L.S. v. Hanover Area Sch. Dist.

1

L.S. as mother and natural guardian of D.S., a minor, Plaintiff v. HANOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, NATHAN BARRETT, DAPHNE PUGH, JESSICA RAMAGLI, and MARY FARRELL, Defendants

No. 3:22cv234

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 23, 2024

MEMORANDUM

JULIA K. MUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Before the court is a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint filed by Defendants Hanover Area School District, Nathan Barrett, Daphne Pugh, Jessica Ramagli, and Mary Farrell. Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.^[1]

Background

Plaintiff L.S. brings this action as the result of an alleged sexual assault involving her daughter, D.S., which occurred at the Lyndwood Learning Center in Hanover Township, Pennsylvania on November 22, 2021.^[2] (Doc. 1, Complaint) That day, plaintiff arrived early to pick up D.S. from prekindergarten and watched her play on the school playground with her classmates. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 11). D.S. was three years old. (Id.)

Defendant Ramagli, D.S.'s teacher, was supposed to be supervising the children on the playground along with another teacher Defendant Farrell, and two other teacher's aides. (Id. ¶ 12). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ramagli and Farrell and one of the other teacher's aides however, were not supervising the children. (Id. ¶ 13). Rather, these individuals stood in the middle of the playground laughing and looking at their phones. (Id.)

Two boys from D.S.'s class were chasing D.S. on the playground. (Id. ¶ 14). The two boys then pushed D.S. in the chest, which caused D.S. to fall on her back. (Id.) D.S. kicked at the boys and fought her way back up from the ground. (Id.) Plaintiff observed D.S. adjust her pants as she stood up to run away. (Id.).

D.S then ran up a slide. (Id. ¶ 15). The same two boys followed D.S. and pulled at her legs. (Id.) D.S. continued up the slide and again adjusted her pants. (Id.) D.S. then got off the slide. (Id. at 16). The same two boys pushed D.S. to the ground again. (Id.) One of the boys sat on D.S.'s back and pressed her face into the mulch. (Id.) The other boy then pulled down D.S.'s pants and underwear. (Id.) That boy grabbed and separated D.S.'s buttocks and began shoving mulch into her rectum. (Id.)

Plaintiff avers that Defendants Ramagli and Farrell failed to notice what was happening. (Id. ¶ 17). Plaintiff, however, saw the incident unfold. (Id. ¶ 18) She screamed for help and ran toward her child. (Id.) Another teacher's aide ran to D.S. from a different part of the playground and pulled the boys off. (Id.). That aide brushed the mulch off D.S. and pulled up her pants and underwear. (Id.)

By this time, the screaming and loud activity alerted Defendants Ramagli and Farrell. (Id. ¶ 19). After being informed by a teacher's aide about what transpired, Defendant Farrell stated that the incident would need to be reported.

(Id.) Per plaintiff, the incident was never reported to ChildLine^[3] by the defendants or anyone at Hanover Area as was required by Pennsylvania law. (Id. ¶ 38).

Back inside the family vehicle, plaintiff called Defendant Pugh, the director of the prekindergarten program, to report the incident. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 20). Defendant Pugh advised plaintiff that she would call Defendant Barrett, the superintendent of Hanover Area. (Id. ¶ 20). Plaintiff then brought D.S. to the emergency room, and, after discharge, to the Hanover Township Police Department to inquire about filing a police report. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). Plaintiff also brought D.S. to the Victim's Resource Center (“VRC”). (Id. ¶ 22). At home, D.S. repeatedly wet her pants and cried, asking her mother why the boys did that to her. (Id. ¶ 23).

D.S. did not return to school the next day or any time thereafter. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 42). On November 24, 2021, having heard nothing from Defendant Barrett, Defendant Pugh, or Hanover Area's designated Title IX coordinator, plaintiff contacted Pugh requesting that the two boys be transferred out of D.S.'s class and placed in the other class for their grade level. (Id. ¶¶ 24-27). Pugh told plaintiff that the school would not accommodate that request. (Id. ¶ 28). Rather, Pugh offered to move D.S. out of her class or move one of the boys out of the class. (Id.)

