K.C. v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-3010,19-3010 |
| Citation | 983 F.3d 365 |
| Parties | K.C., a minor, Plaintiff - Appellant v. Mark MAYO ; Doug Summers ; Jeffrey Curley; Marshfield R-1 School District, Defendants - Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Jeffrey Michael Bauer, of Springfield, MO. The following attorneys also appeared on the appellant brief; Steve Bret Garner, of Springfield, MO., Jacob A. Lewis, of Springfield, MO.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee Mark Mayo was Jessica M. Bernard, of Kansas City, MO. The following attorneys also appeared on the brief of Mark Mayo; Kathryn T. Alsobrook, of Kansas City, MO., Ryan T. Fry, of Kansas City, MO..
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellees Mr. Doug Summers, Mr. Jeffrey Curley and Marshfield R-1 School District was Jeffrey Andrew Marriott, of Independence, MO. The following attorney also appeared on the brief of Mr. Doug Summers, Mr. Jeffrey Curley and Marshfield R-1 School District; Brian J. Mayer, of Independence, MO.
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
K.C. appeals from the district court's1 adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Marshfield R-1 School District ("the District") and three individual school officials in this case involving allegations of sexual abuse and harassment by a teacher and coach, Johnna Feazell. We affirm.
Between 2012 and 2013, K.C. was an eighth-grade student (and subsequently a rising ninth-grade student) at the District's Junior High School. Feazell was K.C.’s English teacher and her track and softball coach. In the spring and early summer of 2013, K.C.’s mother permitted K.C. to spend time with Feazell outside of school and school-sponsored activities. As examples, K.C. and Feazell went biking together, K.C. once stayed at Feazell's house while her mother went shopping in Springfield, and K.C. went on a trip with Feazell to watch a softball game at the University of Missouri.
In June 2013, K.C.’s mother found two undated letters in which Feazell professed her heartfelt love for K.C. K.C.’s mother brought the letters to the Junior High Principal, Jeffrey Curley.2 K.C.’s mother testified during her deposition that she believed the letters were "highly inappropriate," but she did not have any reason to believe a sexual contact had occurred. Curley agreed the letters were inappropriate, but interpreted them (and the mother's concern) as Feazell "over-stepping her bounds ... trying to be the mom." The letters do not indicate a sexual relationship between K.C. and Feazell, and there is no evidence that in June 2013 anyone believed a romantic or physical relationship existed involving K.C. and Feazell.
Approximately two weeks later, K.C.’s mother returned to the school and showed Curley text messages between K.C. and Feazell found on K.C.’s phone. While the text messages no longer exist, neither K.C.’s mother nor Curley have made any claim that the messages suggested a sexual relationship. Instead, K.C.’s mother saw the texts as demonstrating Feazell's increased anxiety (which she described as "panicked" and "desperate") about K.C. not returning her calls or messages. Around this time Curley consulted with Superintendent Mark Mayo about Feazell's conduct.
On June 17, 2013, Curley and a teacher's union representative met with Feazell. Curley gave directions to Feazell to stop texting or writing K.C., to communicate with K.C. only about school-related issues, and to involve another adult if personal issues arose. Curley also directed Feazell to report any non-school related communications or attempted communications from K.C. to either Curley or Assistant Principal Doug Summers. Curley later moved into the role of Principal at the High School, while Summers became Principal at the Junior High. As the new school year approached in August, Summers met with Feazell to remind her of the no-out-of-school-contact ("no-contact") prohibition with K.C.
In early September 2013, K.C. was invited to spend the night at the home of a friend whose mother happened to be an elementary school teacher in the District. Feazell contacted the teacher and asked for permission to pick up K.C. from the sleepover. Feazell explained this rather odd request by informing the other teacher that K.C.’s "home life was horrible," and she was "fixing a bedroom" in her house for K.C. The teacher did not allow the contact, and reported the incident to her elementary school counselor and principal. On their advice, the teacher showed Principal Summers the text messages she had received from Feazell. Summers in turn showed the text messages to then-Superintendent Mayo, and at some point Principal Curley became aware of the incident. Principal Summers confronted Feazell and asked her about the text messages. Feazell initially denied sending the messages but eventually admitted to sending them claiming she was only checking on K.C. On October 9, 2013, then-Superintendent Mayo wrote a Notice of Deficiency letter to Feazell, citing her continued communications with K.C., despite the earlier no-contact prohibition. The letter served as a "statutory warning" that formal charges and/or employment termination would follow if her behavior did not improve.
Approximately one year later, K.C.’s mother discovered a phone that Feazell had purchased for K.C. to facilitate clandestine communications between the two. K.C.’s mother discovered text messages on the phone that evidenced sexual activity between Feazell and K.C. On October 13, 2014, K.C.’s mother brought the phone to Principal Curley. Upon seeing the messages, Principal Curly immediately contacted the police and placed Feazell on administrative leave. Feazell subsequently resigned and eventually pled guilty to four felony counts, including statutory sodomy and sexual contact with a student.
K.C. commenced this action against the District, Curley, Summers and Mayo, alleging negligence and constitutional violations by the individual officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims against the District under § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. K.C. appeals the district court's decision with respect to the Title IX claim against the District and the § 1983 claims against the individual defendants.
We review de novo a district court order granting summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor. Perkins v. Hastings, 915 F.3d 512, 520 (8th Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
Title IX provides that "[n]o person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ...." 20 U.S.C. § 1681. We have long recognized that a school district can be held liable under Title IX for the sexual harassment of a student by a teacher. Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 74–75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). And, supervisory school officials can be held individually liable under § 1983 for sexual abuse by a teacher, but "only if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights." Doe v. Flaherty, 623 F.3d 577, 584 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952, 955 (8th Cir. 2000) ).
Where, as here, the complaint involves allegations against school officials brought under both Title IX and § 1983, "our court has held that an official in these circumstances must have ‘actual notice’ of the alleged ‘sexual harassment’ or ‘sexual abuse’ " to meet the standard for liability. Id. See also Cox v. Sugg, 484 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2007). The same standard applies to Title IX claims against a school district. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KD v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 001
...the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor." K.C. v. Mayo, 983 F.3d 365, 368 (8th Cir. 2020). Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine dispute of material fact exists. See Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc., 989 F.3......
-
Doe v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 31
...of that student) fall short of creating actual notice.” KD, 1 F.4th at 598 (emphasis in original). K.C. v. Mayo is instructive. 983 F.3d 365 (8th Cir. 2020). K.C. sued her school district under Title IX and Section for failing to adequately respond to sexual abuse perpetrated by her track a......
-
Doe v. Saint Louis Pub. Schs.
...the Individual Defendants' arguments to the contrary, Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded West engaged in unconstitutional conduct that harmed him. Id. As numerous courts before have, this Court readily declines to adopt the Individual Defendants' contention that only “egregious” acts like rape ......
-
A.P. v. William Jewell Coll.
...did not give WJC actual knowledge that Z.P. posed a substantial risk of sufficiently severe harm to other students. See K.C. v. Mayo, 983 F.3d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 2020) ("That [plaintiff] alleged unsubstantiated facts to suggest the District somehow should have inferred sexual misconduct her......