Doe v. Career Tech. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-0088 |
| Parties | JOHN JOE DOE C.D., Plaintiff v. CAREER TECHNOLOGY CENTER OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY and SCRANTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE MANNION)
This Memorandum involves the ninth case that is substantially similar to eight other cases currently before this court arising out of alleged pervasive sexual abuse and harassment of minor male public school students, from four school districts, by one of their teachers while they were taking classes at the County Career Technology Center.1 Pending before the court in this case are the motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on behalf of defendant Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County ("CTC"), (Doc. 7), and on behalfof the defendant Scranton School District ("SSD"), (Doc. 9). Both of the motions are filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff C.D.,2 a male minor student during the relevant time, alleges that while he was enrolled at SSD during the 2016-2017 school year, he was also enrolled in the automotive technology program at CTC, and was sexually harassed, assaulted and abused by a teacher. In his complaint, plaintiff raises six federal claims, three claims allege violations under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. (hereinafter "Title IX"), Counts I-III, and three claims alleging violations of C.D.'s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, Counts IV-VI. C.D. also raises two state law tort claims, namely, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"), Counts VII & VIII. Based on the following, defendants' motions will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
By way of relevant background, on May 17, 2019, plaintiff initiated the instant action against defendants CTC and SSD by filing a Writ of Summons in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. On January 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in the County Court. CTC removed this case to federal court on January 16, 2020. (Doc. 1). On January 30, 2020, CTC andSSD filed their motions to dismiss plaintiff C.D.'s complaint. (Doc. 2). CTC moves to dismiss the federal claims against it in Counts II, III and V, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as well as the two state law tort claims in Counts VII and VIII based on immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 6). SSD moves for dismissal of all six federal claims asserted in the plaintiff's complaint against it under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and for dismissal of the two state law claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 9). The motions of CTC and SSD have been briefed by the parties.
CTC, with the approval of SSD, hired Richard Humphrey as anautomotive technology teacher in July 2015, and both defendants supervised him.
During the 2016-2017 school year, the plaintiff was a male minor student enrolled at SSD. He was also enrolled in the automotive technology program at CTC. The plaintiff's automotive teacher at CTC was Humphrey.
As the school year progressed, Humphrey began making unwanted sexual advances towards several male minor students in his class, including the plaintiff, and began using vulgar and sexually explicit language. Humphrey also constantly engaged in inappropriate and unwanted physical contact with his students, including the plaintiff, such as rubbing their backs and shoulders, putting his arms around them, placing his hand on their thighs, caressing and slapping their genital areas ("ball tapping"), and following them into the bathroom and offering to "dab" their penis after they urinated. Many of Humphrey's inappropriate sexual harassment and abuse of the students occurred in his classroom with another teacher or teacher's aide present, including Joseph Granteed, Robert Hudak and Louis Morgantini. It is further alleged that the conduct of Humphrey was open, widespread and known by students, staff and administrators of CTC and SSD.
Several times in March 2017, Morgantini, a teacher in the automotive technology class at CTC, was told by students in the class, including C.D., about Humphrey's conduct and he acknowledged that he was aware of it. 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. When further reports of Humphrey's improper conduct were made to Morgantini by students, he responded by telling students not to worry about Humphrey and to ignore him because "you know the way he is."
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.
"Upon information and belief", plaintiff alleges that Morgantini, had a to report Humphrey's sexually abusive conduct under Pennsylvania law, 23 Pa.C.S.A §6311, and in fact reported the behavior of Humphrey to the administrators of CTC and SSD, but they failed to take any action. Alternatively, plaintiff alleges that if Morgantini failed to report Humphrey's inappropriate conduct to administrators, it was due to defendants' failure to implement and enforce proper policies and procedures as well as proper training regarding mandatory reporting obligations under the law.4
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 ServicesLaw, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §6318, et seq. ("CPSL").5 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-0002721-1564.6
As a result of Humphrey's sexual abuse and harassment of plaintiff C.D., it is alleged that his life was severely and permanently damaged due to Humphrey's conduct and, his injuries were exacerbated by the failure of CTC and the school district to investigate Humphrey's misconduct in the class and his "inappropriate/questionable/suspicious behavior", and by defendants' failure to prevent and to investigate Humphrey's misconduct. It is also alleged that CTC failed to prevent Humphrey from being hired and that CTC and SSD failed to take immediate action against Humphrey when they were made aware of his misconduct. Further, it is alleged that both defendants failed to provide a safe and secure environment for the plaintiff, and that they knew or should have known about Humphrey's misconduct.
Additionally, plaintiff alleges that he suffered further physical and emotional injuries as a result of retaliation against him during the remainder of his enrollment at CTC because of his role in reporting Humphrey's abuses and cooperating with law enforcement officials.
With respect to SSD, plaintiff alleges that "upon information and belief,"further discovery may reveal that "Humphrey's conduct was [] open, widespread and known by staff and administrators of [defendant SSD], including Board Members, principals and/or superintendents."
Plaintiff C.D. also alleges as follows:
Upon information and belief, ..., Defendant [SSD] knew or should have known of Richard Humphrey's inappropriate conduct with multiple minor students in the Automotive Technology class including Plaintiff C.D. and should have taken some action to end the conduct, yet Defendant [SSD] was 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 and Defendant [SSD]; supervise Richard Humphrey; investigate the inappropriate conduct; protect Plaintiff C.D.; remove and/or suspend Richard Humphrey; and/or train Richard Humphrey and/or 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 C.D.; and/or prevent and protect against retaliation against C.D. because he reported Richard Humphrey's abuses and/or cooperated with law enforcement authorities.
Plaintiff further alleges that since Humphrey engaged in similar sexual misconduct at his prior place of employment, Toyota of Scranton, defendants "CTC and the [SSD] knew or should have known of Richard Humphrey's propensity for inappropriate conduct with others before Defendant CTC with the approval of [SSD] hired Richard Humphrey to teach minor students, and did nothing in its hiring and investigation of this prospective teacher to protect students like Plaintiff C.D. from such propensity and conduct."
Additionally, plaintiff alleges that CTC and SSD should have had a policy and procedure in place to do proper background checks andinvestigations of teachers at CTC, and that CTC and SSD should have had policies and procedures to protect students and to investigate inappropriate conduct between teachers...
To continue reading
Request your trial