Thomas v. the Bd. of Educ. of The Brandywine Sch. Sch. Dist.

• Citation: 759 F.Supp.2d 477
• Decision Date: 30 December 2010
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 08–205–LPS.
• Parties: Kia THOMAS and Jerome Pitts, Sr., as guardians ad litem for JP, a minor, Plaintiff,v.The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BRANDYWINE SCHOOL SCHOOL DISTRICT and Dr. Bruce Harter, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

759 F.Supp.2d 477

Kia THOMAS and Jerome Pitts, Sr., as guardians ad litem for JP, a minor, Plaintiff,

v.The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BRANDYWINE SCHOOL SCHOOL DISTRICT and Dr. Bruce Harter, Defendants.

Civ. No. 08–205–LPS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Dec. 30, 2010.

Thomas C. Crumplar, Robert Jacobs, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Reanne Warner, Thomas S. Neuberger, The Neuberger Firm, P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.David H. Williams, James H. McMackin III, Allyson M. Britton, Morris James, LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.

OPINION

STARK, District Judge:I. INTRODUCTION

This federal civil rights action presents the question of whether the Brandywine School District School Board and Superintendent maintained a custom or policy of deliberate indifference that permitted one of its teachers to violate the constitutional rights of one of its students. It also poses the issue of whether the Superintendent knew of or acquiesced in the teacher's conduct. Finally, even if the record does not justify proceeding to trial on the plaintiff's federal cause of action, the Court must consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims.

Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, seeking judgment on all counts. (D.I. 69) For the reasons described below, the Court will grant this motion in part and deny it in part.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The nature of this case necessitates devoting substantial space to laying out the facts, as they appear from the record, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (as the non-moving party).

Plaintiff is JP, a minor, who at the times pertinent to this suit was a student at Claymont Elementary School (“Claymont”) in the Brandywine School District (“District”). JP is a male. This suit was filed by Kia Thomas and Jerome Pitts, Sr. as guardians ad litem for JP (“Plaintiff”).

In 2002, Defendant Brandywine School District hired Defendant Rachel Holt (“Holt”), a female, to teach in the District. (D.I. 70 at 15) ¹ Holt had previously worked for five years outside the District in various schools in and around Wilmington, Delaware.² Pursuant to District policy, the District had conducted a criminal background check on Holt before offering her a teaching position, and that check revealed no prior criminal activity. (D.I. 71 at A91–92)

During the 2003–04 academic year, Holt was assigned to teach sixth grade at Claymont, an elementary school within the District, (D.I. 71 at A93) Claymont's principal was Betty Pinchin, and the assistant principal was George Thompson. Holt's evaluations in 2003–04 were mostly “exemplary” and “effective.” ( Id. at A94–95) Her evaluations specifically indicated, however, that she needed to establish “a plan for more effective behavior management at the onset of the new school year.” ( Id.)

The following year, 2004–05, Holt received less positive evaluations. Assistant Principal Thompson determined that “[n]egative interactions with students need[ ] to be closely monitored and avoided at all cost.... Ms. Holt needs to work hard at toning down the rhetoric used to address all students in class and around the building.” ( Id. at A96–97) Thompson's concerns appear to have centered on encouraging Holt to approach students in a “more positive and non-confrontational manner.” ( Id.)

In the 2005–06 school year, Plaintiff JP was a student in one of Defendant Holt's sixth grade science classes. (D.I. 77 at B327) At the beginning of the 2005–06 school year, Holt was placed on an individual “progressive improvement plan,” in which Holt was to receive more classroom observations and was expected to do outside reading on improving her teaching methods. ( Id. at A98–99) Progressive discipline is the regular process that the District uses when disciplining its teachers. ( Id. at A71–77) Pursuant to Holt's individualized plan, Thompson and Pinchin observed Holt in her classroom, in October and December 2005, respectively. Both Pinchin and Thompson recognized positive aspects of Holt's performance, but also noted that Holt needed to be careful to be more sensitive because she might come across as too harsh to students sometimes. ( Id. at A104–08)

At least as early as January 2006, Principal Pinchin began to receive complaints from parents about Holt's behavior. Pinchin and Thompson met with Holt on January 11, 2006. On January 20, 2006, Thompson sent Holt a follow-up email “concerning issues that were discussed during our meeting on January 11, 2006.” (D.I. 77 at B177) Specifically, Thompson's email stated:

The following are issues regarding classroom and hallway observations that were addressed.

* Hip-hop music during class time.

* Internet car search during class time.

* Students not assigned to your class spending to[o] much time in your classroom.

* Giving your ok for your 6th grade students to push other 4th grade students out of the way during lunch switch.

Please be advised that this documentation is also a request that you make the necessary changes to address the above issues.

( Id.) (emphasis in original)

Pinchin and Thompson met with Holt again on January 20, 2006, this time to discuss reports that Holt was taking some students home in her personal vehicle. (D.I. 77 at B179) At this meeting, Pinchin and Thompson expressly instructed Holt not to drive students home anymore. ( Id.)

On January 21, 2006, Pinchin received a parental complaint about Holt, which Pinchin documented. ( Id. at B178) In a note Pinchin wrote that same day, she listed “Parent Concerns” regarding Holt:

Instant messaging kids 10:00 at night

Becoming more of a buddy tha[n] teacher—uncomfortable with situation

No homework. Doesn't believe in H.W.

I'm part of “cool” group not “Geeks”

Grades aren't important.

(D.I. 71 at A110; D.I. 76 at B123)

On January 27, Pinchin received a complaint from another parent that also focused on classroom instructional behavior. (D.I. 71 at A111) Pinchin and Thompson then learned that Holt had disobeyed their orders to stop driving students home. This prompted Thompson, on January 30, 2006, to issue Holt a “written notice and final request to cease this practice” of driving students home. (D.I. 71 at Al 13) In an email to Holt that same day, Thompson wrote:

On January 20, 2006 we briefly spoke to discuss reports of you taking students home in your car. My self and Mrs. Pinchin cautioned you about the liability of taking any students home especially those of the opposite sex.

At that time you stated that it was only [non-Plaintiff D,] and it was with parent permission. At the conclusion of the meeting it was established that you would discontinue this practice. It has come to our attention that you are continuing to take students home[ ] in your personal vehicle.

Please be advised that this is a written notice and final request to cease this practice.

( Id.) (emphasis in original)

Meanwhile, sometime between late December 2005 and early February 2006, students began to report to the guidance counselor, Mary Ann Giannotti, that there was “monkey business” going on in Holt's classroom. Much of the behavioral concerns that Counselor Giannotti and Principal Pinchin learned of at this time were from “the academic standpoint and the professional standpoint,” such as “phones being taken out in class, radios being turned on to music stations like Q102 ... kids were dancing on tables, standing up on chairs, not enough learning going on.” (D.I. 77 at B37–39) While Giannotti first recalls being informed of some of this inappropriate behavior in late-December of 2005 or early January of 2006, Giannotti only first reported these student complaints to Pinchin sometime in January or February 2006. ( Id.) On February 1, 2006, Giannotti sent Pinchin an email describing, among other things, reports of Holt disparaging certain students, allowing students to yell and curse in class, creating nicknames for students, and not enforcing the school's dress code.³ (D.I. 71 at A115–16)

While most of the complaints about Holt's conduct through late January were about classroom management (with the notable exceptions of the late-night instant messaging and driving students home after school), sometime around February 2006, accounts of Holt's behavior got “progressively worse.” (D.I. 77 at B39) This is reflected, for example, in Giannotti's February 1 email to Pinchin, in which Giannotti relayed that one student reported that, “Ms. Holt favors a select few [number] of boys and even sits on their lap. She [the student] has seen Ms. Holt kiss [two students] on the face.” (D.I. 71 at Al 15) In that same email, Giannotti mentioned that another student “[h]as concerns that Ms. Holt is weird with her kids and the boys pull her onto their laps ... The boys boss her around like she is their girlfriend, and she listens....” ( Id.)

The February 1, 2006 email also states: “Ms. Holt took [Plaintiff] to McDonald's for his birthday ... [Another student] asked to go to McDonald's and Ms. Holt replied, ‘It's my baby's birthday.’ ” ( Id.) Another student witnessed Holt “many times sitting on [Plaintiff's] lap and kissing him on the cheek,” (D.I. 77 at B188) Another student's parent also indicated that Holt was seen spending time with her students on a Friday night at the skating rink. ⁴ This same parent indicated that she was upset that Holt was “wanting to hang around [her daughter] and trying to be [her daughter's] friend.” ( Id. at B42)

During this time, Pinchin reported some of these behaviors to the District's Director of Human Resources, Debbie Bullock. The disciplinary process at the District follows a procedure that attempts to comport with state law as well as adhere to the contractual obligations contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the District and the teachers' union, all while protecting students' rights. Typically, the District's disciplinary process starts with a documented...