C.T. v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2016
• Docket Number: No 14-CV-3473 (JFB)(AKT),14-CV-3473 (JFB)(AKT)
• Citation: 201 F.Supp.3d 307
• Parties: C.T., T.T., and J.T., a Minor Represented By His Natural Guardians, C.T. and T.T., Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY STREAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT and the Board of Education of Valley Stream Union Free School District, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

201 F.Supp.3d 307

C.T., T.T., and J.T., a Minor Represented By His Natural Guardians, C.T. and T.T., Plaintiffs,

v.VALLEY STREAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT and the Board of Education of Valley Stream Union Free School District, Defendants.

No 14-CV-3473 (JFB)(AKT)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed August 16, 2016

Plaintiffs were represented on the motion for summary judgment by Russell J. Platzek, Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, 1461 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530. Plaintiffs are currently represented by Jonathan A. Tand, Tand & Associates, 990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 130, Garden City, NY 11530.

Defendants are represented by Lewis R. Silverman, Silverman & Associates, 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1102, White Plains, NY 10601.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, United States District Judge

Plaintiff, J.T., along with his parents, C.T. and T.T. (hereinafter, "plaintiffs"), bring this action against defendants, Valley Stream Union Free School District and the Board of Education of Valley Stream Union Free School District (hereinafter, "defendants").¹

Plaintiffs allege that J.T. was bullied by students at his school and that, although they repeatedly complained about J.T.'s harassment, defendants failed to prevent the bullying. They further allege that defendants repeatedly suspended J.T in retaliation for making these complaints about J.T.'s treatment.

Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court grants the summary judgment motion on all claims, with the exception of the First Amendment retaliation and negligent supervision claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The Court has taken the facts described below from the parties' affidavits, exhibits, and Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Facts. Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed. Upon consideration of the motion for summary judgment, the Court shall construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. New York , 422 F.3d 47, 50 n. 1 (2d Cir.2001).

Between 2011 and 2014, J.T. attended seventh, eighth, and ninth grades at South High School (hereinafter, "the school"). (See Defs.' Ex. W at 10-11.) Plaintiffs allege that J.T. was systematically bullied during this time.²

Plaintiffs claim that they first complained about J.T. being bullied in February 2012 to the school's principal, Maureen Henry (hereinafter, "Principal Henry"). (Defs.' Ex. V at 20-21.) T.T., J.T.'s mother, testified that Principal Henry told her that she would investigate the bullying allegations and report back; however, T.T. could not recall any follow-up from Principal Henry. (Id. at 23.)

T.T. also testified that she contacted the school again later that spring after J.T. was issued a suspension for fighting with student C.O. (Id. at 25.) She spoke with Assistant Principal, Cara Jacobson (hereinafter, "Assistant Principal Jacobson") and complained that the school was not doing anything to prevent run-ins between J.T. and C.O. (Id. at 25-26.) T.T. stated that Assistant Principal Jacobson said she was not aware of the bullying. (Id. at 26.)

J.T. received two suspensions in March, one in April, and one in May 2012. (See Defs.' Ex. H.)

The following academic year, in October 2012, plaintiffs testified that several students came to their house after school and called for J.T. to come out so that they could "kick his a**."³ (See Pls.' Ex. 1 at 38, 75; Defs.' Ex. V at 23.) Plaintiffs assert that they called the school, which said it could not do anything because the students were not on school grounds. (Defs.' Ex. V at 24-25.) J.T. was suspended in October 2012 and in January 2013. (See Defs.' Ex. H.)

In February 2013, C.T., J.T.'s father, picked up J.T. from school. When he arrived, several students surrounded C.T.'s vehicle and told him that they were going to "kick J.[T.'s] f******a**" and one of the students said his father would come to "kick [C.T.'s] f****** a**." (Pls.' Ex. 2 at 29-30.) Principal Henry was advised of the run-in. (Id. at 35.)

Following this incident, plaintiffs met with Jill Vogel (hereinafter, "Vogel"), the school's Director of Guidance, and Principal Henry on February 13, 2013.⁴ (Defs.' Ex. V at 37-38.) According to plaintiffs, during the meeting, Vogel denied being aware of any bullying and Principal Henry purportedly told plaintiffs that if J.T. were involved in any future incidents, regardless of whether he was the instigator, he would be suspended. (See Pls.' Ex. 3 at 28.)

Following the meeting, Vogel sent plaintiffs an e-mail summarizing the steps she had taken to address J.T.'s conflict with other students, which included meeting with all of the students involved and advising J.T.'s teachers that he should be kept away from the students who were bullying him. (See Defs.' Exs. K, V at 41-42.)

T.T. testified that she called Vogel again in the spring of 2013, complaining that Principal Henry was not adequately addressing the bullying and reporting that J.T. had been issued a suspension for hitting another student with a ball during a gym dodgeball game. (Defs.' Ex. V at 44.) Vogel apparently told her to discuss the matter with Principal Henry. (Id. at 43.) T.T. proceeded to call Principal Henry, though it appears no resolution was reached. (Id. at 45.) J.T. served a suspension on March 6, 2013. (See Defs.' Ex. H.)

On March 7, 2013, plaintiffs met with the school superintendent, Dr. William Heidenerich (hereinafter, "Dr. Heidenerich"), to discuss the bullying, the school's alleged failure to prevent it, and J.T.'s frequent suspensions. (Defs.' Ex. V at 45-47.) According to plaintiffs, Dr. Heidenerich told them that the suspensions J.T. had received were unwarranted and that such a serious punishment was typically reserved for students who brought weapons to school or injured another student. (Pls.' Ex. 3 at 40.) T.T. testified that Dr. Heidenerich told them that, typically, in similar situations, he would convene a meeting with the parents and principal, but he would not do so here because he could tell that their relationship with Principal Henry was "bruised." (Defs.' Ex. V at 47-48.) At the close of the meeting, Dr. Heidenerich told plaintiffs that he would speak with Principal Henry and report back. (Id. at 48.)

J.T. received an in-school suspension the following day, March 8. (Defs.' Ex. H.) Upon learning that J.T. had been suspended, C.T. sent an e-mail to Dr. Heidenerich stating that J.T. had not been given any classwork or homework while serving his in-school suspension that day and complaining that the failure to give J.T. his work was keeping him from learning anything. (See Defs.' Ex. L.) The e-mail also advised Dr. Heidenerich that plaintiffs had delivered to the school a letter following up on their meeting from the day before. (See id. ) In the letter, plaintiffs stated their position that J.T.'s frequent suspensions were interfering with his education, included a list of issues they asked Dr. Heidenerich to investigate or address, and requested certain records related to J.T.'s disciplinary and academic history. (See Defs.' Ex. M.) J.T. was subsequently suspended on March 12. (See Defs.' Ex. H.) On March 15, 2013, Dr. Heidenerich replied to plaintiffs' March 8 letter, answering their questions and providing the requested documents. (Defs.' Ex. N.) J.T. was suspended again on April 15 and May 28, 2013. (See Defs.' Ex. H.)

Around this time, T.T. also complained to either Vice-Principal Jacobson or to Principal Henry because J.T.'s locker was next to the locker of one of the students who bullied him, which was causing additional conflict between the two boys. (Defs.' Ex. V at 63.) T.T. testified that she was told that she should have raised the issue sooner but that the school agreed to move J.T.'s locker. (Id. at 65.)

According to plaintiffs, the bullying continued during J.T.'s ninth grade year. In October 2013, J.T. avers that another student slapped him in the face. (Defs.' Ex. W at 50.) J.T. was suspended after the incident, although he alleges that the attack was unprovoked. (Id. at 53; Defs.' Ex. V at 61.) J.T. admits that he had not complained to anyone at the school about this student prior to the altercation. (Defs.' Ex. W at 53.)

Following the incident, plaintiffs' former attorney sent a letter to defendants requesting an investigation into the attack pursuant to New York's Dignity for All Students Act. (Defs.' Ex. O.) The letter closed by advising the school that, "[i]f I do not hear from you within seven days, I will assume that the District is not interested in pursuing an amicable resolution and will apprise my client (sic) of their legal rights and remedies under the applicable statutes." (Id. )

J.T. was suspended on November 7 and 12, 2013, and an additional thirteen times between January and May 2014. (See Defs.' Ex. H.)

T.T. testified that she again spoke with the school concerning J.T.'s bullying after she learned that another student had threatened that he was going to bring a gun to school and shoot J.T. (Defs.' Ex. V at 64-65), again after learning about an altercation between J.T. and another student in the lunchroom (id. at 69), and again in June 2014 after a student spit on J.T. (id. at 67).

B. Procedural History

On August 18, 2015, this Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On December 11, 2015, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. On February 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opposition. Defendants replied on February 26, 2016. Oral argument was held on April 20, 2016. The matter is fully briefed, and the Court has considered all of the parties' submissions.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard for summary judgment is well-settled. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a court may not grant a motion for summary judgment unless "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and...