 31.]

Churchill removed S.J. from “the cafeteria and into the school foyer situated directly in front of the main office and principal's office, ” where she “forced S.J. into a chair and restrained her in the chair, by placing both of her hands on S.J.'s shoulder, standing over her[, ] and blocking [her] from leaving or standing up.” [Id., ¶¶ 34-35.] She also continued to threaten S.J. that she was going to report S.J. to the principal. [Id., ¶ 37.] However, Churchill ultimately simply sent S.J. back to her classroom after approximately ten minutes. [Id., ¶ 38.]

The Amended Complaint alleges that there is video evidence that supports Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Churchill's conduct. [See, e.g., id., ¶ 45.] Defendants disagree and have submitted as an exhibit a copy of said video evidence. [See Docket No. 25, Exhibit A (recording of the incident submitted as a physical exhibit).] Defendants argue that the Court may consider this evidence, despite it not being included in the Amended Complaint, because it is “integral to” and “explicitly relied upon in the” Amended Complaint. See Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs appear to concede that the Court may rely on the video. [See Docket No. 35, at 13.] The Court has reviewed the video evidence and, suffice it to say that, at this juncture, in this Court's view, the video does not support Plaintiffs' allegations that S.J. was “violently dragged” by Churchill. The Court leaves this for another day, as set forth below.

At some point after the incident, another Board employee, who apparently witnessed Churchill's actions in the foyer, notified Principal Scheetz of her observations. [Id., ¶ 40.] Later on the day of the incident, Scheetz “called S.J. into her office to discuss the incident, ostensibly to find out what happened.” [Id., ¶ 41.] However, her main intent was actually to “cover[] up the incident.” [Id., ¶ 42.] Scheetz “attempted to manipulate S.J. by telling [her] that she wasn't in trouble and asking S.J. to ‘keep what happened between us' or words to that effect.” [Id., ¶ 43.] However, this had the effect of making S.J. think she had done something wrong. [Id., ¶ 44.] Later that day, Scheetz called S.J.'s parents-Plaintiffs-and told “them that S.J. had kicked a custodian but that [Scheetz] had spoken with both of them and the issue was resolved.” [Id., ¶ 45.] “Scheetz did not disclose that Churchill had assaulted, or even touched S.J.” because, Scheetz claimed, “S.J. begged her not to tell Plaintiffs what happened.” [Id., ¶ 46.] “Everything Scheetz told the Plaintiffs was misleading and false.” [Id., ¶ 47.]

Eventually, Plaintiffs learned from S.J. that Churchill had asked S.J. to touch her and scratch her back, which had made S.J. uncomfortable. [Id., ¶ 48.] Having learned what happened from S.J., Plaintiffs requested to meet with Scheetz and Superintendent Crispin. [Id., ¶ 50.] While Crispin did not respond to Plaintiffs' request, Plaintiffs and Scheetz had a meeting on May 31, 2019, at which Scheetz “gave further false information that S.J. and Churchill were sitting together ‘scratching each other's backs' and that S.J. kicked Churchill.” [Id., ¶¶ 50-51.] After the meeting, Scheetz notified Plaintiffs that “the conduct of Churchill was so disturbing and upsetting that Churchill was terminated.” [Id., ¶ 52.] This only occurred, however, “after Plaintiffs discovered that Scheetz was attempting to cover up the incident.” [Id., ¶ 54.]

S.J. attended two more days of school at Red Bank-on May 30 and June 3, 2019- before, “due to the emotional distress, fear and anxiety, ” she “remained out of school for homebound instruction . . . through the end of the school year.” [Id., ¶ 58.]

Prior to the date of this incident, the Board had employed Churchill as a caregiver at its Young Eagles after-school care program, “during which time Churchill behaved inappropriately and aggressively toward children.” [Id., ¶ 55.] Rather than terminating her then, the Board transferred Churchill to Red Bank as an LPC. [Id., ¶ 56.] At no point did any Defendant notify the Division of Child Protective Services of what happened to S.J. [See id., ¶ 54.]

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs initially filed this suit on September 23, 2020. [Docket No. 1.] Pursuant to this Court's Individual Rules and Procedures, the parties exchanged pre-motion letters in November 2020. [Docket Nos. 11-12.] The Court did not hold a pre-motion conference, but encouraged Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint. [Docket No. 13.] Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020. [Docket No. 16.]

The Amended Complaint alleges seven Counts. Count I alleges a state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docket No. 16, ¶¶ 76-93.] Count II alleges a Monell claim, also pursuant to § 1983. [Id., ¶¶ 94-104.] Count III alleges another § 1983 violation, apparently pursuant to the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:37-15(b)(6). [See id., ¶¶ 105-119.] Count IV alleges a Fourth Amendment violation, via § 1983. [Id., ¶¶ 120-38.] Count V alleges a violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process. [Id., ¶¶ 139-50.] Count VI alleges a common law assault and battery claim as against Churchill only. [Id., ¶¶ 151-56.] Finally, Count VII alleges a common law negligent hiring and retention claim as against the Board only.^[3] [Id., ¶¶ 157-61; Docket No. 34, at 30.]

The West Deptford Defendants filed their collective Motion to Dismiss on January 19, 2021. [Docket No. 25.] Defendant Churchill filed her Motion to Dismiss on January 21, 2021. [Docket No. 26.] Plaintiff responded in opposition to those Motions on March 1, 2021. [Docket Nos. 34-35.] The West Deptford Defendants timely filed their reply on March 8, 2021. [Docket No. 37.]

III. JURISDICTION

The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Section 1331 grants the Court federal question jurisdiction over Counts I-V, as they allege claims that arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI and VII, as those claims and Counts I-V “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, ” rendering them “part of the same case or controversy” pursuant to § 1367(a). See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

IV...