In re Ex parte Madison County Board of Education, No. 1061715 (Ala. 3/14/2008)

• Decision Date: 14 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1061715.,1061715.
• Parties: Ex parte Madison County Board of Education and Jim Nash, personnel director for the Madison County Board of Education In re: A.S., a minor, by and through her natural parents and next friends, J.S. and R.S.; et al. v. William Ford Reaves et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 1

Ex parte Madison County Board of Education and Jim Nash, personnel director for the Madison County Board of Education In re: A.S., a minor, by and through her natural parents and next friends, J.S. and R.S.; et al. v. William Ford Reaves et al.

No. 1061715.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Decided March 14, 2008.

Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, CV-05-217.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

STUART, Justice.

The Madison County Board of Education ("the Board") and Jim Nash, the personnel director for the Board, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Karen K. Hall to grant their motions for a summary judgment dismissing the federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against them on the basis of qualified immunity. We grant the petition as to Nash and deny it as to the Board.

Facts

During the fall of 2002, A.S. was an 11-year-old fifth-grade student attending Madison County Elementary School. According to A.S., her physical-education teacher, William Ford Reaves, raped her. She did not tell anyone about the rape, but asked to be removed from Reaves's physical-education class. Her class schedule was changed, and she had no further contact with Reaves. In January 2003, A.S. transferred to Riverton Middle School. Her parents did not provide Madison County Elementary School officials with any reason for the transfer. However, it appears from the materials submitted to this Court that A.S. wanted to change schools because some of the other students at Madison County Elementary School made fun of her learning and speech disabilities.

In May 2004, A.S. told a couple of girlfriends at Riverton Middle School that Reaves had raped her. The girlfriends encouraged A.S. to tell the counselor at Riverton Middle School. After A.S. informed the school counselor about the rape, the school counselor notified A.S.'s parents and the principal, who notified Nash. Nash immediately placed Reaves on administrative leave and went to Riverton Middle School to investigate. Nash and the principal met with A.S.'s parents; A.S.'s parents refused to allow Nash to interview A.S. As part of his investigation into the allegation, Nash interviewed the principal, the assistant principal, and the counselor at Madison County Elementary School, Reaves, a student teacher under Reaves's supervision, and an aide in Reaves's class. The student teacher and the aide stated that they had never seen Reaves act inappropriately. Nash reported his findings to the superintendent. School and/or Board officials arranged for A.S. to receive counseling.

It appears that over a period of 16 years before they became aware of this allegation, school and/or Board officials had investigated various allegations of inappropriate conduct by Reaves on five occasions and had placed written reports in Reaves's employee file. Nash was aware of three of the five investigations at the time they were being conducted,¹ and school officials reprimanded Reaves in some form in response to each investigation.

The first investigation occurred in 1986, before Nash became personnel director. The report of that investigation indicated that Reaves had been accused of inappropriately touching a female high-school student on her buttocks and inappropriately commenting that another female high-school student was "looking good." The high-school principal orally reprimanded Reaves and placed a notation about the incident in Reaves's employee file.

The second reported incident occurred in 1990. A female student complained to her high-school principal that Reaves had asked her if she liked sex, had walked into the girls' locker room while female students were changing clothes, had straddled her legs while she performed sit-ups in his physical-education class, had touched her breast through her clothing, and had rubbed her leg. Nash and other school officials investigated the allegation and obtained written statements from the student and three other student witnesses. The student was removed immediately from Reaves's class. When the principal confronted Reaves, Reaves denied the accusations and stated that he would be more careful in his conduct toward students. The principal and the assistant principal increased their supervision of Reaves.

The third reported incident occurred in 1991 when two female high-school students informed the high-school principal that Reaves had touched the legs of one of the female students, had commented that she should not have worn a certain shirt because he could see her black bra, had stated that "he bet there wasn't a girl in the school he couldn't get," and had rubbed a female student's hair, commented on her chest, and patted her on the stomach. The principal and Nash interviewed the two students making the complaint, as well as two other female students. The two students alleging the misconduct by Reaves made written statements about the incidents. The principal and Nash also reinterviewed two of students who were involved in the 1990 investigation and were told of additional inappropriate sexual conduct and comments by Reaves. The students' schedules were changed and they had no further contact with Reaves. When confronted with the accusations, Reaves denied the misconduct. School officials, including the superintendent, met with the Board's attorney and determined, with counsel's advice, that there was insufficient evidence to terminate the employment of Reaves, a tenured teacher. Another written reprimand was placed in Reaves's file, and he was transferred to Madison County Elementary School, where he would not have contact with high-school-age females.

In 1996, the fourth report was created when a female student at Madison County Elementary School and her mother reported that Reaves had told the student to "suck my right nut." The principal investigated the incident, and Reaves denied making the statement, alleging that he had said "suck my nose." The principal, who did not involve Nash in the investigation of the incident, informed Reaves that any additional report would result in a recommendation that Reaves's employment be terminated.

The fifth incident occurred in 2002 when female students in Reaves's physical-education class complained to the school counselor about the way Reaves made them perform push-ups.² The school counselor reported the complaints to the principal but refused to give the principal the students' names. The principal investigated and interviewed two adult female teaching assistants in Reaves's class. The assistants informed the principal that the female students had performed the push-ups in the normal and proper way. The principal confronted Reaves and ordered him not to place himself in such a questionable situation.

In 2004, when school officials and Nash learned of A.S.'s accusation that Reaves had raped her in 2002,³ Nash immediately placed Reaves on administrative leave. Reaves retired before a decision was made as to whether to terminate his employment.

In 2005, A.S. and her parents sued Reaves, the Board, Nash, and others alleging state and federal claims, including a Title IX claim and the following 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim:

"46. The School Board defendants [which include the Board and Nash] deprived plaintiff A.S. of the constitutional right to be free from sexual abuse and molestation under the color of state law and acted with deliberate indifference.

"47. The School Board defendants violated 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2000) by allowing an employee, the defendant Reaves, to continue teaching and/or coaching with multiple complaints on his record for sexual harassment while taking no action to punish this pedophile or to stop this pedophile's sexual misconduct. As a proximate result of the said violation, the plaintiff A.S. was sexually molested and raped.

"48. The above named defendants also failed to develop, implement or administer procedures or policies reasonably designed to provide protection for the mentally handicapped plaintiff from sexual molestation while attending a public school.

"49. This violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2000) by the above named Defendants, proximately caused injuries and damage to the Plaintiff, A.S...."

The Board and Nash answered, alleging among other defenses State-agency immunity, immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and qualified immunity. In 2007, they moved for a summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment for Nash on all state-law claims, entered a summary judgment for Nash and the Board on the Title IX claim, and denied the Board's and Nash's summary-judgment motion on A.S.'s § 1983 claim. The Board and Nash timely filed this petition for a writ of mandamus.

Standard of Review

"`"Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995).... Our review is further limited to those facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte American Resources Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995).'

"Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala. 1998)."

Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs., 880 So. 2d 393, 398 (Ala. 2003).

"`While the general rule is that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable, the exception is that the denial of a motion grounded on a claim of immunity is reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte Purvis, 689 So. 2d 794 (Ala. 1996)....

"`Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., Young v. La Quinta Inns,...