Williams v. Jersey Shore Area Sch. Dist.

673 F.Supp.3d 688

Adam WILLIAMS and Catiese Williams, individuallyand as parents and natural guardians of NW and KW, their minor children, Plaintiffs, v. JERSEY SHORE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; Brian T. Ulmer;Steven Keen; and Elizabeth Seagraves, Defendants.

No. 4:22-CV-00473

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Signed May 17, 2023

Jeffrey C. Dohrmann, Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters, Williamsport, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Carl P. Beard, Jr., Elizabeth A. Benjamin, Beard Legal Group PC, Altoona, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

Cruelty among schoolchildren is undoubtedly disturbing. If my colleagues and I had the power and ability to eradicate it from society, we would not hesitate to do so—but we do not. Facts like those alleged in this Amended Complaint are particularly difficult to read: black students in public school repeatedly called the n-word and subject to racially-motivated taunting by their peers. Were it the Court's job to consider this issue from a sociological perspective, I would wonder how the parents of the harassing children are allowing their children to behave in this manner, whether they care, or whether they are condoning and encouraging it.

But such considerations are not within the purview of the Court; my responsibility lies only in determining whether the allegations in the Amended Complaint sufficiently state claims upon which relief can be granted against the School District and certain actors in its employ. They do not.

While the Court regrets what the minor Plaintiffs have allegedly gone through and appreciates how difficult the situation must be from the parents' perspective, the law imposes a very high standard to causes of actions against public schools and school officials for the consequences of student bullying, racially motivated or otherwise. The Amended Complaint's allegations do not meet that standard. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

Plaintiffs Adam and Catiese Williams are the adult parents of NW and KW (the "Minor Students"), both minors and students in the Jersey Shore Area School District (the "School District").² NW and KW are biracial; their father is white and their mother is black.³ The Amended Complaint describes a number of events that NW and KW experienced while enrolled in the School District. For the sake of brevity, the Court will summarize and describe the salient features of each incident in the below chart.

Date

Summary

Relevant Actions Taken and Outcome

Fall 20194

Students told NW they wanted to sell him on the slave stage, they wished they could travel back in time so that they could own him as a slave and whip him, that he only eats watermelon and drinks Kool-Aid, referred to him as a "monkey," and told him he was only good at sports and a fast runner because he is black.

Plaintiffs and NW reported the incidents to school administrators (unnamed in the Amended Complaint). Meetings were held with NW and the harassing students; Plaintiffs were never contacted.

Fall 20205

Students told NW (a member of the Middle School Football Team) that he was only good at sports because he was black.

Plaintiffs reported to the School District's Athletic Director, who investigated and told Plaintiffs "nothing was founded." NW switched from the freshman to varsity football team.

March 20216

A fellow student called KW the n-word.

KW reported the incident to the Middle School Principal and Assistant Principal. Plaintiffs and KW met with school administrators and the harassing student and his/her mother. The student apologized to KW. Administrators asked KW to be part of an ethics committee that never materialized. KW later transferred schools.

Date

Summary

Relevant Actions Taken and Outcome

Sept. and Oct. 20217

Students called NW the n-word, made comments about hanging NW, and made other racist remarks.

Plaintiffs reported the incidents to Seagraves, who discussed them with Ulmer and Keen. Seagraves told Plaintiffs they could not identify the offending students and refused to investigate further.

Nov. 10, 20218

Students harassed NW during homeroom by making remarks and writing letters on the whiteboard, which alluded to the n-word.

Plaintiffs left a phone message for Ulmer and did not hear back. They then met with Keen and Seagraves to discuss the incidents. Keen asked for some time to investigate the incident. Adam Williams requested for NW to be removed from the homeroom.

Nov. 12, 20219

Another student reported harassment by a student who had previously harassed NW.

Keen called Catiese Williams to say he had met with NW and was continuing to look into the incidents. Ulmer then called Catiese Williams and told her that "consequences were issued to certain students."

Nov. 18, 202110

Students accused NW of over-exaggerating the racist incidents and getting others in trouble.

Plaintiffs and NW met with Keen and Seagraves, who had NW fill out a discrimination report form.

Date

Summary

Relevant Actions Taken and Outcome

Dec. 13, 202111

NW found the n-word carved in the table where he usually sat for lunch.

NW and Catiese Williams reported the incident to Keene, who investigated the incident by reviewing camera footage and interviewing students. Keen also informed Catiese Williams that he had the n-word removed from the table.

Jan. 18, 202212

A student showed NW a photo of a Ku Klux Klan member on the student's phone.

Catiese Williams reported the incident to the School Resource Officer, who told her that none of the prior incidents had been reported to him. The Resource Officer documented the incident and informed Catiese Williams that there was "not enough to press harassment charges" against the student.

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnotes⁴,⁵,⁶,⁷,⁸,⁹,¹⁰,¹¹,¹²].

The Amended Complaint also attached and described the School District's written policies and procedures regarding racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and bullying.¹³ Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' conduct in responding to the above-listed incidents violated those policies and procedures.¹⁴

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit with an original Complaint filed on March 29, 2022.¹⁵ Plaintiffs then filed the operative Amended Complaint on September 1, 2022 against Jersey Shore Area School District, Brian T. Ulmer (the Superintendent of the School District), Steven Keen (the Principal of Jersey Shore High School), and Elizabeth Seagraves (the Assistant Principal of Jersey Shore High School) (Ulmer, Keen, and Seagraves collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 7, 2022.¹⁶ That Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.¹⁷ For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion.

II. LAW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court dismisses a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Following Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly¹⁸ and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,¹⁹ "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' "²⁰ In deciding a motion to dismiss, courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit must follow three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) assume the veracity of all well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.²¹

III. ANALYSIS²²

The Amended Complaint brings the following causes of action: (1) violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the School District; (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, against the Individual Defendants; (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Procedural Due Process protections, against the Individual Defendants; (4) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Substantive Due Process protections, against the School District; and (5) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Procedural Due Process protections, against the School District.²³

A. Title VI Claim

Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."²⁴ Accordingly, "Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination based on race in any program that receives federal funding."²⁵ To state a claim of racial discrimination under Title VI, a plaintiffs must allege (1) "there is racial or national origin discrimination" and (2) "the entity engaging in discrimination is receiving federal financial assistance."²⁶

As to the first element, when a claim is based upon the school's "failure to address a racially hostile environment," a plaintiff "may recover for alleged 'severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive' harassment if the school 'acts with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment.' "²⁷ Moreover, "[t]he School District can only be held liable for a Title VI claim of racial discrimination when its response is 'clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.' "²⁸ Stated differently, "a plaintiff must demonstrate 'severe or pervasive' harassment based on the student's race, and 'deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment.' "²⁹

Further, "Title VI 'prohibits only intentional discrimination' "³⁰ and, as such, school districts may only be held liable for instances of harassment " 'of which they have actual knowledge.' "³¹ To...