Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-5694,94-5694 |
| Citation | 76 F.3d 716 |
| Parties | , 107 Ed. Law Rep. 49 Thomas D. LILLARD and Nell P. Lillard, individually and as parents and next friends of minor child, Andrea Lillard; David McCarter, Carol L. McCarter, and Julie McCarter; David C. Little and Brenda J. Little, individually and as parents and next friends of minor child, Lori Briana Little, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; James R. Anderson, Superintendent, Shelby County Schools; Ernest Chism, Principal, Germantown High School; and Gary Leventhal, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Louis R. Lucas (argued and briefed), Memphis, TN, for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. Cecil McWhirter (briefed), Walsh, McWhirter & Wyatt, Memphis, TN, for James R. Anderson, Ernest Chism.
Buckner P. Wellford (briefed), Cheryl R. Estes (argued), Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, Memphis, TN, for Gary Leventhal.
Jennifer A. Beene (argued), County Attorney's Office for County of Shelby, J. Minor Tait, Jr., McDonald Kuhn, Memphis, TN, for Shelby County Bd. of Educ.
Before NELSON, RYAN, and McKAY, * Circuit Judges.
RYAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which McKAY, J., joined. NELSON, J. (p. 730), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
The plaintiffs appeal from the district court's judgment granting, in part, the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in this suit alleging violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, and of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of the conduct of Gary Leventhal, a coach and teacher at Germantown High School in Shelby County, Tennessee. The plaintiffs, three girls who attended Germantown High School and their parents, sued Leventhal; the Shelby County Board of Education; James Anderson, the Superintendent of Shelby County Schools; and Ernest Chism, the Principal of Germantown High School.
The appeal presents a number of complex issues. We first consider whether Title IX's statutory remedy precludes the plaintiffs from bringing a substantive due process claim under section 1983, an argument made by the defendants for the first time on appeal, and conclude that this argument is without merit. We also consider the plaintiffs' arguments that the district court erred in dismissing Lillard's and Little's substantive due process claims on the ground that Leventhal's conduct toward them does not shock the conscience; in dismissing the First Amendment claims of Lillard and Little on the ground that they were not stated with sufficient specificity; in granting summary judgment to the School Board, Anderson, and Chism on the constitutional claims of McCarter, on the ground that these defendants had no notice or knowledge of Leventhal's actions; and in dismissing the Title IX claims of Lillard and McCarter on statutes of limitations grounds.
Because we conclude that the district court erred with regard to its determination of the limitations period applicable to Title IX, we will reverse its dismissal of Lillard's and McCarter's Title IX claims. In all other respects, however, we will affirm.
Gary Leventhal was hired by Principal Ernest Chism in 1986 to be a physical science teacher and girls' soccer coach for Germantown High School. By August 1992, Leventhal had been removed from the coaching position, because of numerous complaints against him, including the following, which are at issue in this lawsuit.
On August 30, 1991, Andrea Lillard was 14 years old and had been in high school only two weeks. Leventhal, her physical science teacher and soccer coach, detained her after class and verbally abused her, in an unspecified manner, for unspecified reasons. He then held her chin with one hand and slapped her across the face--a slap which was, Leventhal told Andrea's mother, "perhaps harder than he meant." Leventhal also made unspecified threats to Andrea after the slapping.
Two and a half weeks later, on September 18, Andrea and her father first met with Principal Chism to discuss the incident. Mr. Lillard allegedly told Principal Chism that he believed Leventhal's conduct constituted sexual harassment. Principal Chism promised that "fast and decisive action would be taken." When he heard nothing further, Mr. Lillard again contacted Principal Chism on September 19 and on September 23. On September 23, Principal Chism told Mr. Lillard that he had spoken with the girls on Leventhal's soccer team, who had said that Leventhal "was demoralizing ... them by the way he treated them." Principal Chism nonetheless had not made up his mind about the appropriate course of action.
Mr. Lillard then called Superintendent Anderson and informed him of the slapping incident and of his subsequent conferences with Principal Chism. After speaking with Principal Chism, Superintendent Anderson told Mr. Lillard that Leventhal's actions were "without malice."
It appears from the record that Mr. Lillard then sent a letter to the Board of Commissioners of Shelby County, complaining of Leventhal's "alleged sexual harassment" of Andrea. A copy of this letter was forwarded to Superintendent Anderson by the Chairman of the Board, who specifically pointed out the sexual harassment charge. Mr. Lillard wrote to the Board of Commissioners a second time, and again complained of the alleged sexual harassment of Andrea.
