Sterling v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. 202

JORIE STERLING and SOPHIA STERLING, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EVANSTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 202, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-cv-05599

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 3, 2021

Judge Franklin U. Valderrama

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jorie Sterling (Jorie) alleges that while she was a student at Evanston Township High School (ETHS), defendant Marvin Rhone (Rhone) and defendant Michael Haywood (Haywood), both ETHS safety officers, sexually groomed and sexually abused her. Jorie and her mother, Sophia Sterling (Sophia), brought suit against Haywood, Rhone, as well as the Board of Education of Evanston Township High School District 202 (the BOE); the superintendent of ETHS, defendant Eric Witherspoon (Witherspoon); and the assistant superintendent and principal of ETHS, defendant Marcus A. Campbell (Campbell) (collectively, District Defendants), asserting claims arising under 42 USC § 1983, Title IX, the Illinois Gender Violence Act (IGVA) and several common law tort claims. R. 31, Am. Compl.^{1 2}

District Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (R. 40, District Mot. Dismiss) and Rhone's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (R. 42, Rhone Mot. Dismiss) are both before the Court. For the reasons that follow, District Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Rhone's Motion to Dismiss is also granted in part and denied in part.

Background

Jorie was a student at ETHS from 2015 (her freshman year) until she graduated in June 2019. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 31.³ The BOE and ETHS oversee a Special Education Department, which manages individualized education program (IEP) plans for eligible students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Id. ¶ 27. While a student at ETHS, Jorie was enrolled in an IEP plan to address particular needs and challenges she faced and to allow her to successfully earn her high school diploma. Id. ¶ 29. The BOE and ETHS alsomaintain a Safety Department whose primary function, among other things, is to provide security to ETHS and its campus. Am. Compl. ¶ 28.

In or about 2015, during her freshman year, Jorie came into contact with Rhone, who began sexually grooming her. Id. ¶ 31. Rhone's sexual grooming of Jorie included but was not limited to: (i) making personal cell phone calls to her during and outside of school hours; (ii) buying her gifts and meals; and (iii) sending text messages to Jorie with sexual or pornographic content and language. Id. ¶ 32. Rhone also engaged in over fifty unauthorized sexual acts and other contact with Jorie in 2015 and 2016. Id. ¶ 33. These acts occurred in and around ETHS, including in Rhone's car which was parked in the vicinity of ETHS. Id. ¶ 34. Witherspoon and Campbell terminated Rhone's employment in or about June 2016. Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiffs do not allege a reason for Rhone's termination.

Haywood began sexually targeting Jorie, and several other female ETHS student as soon as he began his employment with the BOE and ETHS in September 2018. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-37. His sexual grooming and targeting of Jorie and other students included, among other things: (i) sending text messages to Jorie and other students with sexual or pornographic content and language; (ii) sending sexual or pornographic photos to Jorie and other students, and pressuring them to send and receive the same from him; (iii) providing Jorie and other students with marijuana and alcoholic beverages and encouraging them to use those substances; and (iv) pressuring Jorie and other students to perform sexual acts and act sexually against their will. Id. ¶ 39. Haywood also engaged in over forty unauthorized sexual acts andother contact with Jorie from September 2018 through January 2019, such acts taking place at various locations at ETHS, in the home of an ETHS teacher, in Haywood's own home, at a hotel in Evanston, and at other locations in Evanston. Id. ¶ 40. Haywood's employment was terminated on January 14, 2019. Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiffs do not allege a reason for Haywood's termination.

Following these events, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants, which has since been amended. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

Count

No.

Plaintiff(s)

Cause of Action

Defendant(s)

Amended

Complaint

Paragraph

Nos.

Count I

Jorie

42 USC § 1983 Due

Process

Rhone,

Haywood,

Witherspoon,

and Campbell

¶¶ 56-60

Count II

Jorie

42 USC § 1983 Equal

Protection

Rhone,

Haywood,

Witherspoon,

and Campbell

¶¶ 61-66

Count III

Jorie

Title IX Violations

BOE

¶¶ 67-77

Count IV

Jorie

Violation of the

Illinois Gender

Violence Act

Rhone and

Haywood

¶¶ 78-80

Count V

Jorie

Intentional Infliction

of Emotional Distress

Rhone and

Haywood

¶¶ 81-84

Count VI

Jorie

Battery

Rhone and

Haywood

¶¶ 85-86

Count VII

Jorie

Willful and Wanton

Conduct

District

Defendants

¶¶ 87-93

Count

VIII

Sophia

Willful and Wanton

Conduct

District

Defendants

¶¶ 94-100

Count IX

Plaintiffs

Respondeat Superior

BOE

¶¶ 101-103

Count X

Plaintiffs

745 ILCS 10/9-102

Indemnification

BOE

¶¶ 104-106

District Defendants and Rhone move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). District Mot. Dismiss; Rhone Mot. Dismiss.

Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only contain factual allegations, accepted as true, sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 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." Id. The allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The allegations that are entitled to the assumption of truth are those that are factual, rather than mere legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

Analysis

I. Federal Claims Against District Defendants

A. Count I - Section 1983 Due Process Claim

In Count I, Plaintiffs assert a Section 1983 claim, alleging that Rhone, Haywood, Witherspoon, and Campbell violated Jorie's rights to bodily integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and caused the alleged injuries, namely that Rhone and Haywood sexually groomed and abused Jorie. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57-58.

Section 1983 serves as a procedural vehicle for lawsuits "vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that they were "deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, by a person acting under color of law." Thurman v. Vill. of Homewood, 446 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2006). A plaintiff may only bring a Section 1983 claim against those individuals "personally responsible for the constitutional deprivation." Doyle v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 614 (7th Cir. 2002). "Moreover, under § 1983, a plaintiff may not rely on the doctrine of respondeat superior to hold supervisory officials liable for the misconduct of their subordinates . . . . Rather, the supervisory officials also must have had some personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or consenting to the challenged conduct." Id. at 614-15 (internal citations omitted).

District Defendants argue that not only have Plaintiffs failed to allege that Campbell and Witherspoon were personally involved in any unconstitutional conduct,but also that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts that Campbell and Witherspoon were aware of Haywood's and Rhone's conduct or the abuse.⁴ Instead, District Defendants submit that Plaintiffs seek to impermissibly hold Campbell and Witherspoon liable under a theory of respondeat superior. R. 43, District Memo. at 4-7. The Court agrees.

It is plain that Plaintiffs cannot hold Witherspoon and Campbell liable for Section 1983 claims based on Rhone's and Haywood's conduct under a doctrine of respondeat superior liability. See Doyle, 305 F.3d at 614-15. However, Plaintiffs have also failed to allege facts necessary to hold Witherspoon and Campbell personally liable under Section 1983 based on their own conduct or knowledge. See Jones v. City of Chi., 856 F.2d 985, 992-93 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting that supervisors can only be held liable for their personal involvement in unconstitutional conduct, which must rise above the level of inactionable negligence or gross negligence). In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Witherspoon, Campbell, the BOE, and other ETHS teachers, counselors, and staff knew of allegations that Haywood had sexually groomed and had unlawful sexual contact with Jorie and other ETHS students. Am. Comp. ¶ 44. Plaintiffs further allege that despite District Defendants' knowledge,they took no actions to protect Jorie and other ETHS students from Haywood's continued acts. Id. ¶ 45.

Yet, as Defendants argue, Plaintiffs' allegations of Witherspoon's or Campbell's personal involvement are devoid of any factual support or information. Plaintiffs allege neither that Witherspoon or Campbell witnessed any of Haywood's or Rhone's conduct while it was ongoing nor that abusive conduct was ever reported to them. District Memo. at 5. Without any allegations supporting how Witherspoon or Campbell knew of Haywood's conduct, the Court...