Roe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Reg'l Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 24 March 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-10792-FDS
• Parties: JANE ROE, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BELLA WONG, AIDA RAMOS, and LESLIE PATTERSON, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

JANE ROE, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BELLA WONG,AIDA RAMOS, and LESLIE PATTERSON, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-10792-FDS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

March 24, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAYLOR, C.J.

This is an action involving a high school's response to a reported case of sexual assault of a student. Plaintiff Jane Roe filed suit against the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District and several officials alleging that they engaged in gender discrimination, and committed various other violations of law, based on the way they responded to her report.

The incident in question occurred on November 1, 2013, during a high-school football game. At the time, Jane was 15 years old and a sophomore. The two boys involved were then freshmen, approximately 14 or 15 years old. Jane and the boys dispute what occurred, although it is not disputed that there was sexual contact. The boys contend that the contact was consensual, and that Jane initiated it; indeed, one of them has filed a separate lawsuit in this Court alleging that the manner in which the school handled his subsequent discipline violated his rights. In any event, for purposes of this summary judgment motion in this lawsuit, the Court assumes, as it must, that the contact was not consensual, and therefore an assault.

Jane reported the incident to a school counselor on November 7, who then notified Jane's mother (who was a teacher at the school) and the Sudbury police. The police asked that the school refrain from conducting any investigation until it had completed a criminal investigation. On November 12, the Juvenile Court issued Harassment Prevention Orders directing the boys not to have contact with Jane. On November 20, the police notified the school that its criminal investigation had been closed and the school could begin conducting its own investigation.

In the meantime, Jane and the two boys remained enrolled in the school, although they did not have any classes with one another. The school made efforts to ensure that they were kept separate in the hallways and at lunch. Although those efforts were not entirely successful, Jane and the boys had little contact with each other during that period. One boy was then suspended on November 22, and the other on November 26. The school held disciplinary hearings as to both; one did not return to school until January 2, and the other (who had a learning disability) did not return until March 10. Neither boy, however, was permanently expelled.

The school's handling of Jane's educational and emotional needs after the incident was considerably complicated by the fact that she also had a learning disability and was on an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"). Jane's academic performance declined after she reported the incident, and she indicated that she did not feel safe in the building even if the boys were not present. Her special-education team met on multiple occasions in the wake of the reporting of the incident to discuss various alternatives. Eventually, Jane and her parents agreed to an "extended evaluation" at an out-of-district school program at EDCO North Crossing, which she began on December 3. After substantial subsequent interaction between the special-education team and the family over the course of many months, her parents decided to enroll her inLawrence Academy, a private school, which she began attending in the fall of 2014.

Jane has filed suit against the school district and three of its officials, alleging claims of discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681); civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983); failure to train and supervise; and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all counts.

It is not generally the role of the federal courts to second-guess the judgment calls of high-school administrators when it comes to student discipline, nor is it appropriate to assess their actions according to a platonic ideal. Rather, the question is whether the conduct of those administrators falls below a statutory or constitutional floor, such that they may be found to have engaged in unlawful gender discrimination or otherwise violated a statutory or constitutional right.

Here, the principal question is whether the administrators ignored, or acted with deliberate indifference, to Jane's report of sexual assault and the issues that arose in the aftermath of her report. Those administrators faced a series of difficult decisions, made more difficult by the fact that the students were immature adolescents, at least two of whom had special education needs. However imperfect those administrators' decisions may have been, they cannot be said to have been the product of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, and for the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Table of Contents

I. Background .............................................................................................................................. 6

A. Factual Background ............................................................................................................. 6

1. The Parties ........................................................................................................................ 6

2. Jane's IEP and Disciplinary History Prior to the Incident ............................................... 7

3. The November 1 Incident ................................................................................................. 8

4. Jane's Report of the Incident ............................................................................................ 9

5. Lincoln-Sudbury's Immediate Response ....................................................................... 10

6. Jane's Return to School and First Week Back ............................................................... 11

7. The Second and Third Weeks after the Report .............................................................. 14

8. Jane's Interactions with the Boys ................................................................................... 15

9. The Decision to Send Jane for an Extended Evaluation at EDCO North Crossing ....... 17

10. Lincoln-Sudbury's Discipline of the Boys ................................................................. 19

11. Jane's Evaluation at EDCO North Crossing ............................................................... 23

12. Jane's Visits to Lincoln-Sudbury ............................................................................... 28

13. Jane's February 2014 IEP and the Remainder of the 2013-2014 School Year ................................................................................................................. 29

14. Jane's Enrollment in Lawrence Academy .................................................................. 34

15. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Investigation ...................... 36

16. Lincoln-Sudbury's Internal Procedures and Programs ............................................... 39

B. Procedural Background ...................................................................................................... 42

II. Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................... 42

III. Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 43

A. Discrimination on the Basis of Gender, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Count 1) ................................ 43

1. "Severe and Pervasive" Harassment .............................................................................. 44

2. "Deliberate Indifference" ............................................................................................... 45

B. Civil Rights Violation Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 2) ................................................ 62

1. Administrative Exhaustion ............................................................................................. 62

2. The Substantive Due-Process Right to Personal Security and Bodily Integrity ............ 66

3. The Right to Equal Protection ........................................................................................ 71

C. Failure to Train and Supervise the Sexual Assault Response, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 3) ............................................................................................... 77

D. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 4) ........................................................ 79

1. The MTCA Presentment Requirement ........................................................................... 80

E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 5) ...................................................... 84

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 86

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are as set forth in the record and are undisputed except as noted.

1. The Parties

In the fall of 2013, "Jane Roe" was a student at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School ("Lincoln-Sudbury"). (Def. Ex. 3 ("C. Roe Dep.") at 21). She was then 15 years old. (Compl. ¶1).¹

Jane attended Lincoln-Sudbury for her freshman year (the 2012-2013 school year) and a portion of her sophomore year (the 2013-2014 school year). (C. Roe Dep. at 31; Def. Ex. 30 at 2). She began receiving special-education services under an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") during middle school. (C. Roe Dep. at 23).

Jane's mother is a chemistry teacher who worked at the high school during the relevant times. (Id. at 19).

Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District ("the District") is a regional school district created under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 15 that...