The defendants now take the position that they did not believe, for three reasons, Andrea's claim that Leventhal had slapped her: first, Leventhal, although known to be verbally abusive as a coach and occasionally "reprimanded" for "inappropriate verbal remarks," had never had a "history of striking children"; second, Andrea "has a past history of not being truthful," having once lied to the principal in connection with drinking on school property; and finally, Andrea's behavior following the incident was "inconsistent with her having experienced abuse," because she tried to get back on the soccer team and continued going to Leventhal's class.
There is an affidavit in the record from James Franklin, an FBI agent who is not a party to this lawsuit, and who is a self-described "close follower and supporter of the Germantown High School athletic program." After he learned about the slapping incident, Franklin contacted Principal Chism and told him he had observed Leventhal's cursing and verbally abusing the girls at practices and games, and had "observed Leventhal hitting the girls on their buttocks." In response, Principal Chism told Franklin that he had known Leventhal "was a problem when he came there" and had a "book an inch thick already" of complaints. Franklin then called Superintendent Anderson and reported the same information. In response, he was told that Anderson "would look into it." Franklin did not, it appears, have any knowledge of Andrea Lillard's complaints, or of those of the other plaintiffs.
Beginning in the early spring of 1991, the McCarter family changed their residence several times in connection with Mr. McCarter's new employment in Atlanta, Georgia. Julie apparently moved back and forth, but eventually stayed in Germantown with her grandparents, and later, in the late summer of 1991, returned to live with her parents when they moved back to Germantown. Because of Julie's brief residence in Atlanta, however, she needed to make a special application in order to be allowed to play soccer for Germantown. It appears that Leventhal in some way impeded the application, telling the soccer team captain that he was "holding the ... papers and would send them in when [he] was ready." It further appears that Julie was only allowed to play after her mother went to Leventhal and "beg[ged]." Leventhal told Julie that he would let her back on the team, but "she would have to 'kiss his ass' for the rest of the season." Her parents also had to promise not to complain any more about his conduct.
The latter demand appears to have arisen from Mr. McCarter's complaints, beginning in August 1990, to Principal Chism about Leventhal's conduct as a coach. Specifically, he He told both Principal Chism and Superintendent Anderson, as well as an unnamed School Board official, "about Leventhal not keeping his hands to himself when dealing with these girls."
In September 1991, Mrs. McCarter wrote to one Mr. Hayslip, who is in charge of athletics in the school system but is not a party to this suit, regarding Leventhal's behavior. Mrs. McCarter's letter detailed the verbal abuse Leventhal inflicted on the girls, and specified that the "girls are afraid of him." On one occasion, Leventhal told Julie that her father was an "asshole" and a "liar." The letter also detailed Leventhal's practice of calling Julie, and other girls at home, and "play[ing] mind games" by accusing them of not truly wishing to play for him. The McCarters claim that they conveyed the same information verbally to Superintendent Anderson and Principal Chism on several occasions.
Finally, the complaint contains an allegation that Leventhal "placed his hands between [Julie's] breasts" and "fondled her buttocks" on unspecified dates, and also secured duplicate keys to her room while on road trips for the soccer team.
The School Board, through its President, filed an affidavit stating that it had never been informed of any allegations of sexual harassment with regard to Julie. Superintendent Anderson's affidavit states that, although he was aware that Julie was not on the soccer team, at no time did she or her parents "ever inform [him] that they believed their daughter was being sexually harassed" or that she "had been improperly touched." Finally, Principal Chism's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Forrester v. Clarenceville Sch. Dist.
- Mays v. Governor, No. 157335
-
In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Erisa Litigation, No. C2-04-643.
... ... in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 724 (6th Cir.1996) (quoting ... ...
- Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ.
-
A WORKABLE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.
...claim. At other times we have concluded they are both required." (citation omitted) (quoting Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 725 (6th Cir. 1996)). (179) See Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762, 769 (10th Cir. 2008) ("[T]he 'shocks theconscience' and 'fundamental libe......
-
What's happening in....
...(1st Cir. 1995). (6.) Doe v. Petaluma City School District, 54 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1995). (7.) 77 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1996). (8.) 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. (9.) Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976). (10.) 732 F.Supp. 39 (W.D. Pa. 1989). (11.) No. CIV. 95-4037, 1996 WL 753991, at *3 (S......
-
Sheldon Kennedy and a Canadian tragedy revisited: a comparative look at U.S. and Canadian jurisprudence on youth sports organizations' civil liability for child sexual exploitation.
...County, 894 F.2d 1176, 1194 (10th Cir. 1990). (154.) Id. at 1179-83. (155.) Id. at 1190-92. (156.) Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. (157.) Id. at 724 (citations omitted). (158.) Id. at 726. (159.) 882 F.2d 720, 722 (3d Cir. 1989). (160.) Id. at 781. (161.) 2......