Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cnty.
| Docket Number | 34, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 2022 |
| Citation | 481 Md. 274,281 A.3d 876 |
| Parties | Brandon GAMBRILL, et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DORCHESTER COUNTY, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Cary J. Hansel (Hansel Law, P.C., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioners.
Argued by Andrew G. Scott (Adam E. Konstas, Pessin Katz Law, P.A., Towson, MD), on brief, for Respondents.
Amicus Curiae the Maryland Association of Justice: Michael J. Winkelman, Esquire, McCarthy, Winkelman & Mester, L.L.P., 4300 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 205, Lanham, MD 20706.
Amici Curiae the Public Justice Center, Disability Rights Maryland, University of Maryland Carey School of Law Youth, Education and Justice Clinic, and Project Heal at Kennedy Krieger Institute: Renuka Rege, Esquire, Public Justice Center, 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 1200, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Argued before:* McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Alan M. Wilner (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Irma S. Raker (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
In this case, we must determine whether a federal law, the Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 7941 et seq. (2015) (the "Coverdell Act" or "Act"), provides teacher and administrator employees of county school boards of education with "immunity from suit" in connection with negligent acts or omissions they commit within the scope of employment. Under Maryland law, negligence claims may be brought against a school board employee, provided that the school board is joined as a party and indemnifies the employee for any personal liability or money judgment entered against the employee. See Maryland Code (2020 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJ") § 5-518. The school personnel who have been individually named as defendants in this litigation contend that the Coverdell Act provides them with "immunity from suit," thereby providing them with greater protection than they receive from the indemnification provisions of CJ § 5-518. Therefore, according to the individual defendants, the Coverdell Act preempts the Maryland statute.
This federal preemption question arises in a case involving a series of violent and troubling peer conflicts between adolescents in middle school. The Petitioners before us are Brandon Gambrill, Robin Gambrill, and their minor daughter, S. (collectively, the "Gambrills"). The Gambrills brought a negligence action against teachers and administrators at S.’s middle school for injuries that S. suffered at the hands of her fellow students.
The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals. Gambrill v. Bd. of Ed. of Dorchester County , 252 Md. App. 342, 259 A.3d 144 (2021). Both the circuit court and the intermediate appellate court determined that the Coverdell Act preempts Maryland law, and therefore precludes the Gambrills from pursuing their negligence claims against the school employees. The Gambrills also sued the Dorchester County Board of Education (the "Board") for negligence. With respect to the Gambrills’ negligence claim against the Board, the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals determined that the claim fell within the "educational malpractice doctrine," which bars claims regarding the quality of education provided by an educational institution. In addition, the circuit court also determined that, even if the Gambrills’ negligence claim was not barred by the Coverdell Act and the educational malpractice doctrine, the defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants were negligent in supervising S. and the other students.
As we will explain, the circuit court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. We hold that the Coverdell Act does not preempt CJ § 5-518. We further hold that the Gambrills’ negligence count, which asserts that the Respondents negligently supervised S. and the students who assaulted her, does not fall within the educational malpractice doctrine. Finally, based upon the material disputes of fact that appear in the record, we cannot affirm the circuit court's entry of summary judgment. For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
During the 2016–2017 school year, the Gambrills’ daughter, S.,2 was involved in several physical and verbal altercations with other students while in her sixth-grade year at Mace's Lane Middle School ("Mace's Lane"), a public school in Dorchester County. In September 2016, student "N." began harassing S. at school by calling her names, pulling her hair, and pushing her. When S. told her parents, they went to the Assistant Principal, Cynthia Woolford, and told her. Ms. Woolford told the parents that she would "handle it" or "take care of it." Early in the fall semester of 2016, the Gambrills completed two bullying reports concerning N.’s behavior and the school's lack of action, which were given to the school's guidance counselor.
When the bullying did not stop, the Gambrills contacted Ms. Woolford, as well as Dr. Michael Collins, Principal, and Dr. James Bell, Supervisor of Student Services, and requested that S.’s locker be moved. S.’s and her parents’ initial requests that S.’s locker be relocated were denied.3 According to the Gambrills, when they made the initial request, the administrators told them that it was too late in the school year to move her locker.
The Gambrills contend that throughout the fall, the attacks against S. increased in severity. On October 26, 2016, S. was attacked by Students 5 and 9 while in class with Substitute Teacher 1. S. was physically beaten on her head and body. According to S., she screamed for help, but Substitute Teacher 1 did not intervene because another student was distracting her. The attack lasted approximately one minute. According to S, she had not in any way initiated or instigated the attack. S. went to Ms. Woolford's office to advise her of the attack and told her who the assailants were. Ms. Woolford completed student behavior reports for Students 5 and 9 and issued them in-school suspensions. S. sustained a concussion from the attack and was medically ordered to stay home from school for several days.
The Gambrills promptly reported the attack to Dr. Collins, who apologized to the Gambrills for the incident and admitted that "substitute teachers are not the best trained and cannot control the classroom." Ms. Woolford also met with the Gambrills the day after the incident. S. informed Ms. Woolford that she was also having issues with Students 4 and 7.4
In late November, Student 4 walked out into the hall without permission and verbally attacked S. who was standing in line across the hall. Student 4 began shouting at S. saying, "come on and fight me" and other inappropriate words. Ms. Woolford issued Student 4 an in-school suspension, and also arranged for external mediation between S. and Student 4, at which both S.’s mother and Student 4's mother were present. In early December, Ms. Woolford instructed S.’s teachers to change seating assignments because S. and Student 2 now had issues.
In mid-December 2016, S. was physically attacked while in class under the supervision of Substitute Teacher 2. Student 8 grabbed S. by the neck and flipped her backwards. S. struck her head on a table, resulting in another concussion. According to the Gambrills’ complaint, and S.’s deposition testimony, Substitute Teacher 2 had a headache and had put his head down on the desk. The Gambrills kept S. home from school until December 19.
When S. returned to school on December 19, S. and Student 8 engaged in another physical altercation. S. had gone to the nurse's office to obtain a note about her concussion for her gym teacher. Ms. Woolford brought the male student to the nurse's office and left him alone with S. Student 8, who was approximately one foot taller than S., physically attacked S. and struck her in the face. S. contends that she tried to defend herself and pushed the male student away from her. After the assault, S. had to be treated by the school nurse because S. had an apparent physical injury as a result of the assault. Ms. Woolford completed behavior reports for both students and issued each student a two-day out-of-school suspension.
The Gambrills contend that Ms. Woolford failed to investigate the incident properly, never permitting S. to tell her side of the events, and instead, immediately issued the suspension. At her deposition, Ms. Woolford admitted that she "would hope [she] would have" given S. the opportunity to tell her side of the story, but that she "didn't recall" if she had done so. S. submitted an affidavit stating that Ms. Woolford knew that S. was in the nurse's office when she brought the male student down to see the nurse, and that no one, including Ms. Woolford, asked S. what happened that day after the assault occurred. According to the Gambrills, the documents that they attached to their opposition to summary judgment (nursing notes, Ms. Woolford's notes, and Ms. Woolford's deposition testimony) provide evidence in support of their contention that Ms. Woolford made the decision to suspend S. prior to investigating the situation.
The Gambrills filed an administrative appeal of Ms. Woolford's decision to suspend S. In their appeal, the Gambrills explained that S. simply defended herself against the male student, who days before, had assaulted S., giving her a concussion. Dr. Bell denied the appeal.
In January 2017, Dr. Bell spoke with the administration at Mace's Lane about the Gambrills’ concerns. To ensure S.’s safety going forward, the administration issued S. a "flash pass" that she could use to immediately go to the guidance counselor or school administration if she felt that a conflict may escalate. The administration also changed S.’s locker location as the Gambrills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CSX Transp. v. Spiniello Glob.
...hazards of raw sewage, this was a foreseeable harm and thus Spiniello's actions are a legally cognizable cause of the injury. See Gambrill, 281 A.3d at 903 ("[T]he question foreseeability will often be an issue for the jury[.]" Additionally, Spiniello argues that CSX cannot prove its damage......
-
Chapter 19 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI—VIEW FROM THE BENCH
...raised in petition for certiorari); State v. Rovin, 472 Md. 317, 331 (2021) (same). But see Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cty., 481 Md. 274, 295 n.7 (2022) (exercising discretion to reach an issue not included in the petition for certiorari because the intermediate appellate court'......