Doe v. Pennridge Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 07 May 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 17-3570
• Citation: 413 F.Supp.3d 393
• Parties: Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

413 F.Supp.3d 393

Jane DOE, Plaintiff,

v.PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 17-3570

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed May 7, 2019

Aurelie Ercoli, Matthew M. Graves, Richard S. Kelley, DLA Piper LLP US, Neena Chaudhry, Elizabeth Tang, Shiwali Patel, Washington, DC, Courtney G. Saleski, Ben C. Fabens-Lassen, DLA Piper LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher Paul Boyle, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, King of Prussia, PA, Jane Ennis Kane, Joseph J. Santarone, Jr., Kyle M. Heisner, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Philadephia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy R. Rice, U.S. Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Jane Doe claims Defendants Pennridge School District ("PSD"), Superintendent Jacqueline Rattigan, and Principal Gina DeBona (collectively, "Pennridge Defendants") deprived her of equal access to an education, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) ("Title IX") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by failing to adequately address her allegations of sexual harassment. See Compl. (doc. 1). Pennridge Defendants seek summary judgment regarding all five of Doe's claims: (1) a Title IX claim against PSD; (2) a § 1983 retaliation claim against PSD; (3) a § 1983 failure to train claim against all Pennridge Defendants; (4) a § 1983 supervisory liability claim against Rattigan and DeBona; and (5) an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against all Pennridge Defendants. Def. Mem. (doc. 78) at 3. Doe moves for summary judgment on Claims 3 and 4, Pl. Mem. (doc. 81-1) at 2, opposes Defendants' motion on Claims 1 and 2, but does not contest dismissal of Claim 5, Pl. Resp. (doc. 88) at 5 n.2.

Defendants' unopposed motion is granted on Claim 5. Because material factual disputes exist on Claims 1 through 4, Doe's motion is denied, and Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, as explained below.

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material facts exists when "factual issues ... may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). I must view the facts and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 425 (3d Cir. 2013). Cross-motions must be considered "separately, drawing inferences against each movant in turn." Alford v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., No. 07-4527, 2008 WL 2329101, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 2008). I also may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

II. Undisputed Facts

In September 2014, Doe was a sophomore at Pennridge High School ("PHS"), PSOF ¶ 2,¹ and also attended a part-time technical school law enforcement program with another student, N., DSOF ¶¶ 11, 41. During that fall, N. became her boyfriend, and they dated through approximately April 2015. Id. ¶ 41. Doe alleges she was abused by N. during their relationship, and they broke up following an April 2015 violent incident in her bedroom that did not include sexual assault, but resulted in multiple bruises. Id. ¶¶ 43, 45. On June 15, 2015, Doe informed her 2014-15 school year guidance counselor, Lori D'Angelo, of her history with N. and complained that he continued to harass her and "push[ ] her" during school hours. Id. ¶ 53; Def. Ex. 17.²

D'Angelo emailed N.'s assistant principal, David Laboski, to ask N. to have no further contact with Doe. DSOF ¶¶ 54-55.

At the start of her junior year, on September 4, 2015, Doe and her father met with Doe's assistant principal, Scott Hegen, again alleged N. had been abusive during the relationship, and expressed concern that the abuse "may continue." Pl. Ex. 10. Doe asked "to be sent to an Alt. School or to Tech all day."³ Id. Instead, PHS added Doe to "the girls anxiety group" as a "first step." Id. At that meeting, Doe reported that N. talked about her, called her a "whore" and "slut," and threatened to kill himself if she would not get back together with him. Id.; Doe Dep. at 85. She also mentioned being harassed by another student, A., on behalf of N. over the summer. Pl. Ex. 10. On September 15, 2015, Doe reported to her teacher, Brooke Roush, that she was anxious in school, at least in part because she had "to face the boy who assaulted her" the prior year. Def. Ex. 28. On September 16, 2015, Doe met with her junior year guidance counselor, Erik Henrysen, and explained that she was uneasy around N. and was sharing a class with N.'s new girlfriend, A9. Def. Ex. 31. She again requested placement in "all day tech." Id.

On October 1, 2015, a certified nurse practitioner from Doe's primary care practice opined that Doe's anxiety justified placement in all-day technical school. DSOF ¶ 75. On October 2, 2015, Doe again requested full-time placement in the technical program, and assistant principal Hegen wrote in an email to his colleagues that, "[r]ecommending her to the IU⁴ is nice and all .... but ... NO." Def. Ex. 33. Doe and/or her family continued to request that PSD place her full-time in the technical program on October 14, 2015, Def. Ex. 34, and November 9, 2015, Def. Ex. 60. On November 13, 2015, Doe gave PSD a note from her treating therapist, a licensed clinical social worker, who also opined the full-time technical program would be a more appropriate placement for Doe to accommodate her anxiety. DSOF ¶ 78.

On November 24, 2015, Doe reported to Hegen that N. was stalking her. Pl. Ex. 15. She submitted a written PSD incident report stating that N. was "torment[ing]" her, which was witnessed by "everyone who sits with [her] in the morning." Id. She reported that "N. continuously shows up wherever I am." Id. In response to the incident form's question about how she wished she had handled the incident differently, Doe wrote that she wished she had "yelled since the school hasn't done anything to help." Id. She explained that "Mr. Hegen doesn't see this as a huge concern." Id.

That same day, PSD granted Doe a "permission to evaluate," which allowed her to be evaluated for the full-time technical school program. DSOF ¶ 86. On December 7, 2015, Doe met with Hegen and reported that N.'s cousin, T2, was threatening to hit her, and she was still being "follow[ed]" by N. Def. Ex. 66. Hegen noted Doe had not reported the physical threat directly to her teacher. Id. On December 8, 2015, Hegen contacted Doe's parents to discuss how best to support Doe at PHS. Def. Ex. 41. On December 9, 2015, Doe submitted another incident report regarding T2. Def. Ex. 66.

On December 15, 2015, Ross Owens, a PSD school psychologist, informed his colleagues he did not believe Doe would qualify for full-time technical school based on her grades and attendance records. Def. Ex. 69. Hegen explained to Owens and Henrysen that Doe nevertheless needed to be evaluated because PSD had "to go through the process." Def. Ex. 39.

On December 22, 2015, Doe and N. had a confrontation in the hallway and submitted conflicting written accounts of the event. Def. Exs. 42-45. Hegen contacted N.'s parents to let them know that, although N. was "not in trouble," further events "could be considered harassment." Def. Ex. 47. Doe requested alternative placement again as part of her report of that incident. Def. Ex. 42.

Doe renewed her request for alternative placement on January 14, 2016. Def. Ex. 75. On February 9, 2016, Hegen opined that Doe was acting out in an effort to get kicked out of PHS. Def. Ex. 73. On March 4, 2016, Doe asked to attend cyber school. Def. Ex. 75. On March 14, 2016, Owens determined Doe did not qualify for educational services, and therefore could not be placed full-time in the technical program. Def. Ex. 77.

On April 12, 2016, during the spring of her junior year, Doe transferred to the Twilight program. PSOF ¶ 41. This program consisted of four to six hours per week of in-class time held two to three evenings per week, during which students completed printed coursework but did not receive teacher-led instruction. Id. ¶¶ 43-44. Doe completed all Twilight course work for her junior and senior years of high school by May 12, 2016. DSOF ¶ 163. Doe began, but did not complete, a career internship program during her senior year. Id. ¶ 165; Def. Ex. 14. Doe did not attend PHS during her senior year, but graduated on June 8, 2017. DSOF ¶ 178.

During the applicable time period, PSD's Policy No. 248 addressed its Title IX procedure related to sexual harassment. Id. ¶ 185. Policy No. 248 includes, inter alia, the following provisions: "complaints of harassment shall be investigated promptly, and corrective action taken when allegations are substantiated." Id. ¶ 184; Pl. Ex. 7. It notes that "[n]o reprisals nor retaliation shall occur as a result of good faith charges of harassment," and defines "harassment" as "verbal, written, graphic or physical conduct relating to an individual's race, color, national origin/ethnicity, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation or religion" only if that conduct has certain effects or "[i]s sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it affects an individual's ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program or activity or creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment." Pl. Ex. 7. The policy separately defines "sexual harassment" as "unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other inappropriate verbal, written, graphic or physical conduct of a sexual nature when" one of a series of other criteria are met, including that "[s]uch conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the student's school performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment." Id.

The policy...