Sutton v. Kiefer Pub. Schs.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-369-TCK-JFJ |
| Parties | JESSICA SUTTON, individually and on behalf of minor child, A.M.R. Plaintiff, v. KIEFER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, an independent public school district; KIEFER PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, a governmental subdivision; and MARY MURRELL,[1] individually and in her official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) by Defendants Kiefer Public Schools (KPS) Kiefer Public School Board of Education (KPS Board), and Mary Murrell, in her individual and official capacity as KPS Superintendent (collectively, Defendants) (Doc. 42). Plaintiff Jessica Sutton (Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of her minor child, A.M.R., filed a Response to Defendant's Motion (Doc. 47) and separately filed the exhibits for her Response (Doc. 48). Defendants filed their Reply (Doc. 51), and Plaintiff filed an Errata to her Response Exhibits (Doc. 55), which provided two deposition transcripts that were missing from the record.
This case arises from an incident in which A.M.R., a minor child was exposed to an intellectually disabled boy with his pants down in the girls' restroom during an after-hours school carnival at KPS. After the school carnival incident, the boy-who was not a KPS student- continued to attend various non-school sponsored events held on KPS property with his family. Although there were no further incidents involving the boy, Plaintiff, who is the mother of A.M.R., contends that KPS inadequately responded to the school carnival incident and should have banned the boy from entering KPS property. To that end, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of A.M.R., filed suit against Defendant KPS, the KPS Board and Mary Murrell, the superintendent of KPS at the time of the school carnival incident. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims against all Defendants for negligence; discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); intentional infliction of emotional distress; and punitive damages.
Defendants now move for summary judgment, requesting dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff concedes that the Board and Murrell are not proper parties; that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim should be dismissed; and that punitive damages are not available in this case. (Doc. 47 at 20-21). Accordingly, Plaintiff's negligence and Title IX claims against KPS are the only issues remaining for the Court's consideration on summary judgment.
A. School Carnival Incident
On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff and her, A.M.R., attended a school carnival that was being held in the KPS cafeteria, where A.M.R. attended school. (Doc. 2-1 at, 2; Sutton Dep. 51:1-3). Based on the timestamps from KPS surveillance video of the carnival, at some point before 19:42:00, A.M.R. went into the girls' restroom.[3] (Doc. 42-2). At 19:43:07, a boy entered the same girls' restroom. (Id.) At 19:43:19-approximately 12 seconds after the boy is seen entering the restroom-a visibly distraught A.M.R. exits the restroom. (Id.) Based on the same security video, the boy can be seen in the distance prior to entering the girls' restroom, casually talking with two adults and two kids, who are ostensibly the boy's family. (Id.) The boy then casually makes his way to the restroom, and as he exits the restroom at 19:44:03, he is greeted by his apparent family. (Id.) It was later determined that the boy was not a KPS student, but that his mother was in a relationship with Darrin Nance (Nance), whose children were enrolled in KPS, (Sutton Dep. 88:2425, 104:1-3; Doc. 42-6 at 1), thus explaining the boy's presence at the school carnival.
According to A.M.R., who was nine years old at the time of the incident, while she was in the restroom, she heard someone banging on the door, and as she walked out of the bathroom stall, she saw the boy with his pants down (Doc. 2-1 at ¶¶ 12, 16; A.M.R. Dep. 17:23-18:18) and exposing himself. (Sutton Dep. 58:25-59:4). A.M.R. testified that the boy did not say anything to her, nor did the boy try to touch or grab her. (A.M.R. Dep. 18:23-19:3). A.M.R. told Plaintiff about the incident after they had returned home from the carnival later that evening. (Doc. 2-1). Plaintiff then contacted Cory Campbell (Campbell), who was the KPS high school principal and the district's Title IX coordinator at the time of the incident, and Plaintiff informed him of what had taken place during the carnival. (Sutton Dep. 63:20-23; Doc. 46-7 at 3).
Upon learning of the incident-that same evening-Campbell met with Plaintiff and her daughters at the school to discuss the incident and review the security camera video. (Sutton Dep. 65:15-66:21; Campbell Dep. 95:23-96:5). Two Kiefer Police Department officers, including the Kiefer Chief of Police Johnny Omara (Omara), and a school employee, Donny Murrell, were also present at the school that evening to review the security camera video with Plaintiff and Campbell. (Sutton Dep. 68:4-10). In addition to reviewing the security camera video, the police officers interviewed Plaintiff and A.M.R. that evening. (Id.) According to a letter from Omara to Mary Murrell, the Kiefer Police Department further investigated the incident, interviewing persons involved in the incident, and confirmed that the boy was a juvenile with a mental disability that significantly limited his mental capacity. (Doc. 42-4).[4] The Kiefer Police Department forwarded the case file to the Creek County District Attorney's Office and notified the Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Division. (Id.) No charges were filed against the boy by the District Attorney's Office. (Id.)
