Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-20204-UU |
| Citation | 403 F.Supp.3d 1241 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | Jane DOE, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
Alice K. Nelson, Nelson Law Group, Tampa, FL, Allison Louise Hertog, Making School Work, PL, Coral Gables, FL, Cristina Boullon Rodriguez, Lewis Franklin Murphy, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, James George Sammataro, Pryor Cashman LLP, Miami, FL, Elizabeth Tang, Pro Hac Vice, Emily Martin, Pro Hac Vice, Margaret Hazuka, Pro Hac Vice, Neena Chaudhry, Pro Hac Vice, Shiwali Patel, ro Hac Vice, National Womens Law Center, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Mary C. Lawson, Miami-Dade County School Board, Schuyler Analise Smith, Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel LLP, Lorna Bruce Salomon, State Attorney's Office, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and to Strike Claims for Punitive Damages filed by Defendants the School Board of Miami-Dade County (the "School Board") and Superintendent Carvalho ("Carvalho"). D.E. 12 (the "Motion").
THE COURT has considered the Motion, Plaintiff's Response thereto (D.E. 13) (the "Response"), Defendants' Reply in Support thereof (D.E. 14) (the "Reply"), and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
For the reasons explained below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The facts below come from the Complaint (D.E. 1) (the "Complaint") and are taken as true.
Plaintiff Jane Doe1 ("Jane" or "Plaintiff") was a 14-year old female student enrolled at Miami Carol City High School ("Carol City") in the fall of 2017. Compl. ¶ 1. From October 2017 through November 2017, Jane suffered multiple incidents of bullying behavior constituting sexual harassment, including sexual assault, at Carol City by other students. Id. ¶ 15. The incidents are described below.
First, on or about the morning of October 17, 2017, as Jane was walking out of the girl's bathroom, an older male student named A.C. asked Jane to go into the boys' bathroom with him. Id. ¶ 16. Assuming that he wanted to engage in sexual activity with her, Jane repeatedly said "no." Id.
During lunchtime at Carol City on or about October 24, 2017, A.C. renewed his request that Jane go into the bathroom with him. Id. ¶ 17. He then grabbed and pulled Jane into the boys' bathroom, locked her into a stall with him, and sexually assaulted her by anal penetration. Id. After he assaulted her, he left her alone in the boys' bathroom. Id. Jane was hurt, shaken, and scared. Id.
Jane did not report the sexual assault by A.C. to anyone at her school at that time. Id. ¶ 18. She was embarrassed, confused, and feared that school officials would not believe her. Id.
On or about the afternoon of October 27, 2017, another older male student, J.C. stopped Jane in the hallway as she was leaving the girls' bathroom. Id. ¶ 19. J.C. asked Jane to have sex with him because he believed that Jane had had sex with A.C. Id. Jane was shocked and started walking away. Id. J.C. grabbed her tightly by the arm and forcibly pulled her into the adjacent boys' bathroom. Id.
J.C. assaulted Jane by forcing her to perform oral sex on him while she was choking, trembling, crying, and repeatedly saying "no." Id. ¶ 20. J.C. then left the bathroom; Jane left afterward, alone, humiliated and shaken. Id.
Jane did not report the sexual assault by J.C. to anyone at her school at that time. Id. ¶ 22. She was confused, hurt, humiliated, and did not think that school officials would believe her. Id. However, one of Jane's friends, C.S., noticed Jane crying at the school "pep rally" that day. Id. ¶ 21. C.S. asked Jane why she was crying, but Jane could not bring herself to tell him what had happened. Id.
On or about November 6, 2017, an older male student, E.H.—whom Jane had never previously met—asked her if she could meet him in the boys' bathroom after school. Id. ¶ 23. She said "no." Id. That same afternoon, A.C. and J.C., Jane's first two attackers, also asked Jane if she would meet them in the boys' bathroom after school. Id. Again, she said "no." Id.
Later that day, E.H. followed Jane into the girls' bathroom. Id. ¶ 24. Jane stated that she did not want anything to do with him. Id. E.H. cornered her and demanded oral sex. Id. She refused. Id. E.H. then sexually assaulted her by forcibly penetrating her vaginally without a condom. Id. E.H. only stopped when another student, J.M., called him to come out. Id. E.H. stepped out, but then he returned to the bathroom and said to Jane, "Why would you do it with [A.C.] and [J.C.] and not do it with me?" Id. Jane repeatedly refused to engage with him and ultimately fought her way out of the bathroom. Id.
Afterwards, Jane walked home crying. Id. ¶ 25. During her walk home, she encountered three of her friends: C.S., C., and H.O. Id. Jane told these friends what had happened. Id. Her friends told her that if she did not tell her mother or the school, they would report it to the school the next day. Id. That night, Jane told her friend E.F. by phone what had happened, but Jane did not tell her mother because she felt scared and ashamed. Id.
On or about the morning of November 7, 2017, Jane's friends (E.F., C.S., and H.O.) encouraged Jane to come with them to report the sexual harassment to school officials, even though Jane was worried that they would not believe her. Id. ¶ 26. Jane did not initially join her friends; rather, that morning, the three friends (upon information and belief) reported Jane's sexual assaults to Principal Ja Marv Dunn and to a school security guard. Id. ¶ 29.
Meanwhile, Jane went to her first class, English. Id. ¶ 27. Despite her fears, before the class began that morning, Jane told her English teacher that three students had sexually attacked her on separate occasions. Id. She identified the assailants to her teacher. Id. A.C., the first attacker, was a student in Jane's English class; when the class began, the teacher ensured that A.C. was not sitting near Jane. Id. Jane alleges upon information and belief that the English teacher did not take any additional action to address the matter or report what Jane told her to any school official. Id. ¶ 28.
While she was still in English class, but presumably following her friends' report to school administrators, Jane was called to the main office. Id. ¶ 30. Jane met with Assistant Principal Mimose Morgan-Rose, who asked Jane about her friends' report. Id. Jane began to describe the attacks, but several minutes into her description, Assistant Principal Morgan-Rose told Jane that she would "have to repeat the whole story again" to Officer Jules Etienne, a school resource officer2 who had just arrived. Id. ¶ 31.
Neither Officer Etienne nor any other school official notified Jane's mother at that time about the allegations of multiple sexual assaults. Id. ¶ 33. Jane alleges that this failure to notify violated Florida Statutes § 1006.147(4)(i), which requires each school district to adopt and implement a policy containing "[a] procedure for providing immediate notification to the parents of a victim of bullying or harassment and the parents of the perpetrator of an act of bullying or harassment, as well as notification to all local agencies where criminal charges may be pursued against the perpetrator." Id. ¶ 33 & n.4.
Jane alleges on information and belief that Officer Etienne was not trained and/or authorized by School Board policy or procedures to question alleged victims of child sexual abuse or rape. Id. ¶ 32. Nevertheless, Assistant Principal Rose-Morgan left Jane alone in her office with Officer Etienne, permitting him—an adult male whom Jane did not know—to interrogate Jane about the sexual assaults without Jane's mother or anyone else present. Id. ¶ 34.
Jane was in the assistant principal's office alone with Officer Etienne from approximately 7:30 A.M. until approximately 10:40 A.M. being questioned about the details of the assaults. Id. ¶ 35. Though deeply humiliated and shaken, Jane tried to stay calm while writing a statement of the attacks as requested by Officer Etienne (the "Statement"). Id. The Statement included details describing the bullying behavior that constituted sexual harassment, including the multiple sexual assaults. Id. ¶ 36.
After Jane told Officer Etienne that the Statement was complete, Officer Etienne repeatedly asked her why she was in the bathroom during each of the three sexual assaults, suggesting that Jane was in some way responsible. Id. ¶ 37. She told him that in each instance she did not want to be in the bathroom. Id. Officer Etienne stated that he did not understand what she was saying and that he could not help her if she did not explain why she was in the bathroom with her assailants. Id. ¶ 38.
At approximately 10:40 A.M., Officer Etienne concluded the interview. Id. ¶ 39. He told Jane that they "had to" keep her separated from A.C., J.C., and E.H. at school. Id. Jane told him that A.C. was in her third class that day. Id. Despite her notifying Officer Etienne at that time, Jane in fact was forced to endure sitting through that class that day with A.C. present. Id. ¶ 45. Thus, Officer Etienne's promise to keep Jane away from her attacker rang hollow. See id.
After their meeting, Officer Etienne sent Jane to speak with a school counselor, who checked Jane's grades and student conduct records. Id. ¶ 39. The counselor also advised Jane of the possibility that she had been exposed to sexually transmitted infections. Id. However, neither...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln Mem'l Acad. v. Florida
...who, 35 under color of law, subject a plaintiff to a deprivation of federally-protected rights.” Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 403 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 2019). Section 1983 “constitutes the exclusive remedy against state actors for violations of the rights contained in § 19......
- Soss2, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
-
Wadsworth v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. 40
...under Title IX because he or she had "disciplinary authorityover students enrolled at the school"); Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 403 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (finding that, on the plaintiff's allegations, the principal and assistant principals of the plaintiff's high s......
-
Townsend v. City of Boca Raton
...and that the custom or practice is the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation. Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 403 F.Supp.3d 1241, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (J. Ungaro) (citing Grech, 335 F.3d at 1330). A “custom” is “a practice that is so settled and permanent that it takes on......
-
Athletics & title IX of the 1972 education amendments
...Jaeckle’s punitive damages claim from Count II of the Second Amended Complaint.”); see also Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 403 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1268–69 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“In the absence of binding precedent to the contrary, the Court adopts Mercer’s reasoning as the Court’s own.”); A......
-
Athletics and title IX of the 1972 education amendments
...Jaeckle’s punitive damages claim from Count II of the Second Amended Complaint.”); see also Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 403 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1268–69 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“In the absence of binding precedent to the contrary, the Court adopts Mercer’s reasoning as the Court’s own.”); A......