Doe v. Sch. Dist. 214
| Decision Date | 02 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 16-cv-7642 |
| Citation | 532 F.Supp.3d 665 |
| Parties | John DOE, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT 214, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Antonio Maurizio Romanucci, Bhavani Keeran Raveendran, Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Michael E. Kujawa, Deborah Anne Ostvig, Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants School District 214, Kirk Laxo, Michelle Dowling, David Schuler, Mark Taylor, Suzette Sanecki.
Deborah Anne Ostvig, Schain Banks Kenny & Schwartz, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Doe Teachers 1-3.
Joan B. Gottschall, United States District Judge Plaintiff John Doe ("Doe"),1 an African American male, attended Prospect High School ("Prospect" or "Prospect High School") in suburban Mount Prospect, Illinois, from 2011 until he graduated on time in 2015. See Pl.’s Renewed R. 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. in Resp. to Movant's [sic] Stmt. of Material Facts ("Resp. to SMF") ¶ 38, ECF No. 59; Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s R. 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. of Add'l Facts ("Resp. to SAF") ¶ 9, ECF No. 61. Prospect "had an overwhelmingly Caucasian student body" at the time. Resp. to SAF ¶ 8 (undisputed). In this litigation, Doe claims that students and staff at Prospect bullied and harassed him on account of his race and sexual orientation, and school and district staff turned a "blind eye" to it, minimized his and his family's complaints, and disciplined Doe more harshly than his white classmates for comparable infractions. See Compl. ¶¶ 1–7, ECF No. 1-1. Doe brings claims under Illinois law alleging that defendants’ conduct was willful and wanton, a claim under Illinois law for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. ECF No. 55. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Doe's § 1983 and Title VI claims and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over his claims under Illinois law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Because this case comes before the court at summary judgment, the court recites the facts in the light most favorable to Doe, the nonmoving party, and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in his favor. E.g. , Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 457 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Dunn v. Menard, Inc. , 880 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Cir. 2018) ).
Doe has sued the Illinois school district with authority over Prospect, School District 214 ("the district"). See Compl. ¶¶ 11-12; Resp. to SMF ¶ 34. The complaint also names as defendants the district superintendent, David Schuler ("Schuler"), and several Prospect administrators, faculty, and staff: Kurt Laakso2 ("Laakso"), Prospect's principal until August 2013; Michelle Dowling ("Dowling"), Prospect's principal after August 2013; Mark Taylor ("Taylor"), a dean of students at Prospect; Suzette Sanecki ("Sanecki"), a teaching assistant at Prospect; and three "Doe teachers" at Prospect. See Compl. ¶¶ 13-18; Resp. to SMF ¶¶ 58-62.
All agree that "Prospect High School is one of [the district]’s highest-performing flagship schools." Resp. to SMF ¶ 34. Black students like Doe and his sister "were a minority" at Prospect, which was "overwhelmingly Caucasian" at the time Doe attended. Resp. to SAF ¶¶ 8, 9. Doe identifies as gay, and, with inferences favorable to him, he testified at his deposition that his sexual orientation was obvious and known to everyone at Prospect High School. See Doe Dep. 271:16-272:5, Defs.’ Ex. A, ECF No. 56-1.
While at Prospect, Doe received services intended to accommodate a cognitive disability that caused him "difficulty with reading, math, and comprehension." Resp. to SAF ¶ 1; accord Resp. to SMF ¶ 39. Doe also has a seizure disorder. Resp. to SMF ¶ 40. Defendants Dowling and Sanecki were aware of Doe's seizure disorder. Resp. to SAF ¶ 7.
A reasonable factfinder could conclude that some Prospect staff members found Doe's mother3 intimidating and attempted to avoid conflict with her. See Resp. to SAF ¶¶ 65-67. Defendants dispute any inference that staff members’ perception of Doe's mother resulted in differential treatment of Doe. See id.
The parties agree that several written policies of the district are pertinent to the facts of this case. First and foremost, the district adopted a bullying prevention and harassment policy ("bullying policy") in 2010 and updated it in 2014.4 Resp. to SMF ¶ 4. The policy protects students from bullying based on several protected categories including race and sexual orientation. Resp. to SMF ¶ 6. The district also adopted policies on the use of expulsion and suspension to discipline students in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Resp. to SMF ¶ 8; Defs.’ Ex. I, ECF No. 56-9. In addition, the district has adopted written policies on accommodating individuals with disabilities, providing equal educational opportunities, handling student medical issues, and reporting incidents of suspected child abuse and neglect to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Resp. to SMF ¶ 9. However, the written policies defendants have submitted here bear revision dates showing them to be in effect after Doe graduated from Prospect at the end of the 2014-15 school year. See Defs.’ Ex. J, ECF No. 56-10 ().
As explained in the footnote to the previous paragraph, the summary judgment record also lacks a copy of the district's bullying policy adopted in 2010. It is nonetheless undisputed that at all relevant times the district's bullying policy specified a process for complaining about bullying and listed name and contact information of school officials to whom bullying complaints were to be directed. Resp. to SMF ¶ 5. The district also has a uniform grievance procedure allowing a student, parent, or guardian to file a formal complaint alleging that a student or parent's state or federal rights have been violated. Resp. to SMF ¶ 10; see also Uniform Grievance Procedure, Defs.’ Ex. K, ECF No. 56-11 (adopted Jan. 6, 2011, revised Sept. 3, 2015). It is undisputed that repeated use of the words "nigger" and "faggot" would be considered violations of the bullying policy and that staff would be expected to contact the dean and parents, as well as issue a minimum of an in-school suspension, if a student repeatedly used those words. Resp. to SAF ¶¶ 76-77.
In addition to written policies, Prospect High School "has bullying [prevention] and diversity awareness programs in place for students." Resp. to SMF ¶ 36. Each year, the district runs a "behavior campaign" during which it "actively educates and encourages students to report inappropriate behavior." Resp. to SMF ¶ 16. And each school has a principal's advisory council, which is a forum at which concerns about bullying can be raised. See Resp. to SMF ¶ 17.
District administrators have a "wide variety" of disciplinary options for student misconduct, such as bullying, including: a conference with the student, restorative justice, loss of privileges, and in or out of school suspension. Resp. to SMF ¶¶ 21-22. "When disciplining students, [the district's] focus is to change behavior in addition to righting the situation." Resp. to SMF ¶ 20 (undisputed). In some instances, policy dictates the discipline to be meted out, while administrators have discretion in others. See Resp. to SMF ¶ 25 (genuinely disputed fact); Resp. to SAF ¶ 73, 75-83. If a teacher bullies a student, the teacher can be disciplined with consequences ranging from a verbal reprimand to dismissal. Resp. to SAF ¶ 82.
District employees have received training on diversity, racial sensitivity, harassment, and handling student medical issues. See Resp. to SMF ¶ 19. Prospect High School in particular "has several annual programs for its staff regarding bullying and diversity awareness." Resp. to SMF ¶ 37 (undisputed).
Depending on how they are counted, Doe identifies 12 or 13 incidents in which he alleges he experienced bullying or discrimination at the hands of Prospect students, faculty, and staff. See Resp. to SMF ¶ 50; Resp. to SAF ¶ 13. The court refers to these as documented incidents because they are reported in the district's written records. These include: (1) an incident in which defendant Sanecki struck Doe in the back of the head in class; (2) Doe's suspension for allegedly touching a girl's genitals; (3) an incident in which a non-party teacher ejected Doe from study hall and had him transferred to another teacher; (4) an incident in which Doe was locked in the attendance office; (5) an incident in which a girl in the cafeteria gave Doe the middle finger; (6) an incident in which Doe called a girl "fat because she called [him] a fag;" (7) an incident in which a non-party teacher, Ms. Davis, called Doe a jerk in class; (8) an incident in which a non-party teacher, Mr. Stokes, sent Doe to the dean's office; (9) an incident in the cafeteria in which a student named Vince called Doe a "nigger;" (10) an incident in which students on the school bus threw a water bottle at Doe; (11) an incident in which Doe was forced to delete a video he took of girls fighting; and (12) two separate incidents in which Doe had a dispute with a student named Anthony (though it is not clear whether the same student named Anthony was involved in both incidents). See Resp. to SAF ¶ 13; Doe Dep. 50:12–52:23. Defendants do not dispute that each of these incidents was reported to Prospect staff, but they dispute whether their handling of those reports was discriminatory. See Resp. to SAF ¶ 13.
Doe testified about these incidents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Sch. Dist. U-46
...arbitrary, wrongful government actions "regardless of the procedures used to implement them." ’ " Doe v. Sch. Dist. 214 , No. 16-cv-7642, 532 F.Supp.3d 665, 675(N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2021) (citing Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990) ). But the list of pr......