Doe v. City of Northampton
| Decision Date | 06 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-30027-MGM |
| Parties | JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE II, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, ANDREW LINKENHOKER, Superintendent formerly Principal, JOSEPH BIANCA, Principal formerly Assistant Principal, KEVIN BROWN, BRIAN BAGDON, CODY HANLON, MARY DOES, and JOHN DOES I-V, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants-the City of Northampton (“City”); Trustees of Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School (“SVHS”) Andrew Linkenhoker, formerly the principal of SVHS; Joseph Bianca, formerly the vice-principal of SVHS; and Kevin Brown, a security officer at SVHS[1]-have moved for summary judgment as to all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 11) filed by Plaintiffs, Jane Doe I, formerly a student at SVHS, and her mother, Jane Doe II. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants arise from a January 30, 2016 incident that took place on an SVHS school bus and involved sexual contact between SVHS students Cody Hanlon, then seventeen years old, and Doe I, then fifteen years old. After learning about the incident, Defendants treated Doe I's involvement in the school bus incident as a disciplinary infraction, despite knowing that she was too young to legally consent to sexual activity. Plaintiffs contend Defendants should have treated Doe I as a potential victim of sexual assault, rather than as a student suspected of a disciplinary violation, and their failure to do so harmed Plaintiffs.
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted seven claims against Defendants (Dkt. No. 11). In Count I, Plaintiffs alleged the City, through the Board of Trustees of SVHS, was negligent in the hiring and supervision of Bagdon, Linkenhoker, Bianca, and Brown. Plaintiffs alleged in Counts II, III, and IV that Linkenhoker, Bianca, and Brown violated Doe I's rights to equal protection and due process secured by federal and state law. Counts V though VII did not include claims against Defendants. Count VIII asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as to Doe II against the City, through the Board of Trustees of SVHS, and Count IX asserted a claim by Doe II for loss of consortium. Finally, in Count X, Plaintiffs alleged a claim for defamation against the City and Bianca. Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all claims in Counts I through IV and VIII through X.
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Bellone v. Southwick-Tolland Reg'l Sch. Dist., 748 F.3d 418, 422 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “Facts are material when they have the ‘potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law'” and disputes are genuine when a reasonable jury considering the evidence “‘could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party.'” Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, 877 F.3d 14, 23-24 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Sanchez v- Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996)). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe “the record evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Benoit v. Tech. Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166, 173 (1st Cir. 2003). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, but must avoid making unreasonable inferences or crediting “bald assertions, empty conclusions, rank conjecture, or vitriolic invective.” Cherkaoui, 877 F.3d at 23 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f there is a genuine dispute of a material fact, that dispute would ‘need[] to be resolved by a trier of fact.'” Doe v. Trs. of Bos. Coll., 892 F.3d 67, 79 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002)). However, “it is well settled that ‘[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence' is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Torres v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 219 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).
On Saturday, January 30, 2016, Jane Doe I, then fifteen years old, was one of approximately seven people riding back to SVHS in a school bus following a wrestling match. Doe I's friend, “Melissa Moe,” who attended a different high school, was also on the school bus, as was Cody Hanlon, then seventeen years old and one of the members of the wrestling team. The coach of the wrestling team, Brian Bagdon, was driving. Hanlon's grandmother was the only other adult on the bus. Bagdon had not received approval from the SVHS Athletic Director, Jeffrey Lareau, for either Moe or Hanlon's grandmother to be on the bus that day, nor had he notified Lareau that the assistant wrestling coach would be driving his personal vehicle to the match instead of riding on the bus. Lareau had instructed all coaches, including Bagdon, that, unless a team required two buses, both of a team's coaches should be on any bus transporting the team.
During the bus ride, Doe and Hanlon sat together under a blanket on the floor in the back of the bus. Hanlon and another male student pressured Doe I to engage in intercourse with Hanlon. Doe I said no, but Hanlon removed her pants and forcibly raped her. Doe I did not communicate about what happened to Bagdon or Hanlon's grandmother. Afterwards she sat in a seat on the bus for the reminder of the ride, while Hanlon and Moe kissed and Moe performed oral sex on Hanlon.
On Monday morning, February 1, 2016, Lareau informed Vice Principal Joseph Bianca that he had heard students engaged in sexual activity on the bus during the Saturday wrestling team trip. He told Bianca that Doe I and possibly a female student who did not attend SVHS had been on the bus. When Bianca learned about the incident on February 1, 2016, he was aware that Doe I was fifteen years old and that, under Massachusetts law, a person under age sixteen cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse. He also knew that Doe I had only recently returned to SVHS following a ten-day suspension imposed at the end of December for an unrelated disciplinary infraction. Bianca was involved in the process of reintegrating Doe I into the school community after that suspension and knew Doe I had attempted suicide shortly after being suspended and been hospitalized for approximately a week.
The same day, Lareau and Bianca went together to inform Principal Andrew Linkenhoker about the incident and Bianca's plans to investigate. Bianca commenced an investigation shortly after talking with Linkenhoker. Although he already knew the investigation was likely to involve Doe I and was familiar with Doe I's recent struggles, Bianca did not speak with a member of the school counseling staff about the incident or Doe I's potential involvement prior to beginning his investigation. Instead, he began by interviewing other students. Students were called to Bianca's office. As they arrived, Lareau and Kevin Brown, a school security officer, gave the students incident forms and asked them to write down what they knew about what had happened on the bus. The students' statements consistently described several sex acts, each involving one of several male students and either Doe I or Moe. One student wrote that, afterwards, Doe I had talked about other individuals' sexual contacts on the bus and someone retaliated by telling people that Doe I and Hanlon had sexual intercourse on the bus. Despite knowing many details about the incident on Monday, February 1, 2016, Bianca did not talk with Doe I that day. He also made no immediate effort to notify Doe II about the incident, nor did he ensure that the incident was immediately reported to the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”).
Bianca finally interviewed Doe I about the incident on Thursday, February 4, 2016. During the interview, Doe I was accompanied by guidance counselor, Lauren Flynn,[3] but Flynn did not take an active role in questioning Doe I about the incident. Doe I also wrote two statements about the incident that day. Brown was in the room when Doe I wrote her first statement. In that statement, she described sexual contacts between Moe and four other students that occurred while Doe I “made out under a blanket” with Hanlon. (Defs' 56.1 Statement, Dkt. No. 103, ¶ 45.) She also wrote “Me & Cody did our own thing outside of the bus.” Id. Later that day, Bianca, Brown, or another male employee of SVHS asked Doe I about inconsistencies between her first statement and statements previously provided by other students. She then wrote a second statement in which she stated that she had sexual intercourse with Hanlon on the bus. Doe I described another student “insist[ing]” that she and Hanlon “do stuff,” but she did not describe their interaction as nonconsensual. (Id. at ¶ 52.) Bianca was aware that Doe I could not legally consent to sexual contact with Hanlon. Without talking about the incident with counseling staff, Bianca concluded Doe I was a voluntary participant and that a disciplinary response was appropriate.
SVHS staff contacted Doe II and told her to come to the school on Thursday, February 4, 2016. She met with Bianca and two other male SVHS employees.[4] Neither Doe I nor Flynn was present during that meeting. Bianca told Doe II that Doe I had sexual intercourse with a student while on the bus trip back from the wrestling meet. He also told her there were rumors Doe I was promiscuous and had previously tried to have sex with a boy in an SVHS bathroom. Doe II stated that Doe I was a virgin and would not have acted that way on the bus....
To continue reading
Request your trial