Zell v. Ricci

• Decision Date: 30 March 2018
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 17–277 WES
• Parties: Mark ZELL, and Beth Zell, individually and on behalf of K.Z., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. Barry RICCI, alias, Superintendent of Chariho Regional School District in his individual and official capacities; Chariho Regional School District, by and through its Superintendent, Barry Ricci, alias; Ryan Bridgham, alias, Dean of Students Chariho High School, in his individual and official capacities; Laurie Weber, alias, Former Principal of Chariho High School in her individual and official capacities; Jon Anderson Esq., alias, Chariho Regional School District Attorney in his individual and official capacities; The Chariho School Committee, by and through its Chairperson, Sylvia Stanley, alias, in her official capacity; Craig Louzon, alias, in his individual and official capacity as the former Chair of the Chariho School Committee; Rachel McGinley, alias, in her individual capacity; The Rhode Island Department of Education, by and through its Commissioner, Ken Wagner, alias; Ken Wagner, alias, in his official and individual capacity; The Rhode Island Council of Elementary and Secondary Education, by and through its Chair Daniel P. McConaghy, alias; Daniel P. McConaghy, alias, in his individual and official capacity; John/Jane Does 1–20; and John Doe Government Entities/Bodies 1–10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

321 F.Supp.3d 285

Mark ZELL, and Beth Zell, individually and on behalf of K.Z., a minor, Plaintiffs,

v.Barry RICCI, alias, Superintendent of Chariho Regional School District in his individual and official capacities; Chariho Regional School District, by and through its Superintendent, Barry Ricci, alias; Ryan Bridgham, alias, Dean of Students Chariho High School, in his individual and official capacities; Laurie Weber, alias, Former Principal of Chariho High School in her individual and official capacities; Jon Anderson Esq., alias, Chariho Regional School District Attorney in his individual and official capacities; The Chariho School Committee, by and through its Chairperson, Sylvia Stanley, alias, in her official capacity; Craig Louzon, alias, in his individual and official capacity as the former Chair of the Chariho School Committee; Rachel McGinley, alias, in her individual capacity; The Rhode Island Department of Education, by and through its Commissioner, Ken Wagner, alias; Ken Wagner, alias, in his official and individual capacity; The Rhode Island Council of Elementary and Secondary Education, by and through its Chair Daniel P. McConaghy, alias; Daniel P. McConaghy, alias, in his individual and official capacity; John/Jane Does 1–20; and John Doe Government Entities/Bodies 1–10, Defendants.

C.A. No. 17–277 WES

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Signed March 30, 2018

Paige Alexandra Munro-Delotto, Munro-Delotto Law LLC, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs.

Mark T. Reynolds, Reynolds, DeMarco & Boland, Ltd., Sara A. Rapport, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, Jon M. Anderson, Brennan, Recupero, Cascione, Scungio & McAllister, LLP, James A. Ruggieri, Higgins Cavanagh & Cooney, Mark A. Fay, Murphy & Fay, L.L.P., Anthony F. Cottone, Anthony F. Cottone, RI Department of Education, Paul V. Sullivan, Sullivan Whitehead & DeLuca LLP, Providence, RI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

William E. Smith, Chief Judge

The case comes before the Court on multiple motions: (1) Rhode Island Department of Education ("RIDE") and Ken Wagner's ("Commissioner Wagner") (collectively, "RIDE Defendants") Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 12); (2) Rhode Island Council of Elementary and Secondary Education ("Council") and Daniel P. McConaghy's ("Chair McConaghy") (collectively, "Council Defendants") Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 14); (3) Jon Anderson's Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 22); (4) Rachel McGinley's Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 26); (5) Ryan Bridgham ("Dean Bridgham"), Chariho Regional School District ("CRSD"), Chariho School Committee ("Committee"), Craig Louzon ("Chairperson Louzon"), Barry Ricci ("Superintendent Ricci"), and Laurie Weber's ("Principal Weber") (collectively, "Chariho Defendants") Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 27); and (6) Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Jurisdiction and Notice of Family Court Dismissal (ECF No. 51).

I. Background

"I wish we could all get along like we used to in middle school. I wish I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone would eat and be happy."¹ Although the circumstances leading to this case started out with rainbows and smiles, it wasn't that way for long; it was high school, after all. To be certain, it was October 16, 2015, the Friday of the annual "Spirit Week" at Chariho High School ("CHS"): a day marked by "mayhem" and "school-sponsored bad decisions" leading up to the "big homecoming football game."² (Pls.' Second Am. Compl.

("Compl.") ¶¶ 39, 41–43, ECF No. 41.) In years past, for example, the high school permitted "actual hay and live animals" to fill the halls. (Id. ¶ 43.) The absence of live animals roaming the halls this year didn't make it any less of a zoo.

The day began early with the morning procession. (Id. ¶ 39.) Senior students sporting togas and armed with silly string lined up outside and prepared to march through the halls while spraying each other and underclassman who occupied the halls in witness and participation of the fun-filled event. (Id. ¶¶ 40–41, 46.) One such student populating the halls was Plaintiff, K.Z., a then-junior field-hockey player who donned her school spirit in her uniform. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 48–49.) K.Z., like many other students who watched the procession, came prepared with her own can of silly string. (Id. ¶ 48.)

As seniors paraded through the halls, K.Z., who had been standing among a group of friends on the right side of the hallway, sprayed her silly string in the air "indiscriminately" toward various other students passing her by. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 53.) Many other students sprayed silly string, too, both through the air and directly at other students, including in their faces at close range. (Id. ¶ 54.) Silly string had been flying from all directions.

Still standing among her friends, K.Z. took aim at a group of toga-sporting students positioned some distance down and across the hallway. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 53, 60–66.) Her silly string rained down on a group of two or more girls, which included Defendant Rachel McGinley. (Id. ¶¶ 66–69.) While K.Z. had her back turned and still conversing with her friends, McGinley began sprinting toward her. (Id. ¶¶ 71–74.) With her cell phone in hand and her right arm raised over K.Z.'s head, McGinley used the hard edge of her phone to land several "hammer blows" to K.Z.'s head. (Id. ¶¶ 77–80.) K.Z. fell forward. (Id. ¶ 82.) With her cell phone in tow, McGinley took a victory lap, laughing and smiling. (Id. ¶ 84.) K.Z., still confused and feeling head pain, struggled off to class, where she remained only shortly when Dean Bridgham called K.Z. to his office. (Id. ¶¶ 86–87.) When there, K.Z. had difficulty comprehending Dean Bridgham's comments, although K.Z. did understand that McGinley informed school officials that she had struck K.Z. in the head. (Id. ¶ 88.) After asking very few questions, none of which concerned K.Z.'s wellbeing, Dean Bridgham sent K.Z. back to class. (Id. ¶¶ 90–92.) K.Z. was called back to Dean Bridgham's office shortly after, where Principal Weber was also present.³ (Id. ¶¶ 7, 95–96.) After little questioning, Dean Bridgham informed K.Z. that she would face a one-day suspension for "fighting (or instigating a fight)" because the school concluded she had sprayed silly string in McGinley's face and called her a "bitch." (Id. ¶¶ 104–05, 111.) McGinley also received a one-day suspension for the same offense. (Id. ¶ 112.)

Visibly shaken and deeply perturbed by the news of her suspension, K.Z. called her father, Plaintiff Mark Zell. (Id. ¶ 115.) K.Z. was then directed to wait in another room where other students had been working. (Id. ¶ 116.) While there, friends of McGinley taunted K.Z. for McGinley "beat[ing] [her] up." (Id. ¶ 118.) At about 11:00 a.m., Mr. Zell arrived at CHS and inquired whether anyone had evaluated K.Z. for a concussion, to which school officials agreed "would be a good idea."⁴ (Id. ¶¶ 120–21.) The school nurse then evaluated K.Z. and immediately concluded K.Z. was likely concussed; a hospital confirmed that K.Z. had a "serious concussion" shortly thereafter. (Id. ¶¶ 122–26.)

Later that evening, Mr. and Mrs. Zell visited the Richmond Police Department ("PD") to file a police report "for the assault and battery of their minor daughter." (Id. ¶ 127.) An officer first told them that McGinley would be immediately arrested; however, without divulging its reasoning, the PD eventually informed Mr. and Mrs. Zell that the School Resource Officer would arrest McGinley at school the following Monday, and then that the PD would not arrest McGinley at all unless K.Z. was also arrested for "Disorderly Conduct."⁵ (Id. ¶¶ 128–29, 132–33.) Mr. and Mrs. Zell pressed school officials as to why McGinley would not be arrested, and their response was consistent with the PD's statement that she could only be arrested for "disorderly conduct" if K.Z., too, was arrested. (Id. ¶¶ 139–40.) Not satisfied with this response and because they feared "unjustified criminal charges against K.Z.," Mr. and Mrs. Zell dropped criminal charges against McGinley. (Id. ¶ 141.)

From this point, however, Mr. and Mrs. Zell launched a vigorous challenge to the school's decision to suspend K.Z. First, while K.Z. was at home recovering for about six days, Mr. Zell appealed her suspension to Superintendent Ricci and "wrote a detailed accounting of events as reported by K.Z., her friends, and the video." (Id. ¶¶ 142–44.) Although Superintendent Ricci asked to speak with K.Z., he wrote his decision that upheld the suspension before ever speaking to her directly.⁶ (Id. ¶¶ 145, 147.)

Next, Plaintiffs appealed the decision of Superintendent Ricci to the Committee. (Id. ¶ 154.) At the Committee hearing on or around February 23, 2016, Defendant Attorney Anderson represented CRSD and Superintendent Ricci, "prosecuting the upholding of K.Z.'s suspension." (Id. ¶¶ 157, 167.) The hearing was conducted by another attorney for the Committee, who Superintendent Ricci hired. (Id. ¶ 167.) During Attorney Anderson's presentation, he argued that "a cell phone is a teenage girl's most prized possession" never to be used as a weapon despite knowing that McGinley indeed struck K.Z. with her cell phone, while only presenting portions of the video displaying the altercation between K.Z. and McGinley.⁷ (See id. ¶¶ 168–70.) The attorney presiding over the Committee's hearing precluded Plaintiff from showing another video that allegedly displayed McGinley striking another student in the head with her cell phone on a school bus. (Id. ¶¶ 173–74.) In a decision signed by Chairperson Louzon, the Committee upheld K.Z.'s suspension. (Id. ¶¶ 180–81.)

Following the Committee's decision, Plaintiffs hired present counsel and took another appeal to RIDE. (Id. ¶ 182.) RIDE held a hearing in the summer of 2016, over which a RIDE Hearing Officer presided. (Id. ¶¶ 183, 192.) The hearing "included two full days with over ten (10) witnesses" and "resulted in nearly a foot of transcripts." (Id. ¶ 183.) One such witness was K.Z., who admitted to...