Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Catholic Educ., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2021AP896 |
| Citation | 984 N.W.2d 744 (Table),2023 WI App 1 |
| Parties | Michelle JAUQUET, individually and as legal guardian of I. R., a minor child, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREEN BAY AREA CATHOLIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
¶1 Michelle Jauquet, as legal guardian of Alex,1 appeals from a circuit court order granting Green Bay Area Catholic Education, Inc.’s (GRACE) motion to dismiss her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)(a)6. (2019-20).2 Jauquet sued GRACE alleging claims for common law negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract based on GRACE's handling of bullying behavior that Alex experienced while attending one of GRACE's schools. Following Jauquet's submission of an amended complaint, GRACE filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Jauquet alleged that GRACE had engaged in educational malpractice, a type of claim not recognized in Wisconsin; that Jauquet failed to allege sufficient facts in her amended complaint for each element of her alleged claims; and that Jauquet's negligence claims are barred by public policy. The court granted GRACE's motion.
¶2 We affirm the circuit court's order granting GRACE's motion to dismiss Jauquet's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume without deciding that Jauquet does not allege educational malpractice claims against GRACE. Instead, we conclude that Jauquet failed to allege sufficient facts to state claims for common law negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Lastly, we conclude that Jauquet's negligence claims are barred by public policy.
¶3 The following facts are taken from Jauquet's amended complaint. GRACE operates a private Catholic school system in the Green Bay area consisting of nine primary and secondary schools. Alex attended Notre Dame in De Pere, one of the schools operated by GRACE, from fourth grade through eighth grade.
¶4 In the fall of 2019 during Alex's eighth grade year, a group of male students at Notre Dame, including a student named Thomas, began bullying Alex. Specifically, during a two-night school sponsored field trip in September, Thomas and other male students repeatedly called Alex a "slut" and a "skinny bitch." In December of that same year, Thomas spread "sexually suggestive and vulgar posts" on social media. While the social media posts were not specifically targeted toward Alex, she saw them. Some timelater, Thomas texted a picture of his penis to someone "as part of a solicitation to engage in sexual acts." Although the picture was not targeted toward any specific individual, it was widely shared with students in Alex's class. As with Thomas's social media posts, Alex saw the picture.
¶5 In response, Jauquet contacted Notre Dame's principal, Molly Mares, regarding the social media posts and picture. Mares met with Jauquet on December 11, 2019. Mares told Jauquet that she was aware of the social media posts, agreed that the contents were unacceptable, and promised to contact Thomas's parents "to take further action." Mares, however, did not contact Thomas's parents "or take any other responsive or protective actions" at that time.
¶6 Thomas's troubling behavior continued, and on December 14, 2019, he created a Snapchat conversation with other students titled "squeeze my wang."3 In that conversation, participants made "body shaming" comments about Alex. For example, one comment stated, "[I]f you weren't 50 pounds you would be hot." Around that same time, Thomas posted an "inappropriate sexual and derogatory video." The next day, Jauquet had another meeting with Mares to discuss the video. Jauquet also requested that the school impose "discipline on the offending male students involved by suspending them."
¶7 On December 16, 2019,4 Thomas "proposed to [Alex's] male classmates" that they purchase a rope for Alex and " ‘teach her to use it,’ referring to the use of a noose to hang oneself." That same day, Jauquet again met with Mares. At that meeting, Jauquet requested that law enforcement be called, but Mares "promised only to contact a liaison officer." Mares subsequently held a meeting attended by Thomas, Thomas's parents, Alex, and Jauquet. Before the meeting, Mares "was observed coaching Thomas in how to issue a rote apology." Thomas later admitted the apology was "performative only." After the meeting, Thomas was suspended from school for three days. According to the amended complaint, the suspension allowed "him an early start to his Christmas vacation and ensur[ed] that he would be done with [the] suspension in time to continue playing prominently on Notre Dame's basketball team immediately following Christmas [b]reak."
¶8 On December 17, 2019, Jauquet met with GRACE's president, Kim Desotell, and a liaison officer. Jauquet gave Desotell "substantially the same information available to Mares." In response, Desotell "explicitly supported and defended" Mares's previous decisions and "indicated [the decisions] would not be changed or overruled." According to the amended complaint, Desotell then verbally attacked Jauquet "for calling attention to the tolerance of bullying and sexual harassment culture at Notre Dame." Regarding Thomas's actions, Desotell "claimed that GRACE was unable to act concerning many of the sexual harassment and bullying elements." Further, the liaison officer "claimed not to have jurisdiction" to take legal action. Sometime after the meeting, Jauquet called the police, who came to her house and took statements regarding Thomas's behavior.
¶9 Following the Christmas break, a male student, who was a friend of Thomas, was suspended for threatening Alex while possibly referencing a gun. "[N]umerous" students blamed Alex for the student's suspension and "verbally or socially retaliated against her." In response, GRACE did not take any action to protect Alex from the other students’ blame. Desotell later told Jauquet that the student's suspension did not relate to Alex.5
¶10 Following the events described above, Jauquet filed suit against GRACE in federal district court. See Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Cath. Educ., Inc. , No. 20-C-647, 2020 WL 5016817 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2020). In that case, Jauquet alleged a claim for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as claims of breach of contract and negligence under Wisconsin law. Id. at *1. The Title IX claim was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Id. at *6. The court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Id. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissals. Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Cath. Educ., Inc. , 996 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 2021).
¶11 After Jauquet's claims were dismissed by the district court, she filed this case against GRACE in state court, alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence. In response, GRACE filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 802.06(2)(a)6., arguing, among other things not relevant to this appeal, that Jauquet failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted because the claims Jauquet alleged against GRACE were educational malpractice claims that are not recognized under Wisconsin law.
¶12 The circuit court ordered Jauquet to amend her complaint to more precisely define the scope and elements of her negligence and contract claims in order to succinctly assert causes of action recognized under Wisconsin law. Jauquet subsequently filed an amended complaint, alleging three claims: (1) breach of contract warranty; (2) common law negligence; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. GRACE then filed another motion to dismiss, again arguing that Jauquet's claims were educational malpractice claims. GRACE also argued that Jauquet failed to allege sufficient facts to state any viable claims, and, further, to the extent that she alleged a viable negligence claim, it is precluded by public policy considerations.
¶13 Following a hearing, the circuit court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state actionable claims. The court held that Jauquet's negligence claims were actually educational malpractice claims and were thus barred by Wisconsin law. The court further held that Jauquet had failed to state either a tort-based or contract-based claim upon which relief could be granted. Jauquet now appeals.
¶14 GRACE argues on appeal that all of Jauquet's claims—not only her negligence claims, as the circuit court concluded—are actually claims for educational malpractice. We need not address that issue, however; instead we decide the matter on narrower grounds. We assume without deciding that Jauquet does not allege claims for educational malpractice, and we address her claim that the circuit court erred in dismissing her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See State v. Castillo , 213 Wis. 2d 488, 492, 570 N.W.2d 44 (1997) ().
¶15 In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we apply the same standards as the circuit court, Meyers v. Bayer AG , 2006 WI App 102, ¶7, 293 Wis. 2d 770, 718 N.W.2d 251, and independently review whether a complaint fails to state a claim, John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee , 2007 WI 95, ¶12, 303 Wis. 2d 34, 734 N.W.2d 827. Ultimately, we may affirm for reasons the court did not consider. Anderson v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 203 Wis. 2d 469, 480, 554 N.W.2d 509 (Ct. App. 1996).
¶16 "A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." John Doe 1 , 303 Wis. 2d 34, ¶12 (citation omitted). "Dismissal of a claim is...
To continue reading
Request your trial