J.W. v. Johnston Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 24 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 5:11-CV-707-D,5:11-CV-707-D
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: J.W., by and through his parent and guardian, and BRENDA NEWSOME, Plaintiffs, v. THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ED CROOM, in his individual and official capacities, and JENNIFER MOORE, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants.

J.W., by and through his parent and guardian,

and BRENDA NEWSOME, Plaintiffs,

v.THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ED CROOM,in his individual and official capacities, and JENNIFER MOORE,

in her individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 5:11-CV-707-D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

SO ORDERED: September 24, 2012

ORDER

Former special education teacher Brenda Newsome and her former student, J.W., ("plaintiffs") have sued the Johnston County Board of Education, Board Superintendent Ed Croom, and principal Jennifer Moore ("defendants"). Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains a variety of federal and state claims concerning Newsome's employment and J.W.'s educational environment. Defendants moved to dismiss portions of the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As explained below, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss.

I.

At all relevant times, J.W. was a minor child with Down Syndrome who attended Selma Middle School ("the School") in Johnston County, North Carolina. Am. Compl. [D.E. 17] ¶ 1. The Johnston County Board of Education (the "Board") operates the School. Id. ¶ 3. Jennifer Moore ("Moore") was the Principal of the School. Id. ¶ 4. Ed Croom ("Croom") was the Superintendent for the Board. Id. ¶ 5.

Brenda Newsome ("Newsome") worked full-time at the School as a special education teacher from August 2004 until June 15, 2009. Id. ¶¶ 2, 10. While employed at the School, Newsome exceeded professional standards and, until the incidents alleged in this action, received positive employment evaluations. See id. ¶¶ 11-12. In her last year at the School, Newsome was J.W.'s teacher. See id. ¶¶ 2, 10, 15.

Before the start of the 2008-2009 school year, the Board consolidated the School's two special education classes into a single class. Id. ¶ 13. Asa result, the teacher-to-student ratio for the single special education class allegedly fell below applicable state and federal guidelines. See id. ¶¶ 14, 17-18. Newsome was concerned that the new ratio would impede the learning of students with intensive needs, and she shared her concerns with the parents of the students in her special education class. See id. ¶ 19. Newsome criticized the ratio and also encouraged parents to lobby the Board and other relevant public officials to improve the ratio. See id. ¶¶ 20-21. Croom and Moore instructed Newsome to stop criticizing the ratio and reprimanded Newsome for her advocacy work. Id. ¶ 22; see Pls.' Mem. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss [D.E. 22] 3.

During the 2008-2009 school year, Newsome taught her special education class of ten students with the help of a single teaching assistant. Am. Compl. ¶ 26. The teaching assistant was incompetent, and Board evaluators concluded that the teaching assistant failed to meet the requirements necessary for working with students with intensive needs. See id. ¶¶ 27-28. Despite being aware of the teaching assistant's incompetence, the Board, Croom, and Moore did not retrain, remove, or discipline the teaching assistant. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Newsome also informed Croom and Moore that her classroom lacked the educational resources required for students with intensive needs. See id. ¶ 31. The Board, Croom, and Moore did not provide the requested resources. See id. ¶¶ 32-34. Rather, Croom and Moore asked Newsome to stop reporting the violations to them,to relevant public officials, and to the parents of the students. Id. ¶ 34.

Newsome continued to communicate with the parents, however, and Moore and Croom formally disciplined her. Id. ¶35. Knowing that Newsome would become eligible for tenure at the end of the 2008-2009 school year, see id. ¶ 23, Moore and Croom also led Newsome to believe that she would be denied tenure and possibly lose her job unless she ceased advocating on behalf of her students. See id. ¶¶ 35, 37. As a result, Newsome ceased her advocacy. Id. ¶ 36.

During the 2008-2009 school year, Moore authorized a non-disabled student to assist with Newsome's special education class (the "student aide"). Id. ¶¶ 41-42. On or about April 2, 2009, J.W. left his classroom to use the restroom. Id. ¶ 42. A teacher noticed J.W.'s absence from his classroom and went looking for him. Id. ¶ 43. Upon entering the restroom, the teacher heard shuffling from one of the stalls and discovered the student aide alone with J.W. in the stall. Id. ¶ 43. J.W. appeared disheveled and frightened, and his shirt was untucked. Id. ¶ 44. On April 6, 2009, J.W. disclosed that the student aide had sexually assaulted him in the restroom. Id. ¶ 45.

Newsome and J.W.'s mother reported J.W.'s accusations of sexual assault to Moore and Croom, both orally and in writing. Id. ¶ 46. Newsome and J.W.'s mother also presented Moore and Croom with a professional, written opinion that forensic evidence corroborated J.W.'s sexual-abuse accusation. Id. ¶ 47. Moore assured Newsome and J.W.'s mother that she would report the incident and investigate the accusations against the student aide. Id. ¶ 48. Newsome repeatedly asked Moore and Croom for an update on the report and investigation. Id. ¶ 49. Moore and Croom misled Newsome into believing that they had filed a report and initiated an investigation. Id. ¶ 50. Moore instructed Newsome and J.W.'s mother to not report the incident. Id. ¶ 51. Moore and Croom did not report the incident or investigate the accusations. Id. ¶¶ 50, 53, 56.

Despite knowing about the incident, Moore and Croom continued to permit the student aide to work with intensive-needs students. Id. ¶¶ 54-55, 57. Newsome reported to Moore and Croom that teachers continued to find the student aide alone with intensive-needs students in the hallway and restrooms. See id. ¶ 60. Moreover, the student aide's return to the special education classroom caused J.W. emotional and psychological trauma that forced J.W. to miss several days of school and seek professional treatment. Id. ¶¶ 58-59.¹ In addition, Newsome informed Moore and Croom that another intensive-needs student accused the student aide of sexual assault and was suffering emotional and psychological trauma. Id. ¶¶ 61-62. Moore and Croom still did not intervene. Id. ¶¶ 60-61, 63. Rather, Moore and Croom gave the student aide an award for the student's volunteer work with the intensive-needs students. Id. ¶ 64.

Newsome continued to report the accusations made by me intensive-needs students. Id. ¶ 65. Moore threatened to fire Newsome if she continued to report the accusations and to inquire about an investigation into J.W.'s accusations. Id. Newsome did not relent. Id. ¶ 66. As a result of Newsome's persistence and her earlier advocacy about the teacher-student ratio, Moore informed Newsome that Moore would recommend to the Board that it not renew Newsome's contract. Id. ¶ 67. The Board routinely adopted Moore's employment recommendations. Id. ¶¶ 68-69. Moore then threatened Newsome that if she did not resign voluntarily, she would never again teach intensive-needs students in North Carolina public schools. Id. ¶ 70.

Because of Moore's threats, Newsome initially did not ask the Board to renew her contract. Id. ¶ 71. Newsome changed her mind, however, and rescinded her resignation letter and notified Croom that she wanted to renew her contract and seek tenure. Id. ¶ 72. Croom refused to submitNewsome's contract to the Board for renewal. Id. ¶ 73. The Board, aware of Croom's decision and the reasons for it, approved Croom's decision to not renew Newsome's contract. Id. ¶ 74.

II.

On December 7, 2011, J.W., by and through his parent and guardian, and Newsome initiated this action against Croom and Moore, both in their individual and official capacities, and the Board. See Compl. [D.E. 1]. On February 6, 2012, defendants answered the complaint [D.E. 16] and moved to dismiss portions of the complaint [D.E. 14-15]. On March 1, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. See Am. Compl.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert the following claims:

(1) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board conspired to create a hostile educational environment for and discriminate against J.W. based on bis gender and disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, Title DC of the Education Amendment of 1972 ("Title DC"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Seeid. ¶¶ 78-91.

(2) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board conspired to conceal evidence of J.W.'s sexual abuse because of bis gender and disability, when they would not have done the same for a non-disabled child, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 19 of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. Seeid. ¶¶ 92-98.

(3) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board retaliated against Newsome for attempting to enforce the rights of the intensive-needs students, in violation of the ADA, Section 504, Title DC, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Seeid. ¶¶ 99-108: seealsoid. ¶ 91.

(4) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board retaliated against Newsome for voicing her concerns about the School's treatment of the intensive-needs students, in violation of the First Amendment. Seeid. ¶¶ 109-17.

(5) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board are liable as supervisors for being "deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of... disabled children at [the School]" by failing to prevent the student aide from sexuallyassaulting intensive-needs students. Seeid. ¶¶ 118-25.

(6) Moore and Croom, acting in their individual capacities, and the Board, based on the

...