B. Subsequent Events on KPS Property On October 26, 2019-the weekend after the school carnival incident-Plaintiff claims that the boy and his mother were observed attending a little league football game held at the KPS football stadium. (Doc. 2-1 at ¶ 20; Sutton Dep. 86:9-16, 87:3-24). The parties agree that, although the game was being played at the KPS football stadium, it was not a school-sponsored activity. (Doc. 42 at 5, ¶ 11; Doc. 47 at 7, ¶ 11; Campbell Dep. 63:9-64:2). A.M.R., a little league football cheerleader at the time (and still is), was also at the game with Plaintiff. (A.M.R. Dep. 15:14-16:6; Sutton Dep. 86:15-16). Plaintiff texted Campbell to inform him that the boy was at the football game and told him that she was uncomfortable with the boy being there. (Sutton Dep. 88:15-17). Campbell, whose daughter was also a little league football cheerleader, happened to be in attendance at the game as well. (Campbell Dep. 97:19-21). Campbell responded to Plaintiff, telling her that he “would get with the superintendent and ask what [the] next step would be and . . . left it at that.” (Campbell Dep. 97:24-98:2). After conferring with Superintendent Mary Murrell, it was Campbell's understanding that nothing further could be done because the football game was not a school-sponsored event. (Campbell Dep. 98:3-25).
When A.M.R. observed the boy in the bleachers at the stadium, she was under the bleachers and then cheering on the field. (Sutton Dep. 92:7-21). Plaintiff stated that, upon seeing the boy, A.M.R. became tearful, stopped cheering, and walked over to Plaintiff to ask why the boy was at the game. (Sutton Dep. 93:4-22). The situation deescalated when Plaintiff's husband had a “cordial” discussion with Nance at the game, in which Plaintiff's husband explained to Nance that A.M.R. was upset by the boy's presence at the game. (Campbell Dep. 146:24-147:2; Sutton Dep. 88:24-89:13). After the conversation between Plaintiff's husband and Nance, the boy and his mother left the game without further incident, and A.M.R. continued to cheer at the game. (Sutton Dep. 89:15-22, 95:9-12; Campbell Dep. 147:2-4).
Subsequently, the boy was present at other non-school-sponsored little league football games. (Sutton Dep. 179:3-6, 180:5-17; Campbell Dep. 63:9-64:2, 209:6-15). A.M.R. stated that, when she was cheering at subsequent football games and observed the boy with his parents at those games, she did not leave and continued to cheer. (A.M.R. Dep. 23:22-25:11). A.M.R. further testified that, if she saw the boy at football games, she would just avoid him by turning around and going in a different direction, but notably, she did not leave the game because he was there. (A.M.R. Dep. 23:22-24:5, 24:20-25:11). In fact, following the incident involving the boy, A.M.R. has not been prevented from participating in any school activities, such as band, basketball, crosscountry, or cheerleading, (Sutton Dep. 169:1-9, 175:3-176:1, 194:25-195:1; A.M.R. Dep. 11:1820, 14:13-15, 15:11-16, 27:24-28:10, 38:11-15), nor has A.M.R. had any problems at school because of the incident with the boy, (A.M.R. Dep. 27:24-28:24). While A.M.R. testified that she still thinks about the incident and gets “a little nervous” about attending school events, A.M.R. stated that she did not have any fears about going back to school. (A.M.R. Dep. 27:24-28:14, 36:24-37:1). To the extent that A.M.R. articulated any limitations related to the school carnival incident, she testified that she wanted someone to accompany her when she uses the restroom. (A.M.R. Dep. 26:1-5).[5] Lastly, while A.M.R. believes someone should have been present to make sure the boy went into the correct restroom during the school carnival, she testified that she did not believe the boy meant to go into the wrong restroom. (A.M.R. Dep. 20:13-19).
Plaintiff acknowledged that she does not feel like A.M.R. is in danger while at school, but that her fear is limited to afterschool activities in...
To continue reading
Request your trial