On December 8, 2021, Defendant Ramagli, D.S.'s teacher, contacted plaintiff to ask if D.S. would be returning to school. (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff alleges that Ramagli did not inquire about any accommodations D.S. might need to return to school. (Id.) The next day, another teacher's aide at the school contacted plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 34). The aide relayed to plaintiff that one of the boys involved in the alleged assault of D.S was sexually touching the aide's own daughter. (Id.) Plaintiff avers that she told the aide to report the incident to Defendant Ramagli or Defendant Pugh. (Id.) Per plaintiff, the aide later confirmed that she reported the separate incident involving her daughter. (Id. ¶ 35).

On December 15, 2021, Defendant Pugh e-mailed plaintiff to ask if D.S. would return to school and indicated she required an answer by December 17. (Id. ¶ 36). Plaintiff alleges that Pugh did not inquire about any accommodations D.S. might need to return to school. (Id.) Further, plaintiff responded that D.S. was terrified to return to school without a guarantee that she would not be around the boys who assaulted her. (Id. ¶ 37). Plaintiff also communicated that Hanover Area's proposal to move D.S. out of her class was unacceptable. (Id.) Pugh made no response. (Id.)

Plaintiff then emailed Defendant Superintendent Barrett, who she alleges had not yet contacted her by that time. (Id. ¶ 38). Plaintiff advised Barrett in the email that D.S. was diagnosed with sexual trauma and was receiving counseling services at the VRC. (Id.) Plaintiff also communicated to Barrett that Defendant Pugh refused to transfer both boys out of D.S.'s class. (Id.) Plaintiff further relayed information from the VRC that a ChildLine report was not made by anyone at the district regarding the assault. (Id.) She wrote to Barrett: “my daughter was the victim, she would love to come back but she should not be punished for this.” (Id.)

On December 16, 2021, Barrett telephoned plaintiff, but she missed the call. (Id. ¶ 39). Because it was after school hours when plaintiff noticed the missed call, plaintiff then emailed Barrett stating she would like to discuss accommodations with Barrett and Pugh for D.S. to return to school and provided times when plaintiff would be available to discuss further. (Id.) Five days later, on December 21, 2021, Barrett and Defendant Pugh contacted plaintiff by phone for the first time together. (Id. ¶ 40). One month had passed since the assault. (Id.) According to plaintiff:

During the call, both Barrett and Pugh doubled down and reiterated that they were denying D.S.'s needed accommodations. Barrett and Pugh told L.S. that they had implemented a new “safety plan” which included designating spots on the playground for employees to supervise students. Pugh described the sexual assault of D.S. as “horseplay” that the new safety plan would prevent from happening again. Pugh also told L.S. that how the kids “play with mulch” would be monitored moving forward. Barrett asked L.S. to have “faith” in the new safety plan.

(Id.)

After the call, plaintiff sent an email to Defendant Barrett and Defendant Pugh confirming the contents of the previous conversation. (Id. ¶ 41). On December 23, 2021, Barrett replied by email, indicating that plaintiff's “absolute request will not be able to be accommodated.” (Id.).

On February 17, 2022, plaintiff filed a five-count complaint against the defendants. (Doc. 1). Count One alleges Defendant Hanover Area was deliberately indifferent to a report of sexual assault or harassment of D.S. in violation of Title IX the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”). (Id. ¶¶ 43-49). Count Two alleges Defendant Hanover Area retaliated against D.S. in violation of Title IX.^[4] (Id. ¶¶ 50-53). Count Three asserts a negligence claim against Defendants Hanover Area, Farrell, and Ramagli. (Id. ¶¶ 54-59). Count Four raises a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Defendants Hanover Area, Barrett, and Pugh for allegedly violating D.S.'s equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 60-69). Count Five raises a separate Section 1983 claim asserting that Defendant Hanover Area failed to train its employees to prevent, recognize, and appropriately respond to sexual harassment and sexual assault in violation of D.S.'s due process and equal protection rights. (Id. ¶¶ 70-76).

Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss all counts in plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having been extensively briefed, the issues raised in the motion to dismiss are ripe for disposition.

Jurisdiction

Based on the alleged violations of federal law, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Additionally, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction of any action commenced to redress the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law providing for the equal rights of citizens. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law negligence claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (“In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the...