B.W. v. Career Tech. Ctr. of Lackawanna Cnty.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1148, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1149, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1150, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1155,CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1146, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1153, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1147, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1154 |
| Citation | 422 F.Supp.3d 859 |
| Parties | B.W., Plaintiff v. CAREER TECHNOLOGY CENTER OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY and Valley View School District, Defendants R.P., Plaintiff v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Valley View School District, Defendants M.W. and T.W., as Parents and Natural Guardians of M.W., Plaintiffs v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Lakeland School District, Defendants J.K., Plaintiff v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Mid Valley School District, Defendants J.R., a Minor, by His Parents and Natural Guardians, S.M. & J.R., Plaintiffs v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Lakeland School District, Defendants R.P. a Minor, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, D.P., Plaintiff v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Scranton School District, Defendants M.W. as Parent and Natural Guardian of S.W., a Minor, Plaintiffs v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Lakeland School District, Defendants E.P., Plaintiff v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County and Lakeland School District, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Kevin C. Quinn, Ryan M. Molitoris, Hourigan Kluger & Quinn P.C., Kingston, PA, for Plaintiff.
Richard A. Polachek, Polachek & Associates, P.C., Wilkes-Barre, PA, for Defendants.
1 Pending before the court in the eight cases are the following 14 motions: (1) eight motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints on behalf of defendant Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County ("CTC"); and (2) six motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints on behalf of the defendant School Districts. All of the motions are filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs, parents and natural guardians of the male minor students, allege that while their sons were students in the respective school districts, they were enrolled in the automotive technology program at CTC, and were sexually assaulted and abused by a teacher.2 In each of the complaints, plaintiffs raise six claims, three claims allege violations under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (hereinafter "Title IX"), and three claims alleging violations of the students' constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on the following, defendants' motions will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .
By way of general relevant background for all eight cases, on or about June 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed the instant actions against defendants CTC and the school districts in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. CTC removed these cases to federal court on or about July 8, 2019. On or about July 15, 2019, CTC and the school districts filed their motions to dismiss in each case seeking dismissal of all six claims asserted in the plaintiffs' complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motions of CTC and the school districts have been briefed.3
During the 2016-2017 school year, the plaintiffs were male minor students enrolled at Lakeland School District, Valley View School District, Mid Valley School District and Scranton School District. They were also enrolled in the automotive technology program at CTC. The plaintiffs' automotive teacher at CTC was Richard Humphrey.
As the school year progressed, Humphrey began making unwanted sexual advances towards several male minor students in his class, including the plaintiffs, and began using vulgar explicit language. Humphrey also constantly engaged in inappropriate and unwanted physical contact with his students, including all eight plaintiffs, and he began groping and rubbing the plaintiffs' genital areas. For example, on May 13, 2017, S.W. got grease on his pants in class and Humphrey groped and rubbed S.W.'s genitals purportedly to help him remove the grease. It is also alleged that Humphrey made contact with the genital areas of students in his class by "ball tapping" them. Additionally, it is alleged that Humphrey offered the students "special privileges" allowing them to come to his class early and stay late, and that he would use this extra time to sexually abuse the students.
The plaintiffs and other minor male students in Humphrey's class reported "to teachers and individuals in authority positions the sexual abuse and assault being perpetrated on them [by Humphrey]." It is further alleged that "the behavior and conduct of Humphrey was open, widespread and known by students, staff and administrators of [CTC]." In fact, one of the other automotive teachers at CTC, Louis Morgantini, told minor students in the class that he saw Humphrey acting inappropriately with them, that the conduct was "not right", and that he would "keep an eye on him." Morgantini also told the students that if Humphrey's conduct continued, he would do something about it and speak to others. Plaintiffs allege that Humphrey's sexually abusive behavior towards them did not stop, and that the students then advised Morgantini of Humphrey's continued improper conduct. As such, plaintiffs allege that Morgantini, based on his duty to report Humphrey's sexually abusive conduct under Pennsylvania law, 23 Pa.C.S.A § 6311, "reported the behavior of Humphrey to the administrators of [CTC], but no action was taken by [them]."5 Plaintiffs further state that "discovery may likely reveal that Humphrey's conduct was also open, widespread and known by staff and administrators of defendant [school districts], including Board Members, principals and/or superintendents."
On May 13, 2017, a referral was made to Pennsylvania's statewide child abuse registry reporting Humphrey to the Pennsylvania ChildLine Registry, a statewide database, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318 et seq. ("CPSL").6 The ChildLine Report concerned Humphrey's inappropriate conduct with his students in his CTC automotive class. Detective Jeffrey Gilroy of the Scranton Police Department ("SPD") then began a criminal investigation into Humphrey.
Soon thereafter, on May 15, 2017, Humphrey was suspended with pay by CTC. Subsequently, Humphrey was forced to resign his teaching position at CTC.
In July and December of 2017, criminal charges were filed against Humphrey in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. Humphrey was subsequently convicted of several counts of indecent assault of his students while he was a teacher at CTC and he was sentenced to prison. See Com. of PA v. Riley, Docket Nos. CP-35-CR-0002721-2017, CP-35-CR-0001684-2017, and CP-35-CR-0002721-1564.7
As a result of Humphrey's sexual abuse and harassment of plaintiffs, it is alleged that the lives of the plaintiffs were severely and permanently damaged and their injuries were exacerbated by the failure of CTC and the school districts to investigate Humphrey's misconduct in the class and his "inappropriate/questionable/suspicious behavior", and by defendants' failure to prevent and stop Humphrey's misconduct. It is also alleged that CTC failed to properly investigate Humphrey when he was hired by CTC and that CTC failed to take immediate action against Humphrey when it was made aware of his misconduct. Further, it is alleged that CTC failed to provide a safe and secure environment for the plaintiffs that were students at CTC, and that CTC knew or should have known about Humphrey's misconduct.
With respect to the school districts, plaintiffs allege that "Humphrey's conduct was open, widespread and known by staff and administrators of [defendant school districts], including Board Members, principals and/or superintendents." They also allege as follows:
Defendant [School Districts] knew or should have known of Richard Humphrey's inappropriate conduct with multiple minor students in the Automotive Technology class including Plaintiff[s] and should have taken some action to end the conduct, yet Defendant [School Districts] w[ere] recklessly and deliberately indifferent to the need to: adequately monitor Richard Humphrey and protect the minor students from sexual misconduct, sexual abuse and/or harassment by their teacher while such minor students were in the care, custody and control of Defendant, CTC; supervise Richard Humphrey; investigate the inappropriate conduct; protect Plaintiff[s], remove and/or suspend Richard Humphrey; and/or train Richard Humphrey and/or [School District] employees on how to maintain/protect/preserve minor students to prevent sexual misconduct, sexual abuse and/or harassment from occurring, including that which occurred to Plaintiff[s].
Plaintiffs further allege that since Humphrey engaged in similar sexual misconduct at his prior place of employment, Toyota of Scranton, defendants "CTC and the [School Districts] knew or should have known of Richard Humphrey's propensity for inappropriate conduct with others before Defendant CTC hired Richard Humphrey to teach minor students, and did nothing in its hiring and investigation of this prospective teacher to protect students like Plaintiff[s] from such propensity and conduct." Additionally, plaintiffs allege that defendants should have had a policy and procedure in place to do proper background checks and investigations of teachers that CTC planned to hire, and that CTC and the school districts should have had policies and procedures to protect students and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Pocono Mountain E. High Sch.
...F.3d at 423. In this case, the School District is considered to be a municipality. See B.W. v. Career Tech. Ctr. of Lackawanna Cty., 422 F.Supp.3d 859, 889 (M.D. Pa. 2019); Highhouse v. Wayne Highlands Sch. Dist., 205 F.Supp.3d 639 (M.D. Pa. 2016). It is well established that “a municipalit......
-
Remlinger v. Leb. Cnty.
...(M.D. Pa. 2016); Kis v. Cty. of Schuylkill, 866 F.Supp. 1462, 1479-80 & n.35 (E.D. Pa. 1994). See generally B.W. v. Career Tech. Ctr., 422 F.Supp.3d 859, 890 (M.D. Pa. 2019) (“A court may find that a municipal policy exists when a decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish munici......
-
Rogers v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
... ... municipality. See B.W. v. Career Tech. Ctr. of Lackawanna ... Cty. , 422 ... ...
-
Szerensci v. Shimshock
...than a failure to use it, that can violate the Due Process Clause.” Id.; see also B.W. v. Career Tech. Ctr. of Lackawanna County, 422 F.Supp.3d 859, 898 (M.D. Pa. 2019) (“[I]n order to establish the fourth element of a state-created danger claim, the plaintiff must identify ‘an affirmative ......