Date: 11-06-2024

Case Style:

R.L. v. Knox County, Tennessee, d/b/a Knox County Board of Education

Case Number: 24-5002

Judge: Not Available

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Knox County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Knoxville Civil Rigths Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description:

Knoxville, Tennessee civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who claimed that defendant violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Defendant KCBE operates the public schools in Knox County, Tennessee. During the period at issue, KCBE had a Title IX Coordinator on staff and had established policies and procedures addressing Title IX compliance.3 It also provided annual training to staff on working with students with disabilities, Title IX compliance, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, child abuse, and other KCBE policies.

R.S. is on the autism spectrum and has complex intellectual disabilities, including significant communication and cognitive deficits. One way these disabilities manifest is that she “does not have a normal sense of time passing.” (Appellant’s Br. at 11; R. 51-2, PID 1414 (“Time is infinity to her.”)).

The events giving rise to this case took place while R.S. attended Powell Middle School (PMS) and Powell High School (PHS), both run by KCBE. R.S. had an Individual Education Program (IEP) that was developed and periodically modified by an IEP team consisting of her mother and staff members. Pursuant to her IEP, R.S. attended special-education classes in the Comprehensive Development Classroom (CDC). Kristin Farley, R.S.’s eighth-grade special-education teacher, trained peer tutors (students from the general student body who assisted in the CDC) and adult helpers to provide support for the CDC, like escorting CDC students to their general classes and to the bathroom. In addition to attending class in the CDC, R.S. attended chorus, to which she was escorted by a peer tutor.4

On September 27, 2019, R.L. texted Farley that R.S. had told R.L. that a boy “bothered” R.S. in the hallway outside the chorus classroom, but that R.L. did not want “to accuse someone in error due to [R.S.’s] perception.” (Doc. 56-9, PID 2469–72). More specifically, R.S. told R.L.: “my daddy be big mad”; “[s]top, I no like it”; and “1, 2, 3 let go” (a phrase commonly used to teach special-education students the socially appropriate amount of time for actions like hugs). (Id. at PID 2471). R.S. then brought her yearbook to school and used it to show Farley the boy who allegedly bothered her—Student A.5

The PMS staff investigated the matter. First, Principal Beth Ingraham6 reviewed Student A’s records. He had three disciplinary incidents, but none of those incidents involved sexual harassment and he was not scheduled to attend any classes with R.S. Farley then spoke with R.S’s chorus teacher, the CDC peer tutors, and Assistant Principal Virginia Powers, none of whom had ever seen R.S. and Student A interact inappropriately. Next, Powers reviewed several days of security footage from the hallway outside the chorus classroom, which also showed no interactions between R.S. and Student A. After Farley shared the results of her investigation with R.L., the two decided to “wait and see” if anything else happened because “it was not uncommon for [R.S.] to say people were bothering her in the hallway.” (R. 51-4, PID 1497). Farley also instructed the CDC peer tutors to report any future interactions between R.S. and Student A, as well as any other incidents in the hall outside the chorus classroom.

R.S. began therapy with Rachel Ross in November 2019. R.S.’s IEP team also met on three occasions shortly after the September 2019 incident: October 14, 2019, January 17, 2020, and February 4, 2020. R.L. testified in her deposition that she raised concerns about Student A at each of those meetings but did not testify to the details of the concerns she raised.7

The next developments occurred in Spring 2020. First, KCBE closed public schools in Knox County on March 16, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, around May 25, 2020, R.S. told R.L. details that led R.L. to believe that Student A raped R.S. in the eighth-grade bathroom at PMS in March 2020. R.S. conveyed to her mother that she had been sexually assaulted by saying a boy had hurt her, removing her clothes, pointing to her vagina, bending her hand back, pulling her hair, getting on her hands and knees, and laying on the carpet with her legs spread. R.S. then pointed to Student A’s picture in the eighth-grade yearbook. R.L. promptly contacted Ross and scheduled a therapy appointment for later that week. Ross then contacted the Department of Child Services (DCS)

On May 28 and 29, 2020, R.L. spoke with Ingraham about what R.S. had told her. Ingraham remembers R.L. telling her that R.S. reported Student A had “peed in her” in the eighth-grade bathroom. (R. 56-4, PID 2292–93). After Ingraham reported the allegations to DCS, she spoke with law enforcement on at least three occasions.

Law enforcement investigated the matter. As part of that investigation, they reviewed the school security-camera footage. When a detective met with R.S. in July 2020 to discuss the incident, R.S. led him to a different bathroom than the one where she previously said the assault happened. Detectives also interviewed Student A prior to his return to PHS and declined to bring charges relating to the incident. The investigation concluded with no disciplinary actions or criminal prosecutions taken against Student A.

R.L. took R.S. for a gynecological exam at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Summer 2020. The results of that examination were “consistent with [sexual assault] but [showed] no evidence of any permanent injuries.” (R. 56-12, PID 2560). The treating physician specifically noted that there was “a cleft of the hymen at 5 o’clock consistent with a history of hymenal trauma” and “a small tag hanging from the hymen.” (Id. at PID 2559).
R.S. began attending Powell High School (PHS) when KCBE schools reopened in Fall 2020. In preparation for the 2020–21 school year, R.S.’s IEP team met on August 5, 2020, to develop a safety plan for R.S. during her time at PHS. Among other steps, PHS assigned a teaching assistant to escort R.S. through the building, required staff to signal each other when handing off supervision duties, and placed a “flag” in the school scheduling system to prevent R.S. and Student A from being assigned to the same classes.

On March 1, 2021, R.L. sued “Knox County, Tennessee, d/b/a Knox County Board of Education” on behalf of R.S. (R. 1, PID 1). She brought three claims: one for Title IX violations (Count 1); a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count 2); and a claim under the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201 et seq. (Count 3).

Knox County moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. It first determined that both the “before” and “after” Title IX claims failed because R.L. had not demonstrated that KCBE was deliberately indifferent to any “actionable harassment.” (R. 71, PID 4079–83). The district court construed the constitutional claim as asserting two distinct theories of liability—one under the Fourteenth Amendment and another under § 1983. The court found that the Fourteenth Amendment claim failed for the same reason the Title IX claims failed—failure to show deliberate indifference. And the § 1983 claim failed because Student A—the person who On March 1, 2021, R.L. sued “Knox County, Tennessee, d/b/a Knox County Board of Education” on behalf of R.S. (R. 1, PID 1). She brought three claims: one for Title IX violations (Count 1); a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count 2); and a claim under the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201 et seq. (Count 3).

Knox County moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. It first determined that both the “before” and “after” Title IX claims failed because R.L. had not demonstrated that KCBE was deliberately indifferent to any “actionable harassment.” (R. 71, PID 4079–83). The district court construed the constitutional claim as asserting two distinct theories of liability—one under the Fourteenth Amendment and another under § 1983. The court found that the Fourteenth Amendment claim failed for the same reason the Title IX claims failed—failure to show deliberate indifference. And the § 1983 claim failed because Student A—the person whoallegedly harmed R.S.—was a private actor not acting pursuant to an official policy or custom. The district court then held that the TGTLA claim failed because KCBE is immune from an “alternative” negligence claim arising from the same facts as the Fourteenth Amendment civil rights claim.

Outcome: Motion for summary judgment granted.

Affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: