B.R. v. F.C.S.B.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:19-cv-917 (RDA/WEF) |
| Decision Date | 10 March 2023 |
| Parties | B.R., Plaintiff, v. F.C.S.B., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant F.C.S.B.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 161) and Defendants A.F B.H., F.T., J.F., M.C., M.P.F., P.A.H., S.T., and T.B.'s (collectively, the “Individual School Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 157). This Court dispensed with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R 7(J). The Motions are now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Having considered the Motions, the accompanying Memoranda in Support (Dkt. Nos. 158 and 162), Plaintiff's Oppositions to both Motions (Dkt. Nos. 169 and 170) and accompanying Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 170, Exs. 1 and 2), and Defendants' Replies in Support of their respective Motions (Dkt. Nos. 180 and 181), the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendant F.C.S.B.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint and GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Individual School Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts from the Court's opinion addressing Defendants' various motions concerning Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 85, the “First Opinion”) and the Fourth Circuit's opinion affirming the Court's First Opinion, B.R. v. F.C.S.B., 17 F.4th 485 (4th Cir. 2021). The Court recounts below only those facts from the Second Amended Complaint that are relevant to Defendants' Motions.
In 2011, Plaintiff was a female middle school student at RCMS, a FCPS middle school. Dkt. 155 ¶¶ 1, 98, 102-103. In October of 2011, one of Plaintiff's classmates, D.N., sexually assaulted and battered Plaintiff at his house by touching her sexually. Id. ¶ 104.[2] The next day, D.N. and his friends spread rumors that Plaintiff had conducted sexual acts on D.N. and began directing explicit sexual insults at her. Id. ¶¶ 105-06. Other students also harassed Plaintiff when she was at her locker, including by directing sexual insults at her, grabbing her, and “thrust[ing] their pelvises and intimate body parts at” her. Id. ¶ 107. Plaintiff's locker was “clearly visible” to “several RCMS teachers” including M.P.F., M.C., and F.T. Id. ¶ 109.
“Almost immediately following the harassment[,]” Plaintiff tried to meet with her guidance counselor, B.H., to report the actions of her fellow students. Id. ¶ 108. B.H. told Plaintiff she was too busy to meet with her. Id. Thereafter, B.R. kept seeking assistance from B.H. but could not meet with her until November 21, 2011. Id. ¶¶ 108, 113, 115-117. Plaintiff also reported what she was experiencing to some of her teachers: M.P.F., M.C., and F.T. Id. ¶¶ 110-111. Eventually, Plaintiff met with a different guidance counselor, J.F., who told her that “she was simply adapting to middle school.” Id. ¶ 113. Apparently, no teachers or guidance counselors took any action. Id. ¶¶ 116, 123-24. B.R. was harassed throughout October of 2011. Id. ¶¶ 107, 111-12, 124.
In October 2011, B.R. was physically and sexually assaulted by C.K. and J.O. C.K. and J.O. met Plaintiff at her bus stop, where she refused to “hang out with them.” Id. ¶ 127. They then tackled B.R., removed her clothing, and sexually assaulted her by forcing her “to perform oral sex on C.K.” and taking pictures of her while she was naked. Id. C.K. and J.O. then spread rumors about B.R., telling other students that she was “sexually active.” Id. ¶ 128. Afterwards, C.K. continued to wait for Plaintiff at the bus stop and threatened her with a knife if she did not perform sex acts on him. Id. ¶¶ 130-31. This happened every day from October until November 21, 2011, and the “violence of each assault generally worsened over time.” Id. ¶¶ 131-32; see also id. ¶ 132 (describing C.K.'s violent acts). B.R. “repeatedly sought the assistance of RCMS and FCPS school officials” throughout this time. Id. ¶ 134.
On November 14, 2011, B.R.'s mother was concerned by a “sexually explicit” and threatening voicemail that C.K. left for B.R. Id. ¶ 135. The next Monday, November 21, 2011, B.R.'s parents went with B.R. to RCMS's administrative office to meet with Principal A.F. Id. ¶ 136. B.R.'s parents first met with B.H., where they informed her that B.R.'s peers had been sexually harassing her. Id. ¶ 137. In response, B.H. stated that “she had no idea things had gotten that bad.” Id. Principal A.F. was unable to meet with Plaintiff and her parents, so they met with Assistant Principals S.T. and P.H. in addition to B.H. Id. ¶ 139. At that time, Plaintiff provided a written and verbal report of what she had been experiencing. Id. ¶ 140; see also id., Ex. O (written report). In response, S.T. asked Plaintiff and her mother why “they were trying to ruin a young boy's life.” Id. ¶ 142. S.T. told Plaintiff and her parents that the school would investigate Plaintiff's allegations and instructed Plaintiff's parents to keep her away from school until they could do so. Id.
In investigating the allegations that same day, S.T. spoke with C.K., who confirmed Plaintiff's report that Plaintiff was sexually active with both D.N. and C.K. Id. ¶ 145. C.K. also confirmed that other students verbally harassed B.R. Id. D.N. and J.O. also confirmed Plaintiff's reports. Id. ¶¶ 146-47.[3]S.T. also spoke with C.K., J.O., and D.N.'s parents. Id. ¶ 147.
The next morning, November 22, 2011, S.T. asked Plaintiff and her parents to return to school because of “developments” in the investigation. Id. ¶ 148. S.T. then told B.R.'s parents that the interactions between B.R. and C.K. “appeared to be a ‘boy girl thing[,]'” but acknowledged that B.R. was sexually active with C.K. Id. ¶ 151 (quotations in original). S.T. and P.A.H (another Assistant Principal) informed Plaintiff and her parents that the school would keep D.N. and C.K. away from Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 155. They also told B.R. to use the “back stairs” to go to her Spanish class and to stay home from school until after the upcoming break. Id.
Plaintiff returned to school on November 28, 2011. Id. ¶ 163. She continued to experience harassment, including “at least” three to five incidents where students informed Plaintiff that C.K. wanted to kill her. Id. In addition, C.K. continued to meet Plaintiff at her bus stop and “sexually assault[] and batter” her. Id. ¶ 164. On December 7, Plaintiff and her parents reported the continued harassment to school officials.[4] Id. ¶ 165. In response, Assistant Principals S.T. and P.A.H. and counselors B.H. and J.F. agreed to shadow Plaintiff between classes on December 8 and 9. Id. ¶ 166. That shadowing ended after December 9, and when Plaintiff's mother asked B.H. why the shadowing ceased, B.H. said that RCMS didn't have the resources to continue to shadow Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 168.
Plaintiff suffered more harassment and assault thereafter, with little assistance from school employees. For example, on December 14, 2011, a male classmate put his hands down B.R.'s pants. Id. ¶ 170. When B.R. told her teacher, M.P.F., M.P.F. responded by saying that B.R. “‘needs to learn to be a big girl' and to ‘deal with the situation [her]self.'” Id. ¶ 171. In January 2012, B.R.'s fellow students spread rumors about her sexual activity in person, on the internet, and via social media. Id. ¶¶ 177-78. The sexual harassment at her locker also continued. Id. ¶ 177. Plaintiff reported the rumors and sexual harassment to B.H., A.F., and C.W., the school's Director of Student Services, who all did nothing. Id. ¶¶ 179-81.
Plaintiff was also raped on RCMS's campus. In December 2011, Plaintiff had to stay late to make up for the days she had missed. Id. ¶ 171. One day, after she left the classroom, a male student forced her into a school closet where she was sexually assaulted, battered, abused, and raped by three unknown males. Id. ¶ 173. This continued to happen “[o]n numerous and separate distinct occurrences” when Plaintiff was on campus between December 2011 and February 2012. Id. ¶ 176.
On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff told B.H. that a boy had made “rude and inappropriate comments to her” that day and the previous day. Id. ¶ 183. B.H. referred the report to an Assistant Principal, T.B. Id. T.B. investigated and verified that a student had made various comments to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 184. Through the investigation, T.B. also discovered that the sexual harassment that was originally reported in October of 2011 was persisting. Id. ¶ 185. That same day, Plaintiff told her English teacher that she was receiving death threats. Id. ¶ 186. That teacher called Principal A.F., who took B.R. to her guidance counselors, to whom B.R. reported that she was receiving death threats. Id. A.F. also reported the threat to T.B., who called Plaintiff's mom and told her of the threats. Id. ¶ 188. Plaintiff's parents eventually removed her from school that day and she remained out following day, February 10. Id. ¶ 190. On February 10, Plaintiff's mother wrote to A.F. about what B.R. was continuing to experience. Id. ¶ 192. A.F. responded to Plaintiff's mother that T.B. was investigating the case and also told her that B.R. had also made inappropriate comments to other students. Id.
Plaintiff's mother forwarded A.F.'s email to the Superintendent J.D., who referred the email to an Assistant Superintendent, D.Z. Id. ¶ 193. On February 16, 2012, Plaintiff's family met with D.Z. and D.D. (an unspecified individual) to report the sexual harassment and bullying. Id. ¶ 195. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial