Anthony v. Bd. of Educ.
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal,Illinois |
| Parties | NIESHA ANTHONY, individually and as parent and next friends of ZARIAH ANTHONY, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. O'FALLON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 203 BOARD OF EDUCATION, TWANA DOLLISON, RICHARD BICKEL, AND DR. DARCY BENWAY, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
| Docket Number | 3:23-CV-00967-SPM |
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) filed by Defendants O'Fallon Township High School (“OTHS”) District 203 Board of Education, Twana Dollison, Richard Bickel, and Dr. Darcy Benway (collectively the “OTHS Defendants”). Having been fully informed of the issues presented, this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the O'Fallon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff Niesha Anthony's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26), which the Court views as true for purposes of this Motion. Anthony's minor daughter Zariah Anthony was enrolled at OTHS during the 2021-22 (Ninth Grade) and 2022-23 (Tenth Grade) school years.[1] (See Doc. 26, pp. 1-2; Doc. 32 pp. 1-2). On May 12, 2022 (at the end of the 2021-22 school year), Anthony alleges that OTHS Vice Principal Dollison, in a meeting with Zariah and other students “to discuss the bullying of ZARIAH's friend by other students,” said “[a]ll the dark-skinned people are causing all of the problems lately.” (Doc. 26, ¶¶ 22, 24). This “caused a substantial detrimental effect on ZARIAH's mental health and, having been made by a school official in a position of trust and authority, substantially interfered with ZARIAH's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities and/or privileges provided by OTHS.” (Id., ¶¶ 24, 29).
Once Zariah informed her mother of this incident, Anthony contacted OTHS Principal Rich Bickel the same day. (Id., ¶ 31). Anthony alleges that, instead of conducting an investigation, Bickel contacted Dollison and told her about the phone call from Niesha. (Id. ¶ 37). Anthony alleges that Dollison then called her directly and that Anthony terminated the phone call because she was “[s]tunned that Principal Bickel had so flagrantly violated OTHS Board of Education Policy by informing Vice-Principal Dollison of her racial complaint of harassment rather than conducting an investigation.” (Id., ¶ 39). Anthony then called OTHS Superintendent Dr. Darcy Benway that same day. (Id.). Dr. Benway allegedly “informed Niesha Anthony that Vice-Principal Dollison could not have made a racist, harassing statement to ZARIAH or the other OTHS students in attendance at the May 12, 2022, meeting.” (Id., ¶ 43). When the parents of other students in the May 12 meeting contacted Dr. Benway, she informed them of the same and allegedly refused to conduct an investigation. (Id., ¶¶ 48-50). Anthony claims that Dollison “retaliated against ZARIAH by recording on ZARIAH's ‘Student Discipline Report' that Niesha Anthony had called to complain to Principal Bickel and Superintendent Benway ‘about me being a racist.'” (Id., ¶ 53). Anthony claims that “[t]he Defendants sought to conceal this act of retaliation by failing to inform ZARIAH and/or Niesha Anthony that Vice-Principal Dollison recorded their report of a racist statement made by VicePrincipal Dollison on ZARIAH's disciplinary record, and by failing to afford them notice or an opportunity to rebut, appeal or grieve the patently retaliatory report.” (Id., ¶ 60).
On August 19, 2022 (after the 2022 summer break), Zariah reported being bullied and harassed by what Anthony calls the “Gang of Bullies” on the same day. (Id., ¶¶ 66-67). Anthony states that she called OTHS to request a meeting and that her requests were ignored. (Id., ¶ 72). Anthony then states that on September 6, 2022, Zariah physically defended herself in an altercation with the Gang of Bullies. (Id., ¶¶ 78-90). Zariah was initially suspended out-of-school for ten days. (Id., ¶ 94). Following a Disciplinary Hearing on September 12, 2022, Zariah was expelled from OTHS for the remainder of 2022-23 school year. (Id., ¶ 108). Anthony claims that the note in Zariah's Student Discipline Report stating that Anthony accused Dollison of being a racist was explicitly used in support of the expulsion. (Id., ¶¶ 109-10). Anthony alleges that this was in violation of Illinois law and was a disproportionate response. (Id., ¶¶ 114-28).
Anthony initially filed a sixty-six-page Complaint in state court in St. Clair County, Illinois on February 23, 2023. . This Complaint alleged seventeen separate causes of action against the OTHS Defendants including discrimination and retaliation under Title VI (Counts 1 & 2); discrimination and retaliation under the 2003 Illinois Civil Rights Act (Counts 3, 4, 13 & 14); discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts 5-12); retaliation at common law (Count 15); violation of substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 16); and permanent and preliminary injunctive relief (Count 17). (Id.). The OTHS Defendants removed the case to federal court on March 24, 2023 (Doc. 1) and filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) on May 3, 2023. This Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 24), which was filed on July 31, 2023. (Doc. 26). The pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) was filed on September 19, 2023, with Anthony responding on October 3, 2023. (Doc. 34). Oral argument was held on November 29, 2023. (See Doc. 37).
In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must determine whether or not the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that “‘[p]lausibility' is not a synonym for ‘probability' in this context, but it asks for ‘more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'” Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 639 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Olson v. Champaign County, 784 F.3d 1093, 1099 (7th Cir. 2015)). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations . . . [the] [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ....” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
District courts are required by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to review the facts and arguments in Rule 12(b)(6) motions “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts alleged and drawing all possible inferences in her favor.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). “The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits.” Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990).
Because the instant suit was filed in Illinois and both parties have applied Illinois law, the Court applies the same. See Ryerson Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 676 F.3d 610, 611-12 (7th Cir. 2012).
The Court will address each of Anthony's claims in turn below. As each claim is brought by either Anthony on behalf of Zariah or in her individual capacity and each is directed against a specific defendant, each section is labeled as such.
Anthony's first claim is discrimination pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. (See Doc. 26, ¶¶ 129-38).
She claims that the OTHS Board “promoted, and/or encouraged an atmosphere and environment of racial hostility by, among other things, failing to investigate, address and remedy reported acts of racial discrimination and retaliation against African American students.” (Id., ¶ 134). She also argues that the OTHS Board “discriminated against Zariah and that individuals who had knowledge and a duty to address this discrimination were deliberately indifferent, causing “deprivation of access to educational benefits, severe humiliation, embarrassment, degradation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.” (Id., ¶¶ 135-138).
The Defendants argue that Anthony's Amended Complaint “attempts to fashion a claim that the lack of investigation into plaintiffs' complaints during ZA's freshman year at the Milburn freshman campus, where Dollison works, and subsequent discipline of ZA the following school year at the Smiley upperclassmen campus supports a conclusion of discrimination.” (Doc. 32, p. 4). They argue that Anthony's arguments that the OTHS Board permitted a “racially hostile environment” are based on conclusory allegations that this statement “caused a substantial detrimental effect on [Zariah's] mental health and interfered with her ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities and/or privileges provided by OTHS.” (Id.). They also argue that Anthony has not pleaded sufficient facts to support her claim of Title VI discrimination as Anthony “only pleads conclusions, rather than facts, that the District failed to follow its internal policies because of her race.” (Id., p. 5; see id., pp. 6-8). They argue that OTHS cannot be held vicariously liable for Dollison's conduct under Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 285 (1998). (See Doc. 32, p. 5 (citing the same)). The OTHS Defendants argue that Dollison's conduct does not surpass the bar for deliberate indifference and that Anthony has not sufficiently established that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial