Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. 5 Bd., Directors

Citation593 F.3d 507
Decision Date22 January 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-1936.,09-1936.
PartiesJane DOE-2, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McLEAN COUNTY UNIT DISTRICT NO. 5 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Ellyn J. Bullock, Attorney (argued), Champaign, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James C. Kearns (argued), Attorney, Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Urbana, IL, Peter W. Brandt (argued), Attorney, Barbara G. Taft, Livingston, Barger, Brandt & Schroeder, Bloomington, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CUDAHY, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

TINDER, Circuit Judge.

From 2002 to 2007, Jon White was an elementary schoolteacher in two central Illinois school districts, first the McLean County School District and then the Urbana School District. During that time, he sexually abused several female students in both districts. In this appeal, we address the liability of the McLean County School District for allowing White's abuse to occur. The case is more complicated, though, because it does not involve the McLean County School District's failure to protect its own students from White; instead, we consider whether the District may be liable for White's abuse of an Urbana student after he left McLean County.

Jane Doe-2 ("Doe-2"), one of the Urbana students victimized by White, sued the McLean County School District and various McLean County school officials under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), and Illinois tort law. Doe-2 alleged that these defendants knew that White sexually harassed McLean County students but, rather than sound the alarm, allowed White to quietly resign and obtain a new job in Urbana. Doe-2 claimed that this inaction amounted to a "deliberate indifference" to White's harassment actionable under Title IX, as well as willful and wanton misconduct actionable under Illinois tort law. The district court dismissed Doe-2's complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We conclude that, at the time White abused Doe-2, the defendants lacked the requisite control over White to establish deliberate indifference liability under Title IX; they also owed no duty to Doe-2 enforceable under Illinois tort law. For these reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

Doe-2's complaint describes the facts leading to White's harassment of her in Urbana, facts that we accept as true in this appeal from the dismissal of Doe-2's complaint for failure to state a claim. Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 510 (7th Cir.2009). From 2002 to 2005, White was an elementary school-teacher in McLean County, Ill. During that time, he sexually harassed his female students through methods that included hugging students and holding them on his leg, having students massage him and wrap their legs around him, showing students sexually suggestive photographs, and commenting on students' sexual attractiveness. Easily the most disturbing form of abuse was what Doe-2's complaint describes as a "taste test game," in which White would blindfold students and then place foods in their mouths using a banana, his hand, or his penis.

Doe-2 identifies several McLean County school officials who were aware, at least at some level, of White's harassment: Jim Braksick and Edward Heinemann, principals of the elementary school where White worked; Dale Heidbreder, assistant principal; Alan Chapman, superintendent of the McLean County School District; and John Pye, the assistant superintendent. These defendants allegedly knew of several complaints from students and parents relating to inappropriate touching between White and his female students, including White's having students massage him and wrap their legs around him. Another complaint related to White's showing a sexually suggestive photograph to a student and commenting on her appearance.

The McLean County School District decided to get rid of White but didn't fire him outright. Instead, the District took a series of actions that Doe-2 characterizes as "passing" White to Urbana. In April 2005, the District and White entered into a severance agreement that, according to Doe-2's complaint, "intentionally concealed" White's sexual harassment of his students. Heinemann, Chapman, and Pye also provided a "falsely positive letter of recommendation" for White, which again made no mention of White's sexual harassment.

In August 2005, the Urbana School District hired White to teach second grade at one of its elementary schools. At around that time, the District sent a Verification of Teaching Experience form to the McLean County School District. Assistant Superintendent Pye completed the form and reported that White taught in his district for three complete school years, 2002 to 2005. The Urbana School District received the form from Pye on August 29.

While teaching in Urbana from 2005 to 2007, White sexually harassed several of his female students, including Doe-2, using methods similar to those he used in McLean County. Following his arrest by Urbana police in February 2007, White pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse of two of his McLean County students and eight of his Urbana students, including Doe-2.

Doe-2, through her mother, Julie Doe-2, sued the McLean County School District and the five individual school officials named above for failing to disclose White's sexual harassment before he could assault Doe-2. Doe-2 also sued the Urbana School District and several Urbana school officials, but these Urbana defendants have settled with Doe-2 and are no longer parties in this case. Doe-2 asserted a Tile IX claim against the McLean County School District, alleging that the District's concealment of White's sexual harassment amounted to a deliberate indifference to the safety of the students in Urbana. Doe-2 also raised supplemental Illinois tort law claims against all of the McLean County defendants. She claimed that the defendants violated their obligations under the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Abuse Act ("ANCRA"), 325 ILCS 5/4, by failing to report White's sexual harassment to state authorities, and that this ANCRA violation caused Doe-2 to suffer White's abuse. Doe-2 also claimed that the defendants acted with willful and wanton disregard for her safety by concealing White's sexual harassment and thereby allowing him to obtain a job in Urbana.

The district court dismissed all of Doe-2's claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that the McLean County School District could not be liable under Title IX for White's sexual harassment of Doe-2 in Urbana, since that harassment occurred outside of the District's control. As for Doe-2's tort claims, the court concluded that Doe-2, an Urbana student, failed to identify any duty that the McLean County defendants owed to her under Illinois tort law.

II. Analysis

Doe-2 appeals the dismissal of both her Title IX claim and her state-law willful and wanton misconduct claims. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting as true all of the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations. Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 510 (7th Cir.2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint's factual allegations need not be detailed but must be sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

A. Title IX

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides that, with exceptions not relevant here, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ..." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). In enacting Title IX, Congress sought to prevent federally funded educational institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. See Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 704, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Although the only remedy expressly authorized by the statute is the termination of the recipient's federal funding, 20 U.S.C. § 1682, the Supreme Court has held that Title IX contains an implied private right of action for money damages, Cannon, 441 U.S. at 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946; Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).

Title IX's implied right of action allows a student who suffers sexual harassment by a teacher to recover damages against her school district, but only if the school district acts with "deliberate indifference" to the harassment. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). To display deliberate indifference, the school district must first have "actual knowledge" of the sexual harassment. Id. In addition to actual knowledge, the school district must have "substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs." Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 645, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). This substantial control element is essential for Title IX liability because a school district cannot be liable for its indifference to harassment that it lacks the authority to prevent. Id. at 644, 119 S.Ct. 1661.

Here, these McLean County defendants lacked the requisite control over White's harassment of Doe-2 in Urbana. White harassed Doe-2 after he ended his employment with the McLean County School District, and this harassment occurred in an Urbana elementary school where the defendants had no supervisory authority. Since the defendants "lack[ed] the authority to take remedial action" in Urbana, White's harassment did not "take place in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
131 cases
  • In re Flint Water Cases
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • January 10, 2022
    ......(ECF No. 442-5.) Because Flint was not part of the DWSD system ... upon him a duty to take such action."); Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. Of Dir's. ......
  • Perrywatson v. United Airlines Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 10, 2011
    ......(St., ¶ 5). It includes a grievance procedure for purposes ... Stepney v. Naperville Sch. Dist., 392 F.3d 236, 239 (7th Cir.2004); Flannery v. ... Muscarello v. Ogle County Bd. of Com'rs, 610 F.3d 416, 426 (7th Cir.2010). ...565, 568 (7th Cir.2010); Doe–2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d ......
  • Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • December 19, 2018
    ......] decision [to suspend rugby activities];" and (5) hosting an "assembly to explain rape culture and ...Monroe County Board of Education , the Court explained that ...1661 ; see S.B. ex rel. A.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cty. , 819 F.3d 69, 77 (4th ...Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist. , 702 F.3d 655, 669 (2d Cir. 2012). Indeed, the ...at 644, 119 S.Ct. 1661 ; see also Doe-2 v. McLean Cty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs. , ......
  • Hunt v. Dart
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • December 6, 2010
    ......Thomas DART, as Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook County, Defendants. No. 07 C 6003. ...He spent two weeks in the rehabilitation unit at Advocate Christ Medical Center and was ...(Shf. St. ¶ 5; Pl. Rsp. ¶ 5). On October 23, 2006, Worth ...Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 458 F.3d 620, 628 (7th ...258, 481 N.E.2d 1058, 1060 (1st Dist.1985). ( Plaintiff's Response, at 14–15). ...565, 568 (7th Cir.2010); Doe–2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • PMA Preemption Decision Slides to the Bottom of the “Parallel Claim” Slippery Slope
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • October 23, 2023
    ...to various government agencies. Anticipating the Illinois Supreme Court, Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Board of Directors, 593 F.3d 507, 514 (7th Cir. 2010), also rejected any common-law duty to report child abuse to government agencies under Illinois law: But [defendant’s] mandat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT