Students Sue Schools for Teacher Sex Abuse

never learned of the misrepresentation). 274, 290 (1998). to display deliberate indifference, the stantial control element is essential for title ix liability statute was designed to . . . impose civil liability on those next district with impunity. ancra imposes criminal abuse in the new district to incur title ix liability. id. at damages against her school district, but only if the who likely would assault doe-2 or other urbana students, defendant school's authority. cf. dimovski, 783 n.e.2d at foreseeability of a risk that white would harass urbana remedial action." davis, 526 u.s. at 644; cf. delgado v. sexually harassed several of his female students, that raises a duty to speak. neptuno treuhand-und mclean county school district for allowing white's create a direct link between the abuse and [the district's] wanton misconduct actionable under illinois tort law. and neglected child reporting abuse act, "school person- amounted to a "deliberate indifference" to white's harass- knowledge that the shooter had a gun or that the victim 8 no. 09-1936 a special or fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff nel" who have "reasonable cause to believe" that a student title ix for white's sexual harassment of doe-2 in school district does not have a duty to protect its student harassment occurs." davis ex rel. lashonda d. v. monroe have over white's harassment of doe-2 in urbana. sexual harassment before he could assault doe-2. doe-2 defendants violated their obligations under the illinois 2002 to 2005, white was an elementary schoolteacher school district before hiring him. ment. their failure to do so did not breach any duty owed included hugging students and holding them on his leg, our review. although a district court may relinquish school district to hire white or otherwise promoted his claims under 28 u.s.c. � 1367(a), since these claims were the only remedy expressly authorized by the statute is the eighth circuit dealt with a similar title ix claim law claims was indistinguishable from the asserted basis harasser no longer within its control would have a who fail to report." id. at 8. from this authority it 5 (ill. app. ct. 1985) (dismissing a claim against a institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. see allegedly knew of several complaints from students white entered into a severance agreement that, according ancra violation caused doe-2 to suffer white's abuse. with doe-2 and are no longer parties in this case. doe-2 no. 09-1936 5 at 645. because a school district cannot be liable for its indif- assistance . . . ." 20 u.s.c. � 1681(a). in enacting title ix, another from criminal attack by a third person." iseberg v. follow the specific limitations that the court has placed sion displays a deliberate indifference to the risk that tion also breaches a common law duty of care owed to these facts alone would not create a duty under illinois we review de novo the district court's dismissal of a abuse to occur. the case is more complicated, though, doe ex rel. doe v. white, 627 f. supp. 2d 905 (c.d. ill. 2009). doe-2, the defendants never said anything to her about this harassment occurred in an urbana elementary our decision also does not leave student victims like we also note, but reserve comment on, another case white; instead, we consider whether the district may be ized by white, sued the mclean county school employment record in their correspondence to the tions do not support the theory that the defendants the elementary school where white worked; dale b. willful and wanton misconduct left mclean county. a school district with unique knowledge that one of its to the school district's control, davis, 526 u.s. at 644, a congress sought to prevent federally funded educational 18 (ill. app. ct. 1998). as we have discussed, doe-2 has 820 n.e.2d at 423-24 (recognizing a willful and wanton cf. thames, 645 n.e.2d at 451 (observing that the the welfare of the plaintiff." ortega-piron ex rel. doe v. title ix's implied right of action allows a student who ment: jim braksick and edward heinemann, principals of to protect under these circumstances, where both the school officials, but these urbana defendants have settled nightingale home healthcare, inc. v. anodyne therapy, llc, no. 09-1936 13 yet even if the defendants did misrepresent white's under illinois law, a plaintiff pleading willful and mclean county defendants lacked "authority to take (rejecting abused arrestees' misrepresentation claim ship" with the plaintiff. iseberg, 879 n.e.2d at 284. illinois harassment. gebser v. lago vista indep. sch. dist., 524 u.s. to any active force which is under the actor's control."); sexually aggressive student from assaulting a known properly dismissed, but this claim was not so weak as to complaint under fed. r. civ. p. 12(b)(6) for failure to state concluded that doe-2, an urbana student, failed to the complaint's factual allegations before addressing the ii. analysis ployment with the mclean county school district, and the recommendation letter or verification form sent to ordinarily "has no duty to act affirmatively to protect violation of ancra's reporting requirements to contains an implied private right of action for money another complaint related to white's showing a sexually nothing in our decision today should suggest that school complaint for failure to state a claim. sharp elecs. corp. v. of white's sexual harassment amounted to a deliberate perhaps expanding title ix's implied right of action to teacher had daily contact); pesek v. discepolo, 475 n.e.2d 3, as noted, the defendants did complete urbana's verifica- claim has the additional requirement that the breach be "reasonable care to avoid injuring other people." cuyler, cluded in tanya s. ex rel. doe 1 v. n. cent. behavioral longer controlled white by the time he harassed doe-2 suggestive photograph to a student and commenting teaching experience form to the mclean county school jane doe-2 ("doe-2"), one of the urbana students victim- ancra's mandate to report child abuse does not create 14 no. 09-1936 employment there. on the contrary, doe-2's own com- claim for the school board's failure to prevent a known the federal courts in difficult issues of state law"). owed to her under illinois tort law. school bus driver); doe v. dimovski, 783 n.e.2d 193, 200 (ill. him, so we may assume that they suspected that white ity. since the defendants "lack[ed] the authority to take 2009) (resolving supplemental claims on appeal where trict's authority. see lawson v. city of chi., 662 n.e.2d 1377, does not give rise to a private tort action unless the viola- not alleged a special relationship--indeed, "no prior over such harassment to incur title ix liability. white makes no allegation that the defendants had any and parents relating to inappropriate touching between 362 f.3d at 953. while persons generally have no duty scope of control." id. of deliberate indifference to the latest point when the also sued the urbana school district and several urbana duty to protect others "applies only where the peril in student not subject to these defendants' control, and doe-2 plaint charges that the urbana school district never didn't control the urbana "context" of white's harass- mendation on behalf of white, neither of which men- school district must first have "actual knowledge" of the white's actions in urbana, they could control their own conduct. see id.; restatement (second) of torts � 314 students, even those outside of their own districts, from doe-2 identifies several mclean county school officials no doubt the defendants' alleged non-disclosure of fed. r. civ. p. 12(b)(6). the court reasoned that the a claim, accepting as true all of the complaint's well- 12 no. 09-1936 illinois tort law. for these reasons, we affirm. suffers sexual harassment by a teacher to recover of madison, 432 f.3d 732, 734 (7th cir. 2005). we have body at large against the general risk of criminal attack, expand statutory remedies through implied rights of chi. bd. of educ., 820 n.e.2d 418, 423 (ill. 2004). here, doe-2 has not alleged a special relationship include a school district's failure to expose a teacher- abused and neglected child reporting abuse act over doe-2's injury that could give rise to title ix liability, dants who employed white at the time of doe-2's injury. in the for her federal claim, and the district judge had devoted the safety of other female students). mclean county defendants. doe-2 was an urbana has suffered abuse must notify the illinois department quishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law contact with her before this lawsuit. doe-2 does not cite, support her private tort claims; she must identify a com- establish deliberate indifference liability under title ix; positive effect, discouraging school officials from require the defendants to act. under the illinois abused law claims without prejudice for the illinois courts to as in shrum, the mclean county defendants no 2001). the court concluded that the defendant school a special relationship. see iseberg, 879 n.e.2d at 288-89 no. 09-1936 11 no. 09-1936 in february 2007, white pleaded guilty to aggravated harassed doe-2 in urbana several months after he left i. background didn't control at the time of the assault. so even if the grounds). resulting from the breach. krywin v. chi. transit auth., 909 her state-law claims should her title ix claim fail. see the defendants did complete urbana's verification be frivolous. further, the factual basis for doe-2's state- for the seventh circuit and we are not aware of, any illinois case imposing a duty state-law theories. and finally, doe-2 chose to bring all not merely negligent, but with "conscious disregard for harassed his female students through methods that foods in their mouths using a banana, his hand, or his alarm, allowed white to quietly resign and obtain a law presented by doe-2's case, it would have been ap- gross, 879 n.e.2d 278, 284 (ill. 2007) (citing restatement stegall, 367 f.3d 668, 672 (7th cir. 2004) (opining that a to doe-2. history of sexual harassment. by directing white students massage him and wrap their legs around him. university could be deliberately indifferent for failing or be subjected to discrimination under any education defendants actively facilitated the placement of white in metro. life ins. co., 578 f.3d 505, 510 (7th cir. 2009). from 1389 (ill. app. ct. 1996) (dismissing a negligence claim the defendants should have told urbana school officials under illinois tort law. we affirm the district court's students is not enough to create a duty to protect, absent referring employer may be liable for failing to disclose theory is that it was the defendants' own actions that to obtain a job in urbana. ployment record would be material to a misrepresenta- bothered to perform the ministerial act of checking tion claim brought by the urbana school district. (we courts have recognized that some relationships between to protect against dangers created by third parties, they united states court of appeals for the central district of illinois. asserted a tile ix claim against the mclean county even if the attacker is another student subject to the dis- district. assistant superintendent pye completed the alleged misrepresentation on the form that white of teaching experience form on behalf of white at county's purported misrepresentation of white's em- still, the failure below to consider the possibility of illinois school officials an extra incentive (if they needed identify any duty that the mclean county defendants ment of doe-2, doe-2 cannot recover from the district against a former employer who concealed the abusing 6 no. 09-1936 the mclean county school district lacked the control substantial court time and resources to analyzing to a new school district and continued his sexual abuse. see sexual harassment. id. in addition to actual knowledge, 445, 449-50 (ill. app. ct. 1994) (same). on the other hand, claim conferring original jurisdiction before trial, it relin- mendation" for white, which again made no mention school district received the form from pye on august 29. urbana school district, doe-2 fails to explain how this ments, 325 ilcs 5/4-5/4.02, which we trust will give white's transfer to urbana, none of the alleged facts 16 no. 09-1936 student may acquire a duty to protect. see ortega-piron, to respond to harassment by teachers. as mentioned white and his female students, including white's having under title ix of the education amendments of 1972, 20 conclude that, at the time white abused doe-2, the defen- officials named above for failing to disclose white's claim to relief that is plausible on its face." ashcroft v. iqbal, around him, showing students sexually suggestive photo- f.3d 721, 727 (7th cir. 2002), we are constrained to no party argued for relinquishment); croplife, 432 f.3d and other authorities about white's suspected harass- which the actor knows that the other is placed is not due no. 09-1936 7 districts can quietly shuffle abusive teachers on to the steps to secure a new position for white in the urbana is that the known acts of sexual harassment be subject no. 08 c 2169--michael p. mccuskey, chief judge. third party whom these mclean county defendants 644-45. county bd. of educ., 526 u.s. 629, 645 (1999). this sub- urbana students, they still lacked the requisite control excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, iii. conclusion at around that time, the district sent a verification of concluded that doe-2's federal claim under title ix was no. 09-1936 9 new job in urbana. doe-2 claimed that this inaction white's employment record from the mclean county school district, alleging that the district's concealment from white's third-party attack, another possible tort brought by mclean county students abused by white. white's sexual harassment is troubling, and we hope that action, see smart v. int'l bhd. of elec. workers, local 702, 315 under title ix's implied right of action. davis, 526 u.s. and her state-law willful and wanton misconduct claims. moving to doe-2's illinois tort claims, we begin with a one) to disclose their teachers' known acts of sexual the district court dismissed all of doe-2's claims under sch. dist. no. 1, 887 n.e.2d 451, 456 (ill. app. ct. 2008) 1-22-10 willful and wanton disregard for her safety by concealing of white but didn't fire him outright. instead, the tort law. in cuyler v. united states, 362 f.3d 949, 952-53 harasser quietly resign, after which the teacher moved on remedial action" in urbana, white's harassment did not form and reported that white taught in his district for any duty to the abused child enforceable under illinois three complete school years, 2002 to 2005. the urbana a. title ix they also owed no duty to doe-2 enforceable under ancra did not provide a private cause of action for a ins. co., 578 f.3d 505, 510 (7th cir. 2009). to survive a to her, doe-2 runs into the familiar rule that a person sexually assaulting a member of the public off school need not be detailed but must be sufficient to "state a mclean county school district could not be liable under supplemental jurisdiction following the dismissal of all around the time that the urbana school district hired 129 s. ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting bell atl. corp. v. to doe-2's complaint, "intentionally concealed" white's relationship of any kind," id. at 817--with the defendants ("ancra"), 325 ilcs 5/4, by failing to report white's alternative disposition of a � 1367(c)(3) dismissal of in favor of an affirmative duty to prevent reasonably before cudahy, wood, and tinder, circuit judges. white would move on to another school district like heidbreder, assistant principal; alan chapman, superin- pending against these mclean county defendants jurisdiction of the federal courts. croplife am., inc. v. city in mclean county, ill. during that time, he sexually harasser). since the mclean county school district urbana. white harassed doe-2 after he ended his em- own decision to conceal white's suspected abuse while twombly, 550 u.s. 544, 570 (2007)). that would trigger a duty to speak. perhaps mclean under illinois law and then the urbana school district. during that time, knew of a teacher's sexual misconduct with one female ultimately, however, we conclude that doe-2's allega- control that the mclean county school district didn't claim over which the court had original jurisdiction. follows that doe-2 cannot rely on the defendants' alleged dismissing doe-2's supplemental claims does not preclude dismissal of doe-2's complaint for failure to state a claim. tioned white's sexual harassment. doe-2 makes much of abusive teachers. in that regard, we emphasize that n.e.2d 887, 890 (ill. app. ct. 2009). a willful and wanton defendants did control white, the april 2005 severance dants' actions, rather than white's, as the source of doe-2's district and various mclean county school officials indicates that the defendants encouraged the urbana to protect its current students from the risk of a known all of the mclean county defendants. she claimed that the 4 no. 09-1936 injured doe-2. illinois common law imposes a duty of appeal from the united states district court under rule 12(b)(6), nothing indicates that the district city of park ridge, 431 f. supp. 2d 810, 819 (n.d. ill. 2006) and pye also provided a "falsely positive letter of recom- criminal sexual abuse of two of his mclean that conclusion. the essence of doe-2's complaint is that of white's sexual harassment. in august 2005, the urbana school district hired white elements of a negligence claim, which are the existence of pleaded factual allegations. sharp elecs. corp. v. metro. life county school district and the five individual school do have a duty to protect against harms created by their to teach second grade at one of its elementary schools. pye, the assistant superintendent. these defendants misrepresentation would breach any duty owed to her. a above, doe-2 has already settled with the urbana defen- here, following the dismissal of doe-2's title ix claim mclean county unit district no. 5 u.s.c. � 1681(a), and illinois tort law. doe-2 alleged that mentally disabled student); green v. carlinville cmty. unit letting him quietly resign. according to doe-2, this deci- accept as true in this appeal from the dismissal of doe-2's doe-2's illinois tort claims. arising out of a school board's failure to prevent one would come into contact with urbana students. still, white, so we cannot see how any misrepresentations in no. 09-1936 17 vent. id. at 644. also raised supplemental illinois tort law claims against cannon v. univ. of chi., 441 u.s. 677, 704 (1979). although in sum, although doe-2 would have us infer that the no. 09-1936 15 and the defendants breached no duty to doe-2 enforceable student complaints of sexual abuse was "insufficient to teachers or students poses a particular threat to another tinder, circuit judge. from 2002 to 2007, jon white but even assuming that the defendants had actual in trying to identify a duty that the defendants owed to protect, but only under certain circumstances. a school district, all while concealing white's known ance agreement with white in april 2005, before the end ment actionable under title ix, as well as willful and of the school year. white's sexual harassment and thereby allowing him county pub. sch., 503 u.s. 60, 76 (1992). resolve. given the relatively novel issues of illinois tort (second) of torts � 314 (1965)). the direct source of doe- on title ix's implied private remedy. one such limitation provides that, with exceptions not relevant here, "no was in particular danger); thames v. bd. of educ., 645 n.e.2d injury. doe-2 argues that the defendants took deliberate doe-2, through her mother, julie doe-2, sued the mclean "passing" white to urbana. in april 2005, the district and dants lacked the requisite control over white to tion of teaching experience form and a letter of recom- although the defendants had no duty to protect doe-2 the position of peril that was ultimately injurious"). quietly shuffling abusive teachers on to another district. motion to dismiss, the complaint's factual allegations urbana and continue his sexual harassment. harassment. the mclean county school district, meaning that these a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately created the risk that white would injure her. although that would trigger a duty to protect on the part of the year, even though the defendants entered into the sever- these defendants knew that white sexually harassed arising out of a school district's agreement to let a teacher- (observing that the supplemental claims did not "entangle psychology clinic's failure to report sexual abuse by one because it does not involve the mclean county school a former employee's misconduct, if the employer has hamilton se. sch. corp., 551 f.3d 599, 607 (7th cir. 2008). urbana, since that harassment occurred outside of the 782. the school district's alleged concealment of prior that is so even though illinois statutory law would doe-2 also claimed that the defendants acted with student from shooting another, where the board lacked program or activity receiving federal financial no. 09-1936 3 wanton misconduct must establish the same basic ness. easily the most disturbing form of abuse was what v. the plaintiff. the illinois appellate court similarly con- no. 09-2523, 2009 wl 4894242, at *1 (7th cir. dec. 21, express no opinion on the merits of such a claim.) as for argued september 21, 2009--decided january 22, 2010 public school districts and their students create a duty federal claims, it is not required to do so, unless the health sys., inc., 816 n.e.2d 4, 7-8 (ill. app. ct. 2004), that (7th cir. 2004), we explained that an ancra violation agreement. even though the defendants couldn't control part of the same "case or controversy" as doe-2's title ix ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal person in the united states shall, on the basis of sex, be shrum ex rel. kelly v. kluck, 249 f.3d 773, 775-77 (8th cir. district lacked the necessary control over the teacher's including doe-2, using methods similar to those he used here, these mclean county defendants lacked the (holding that a school district owed the highest degree district took a series of actions that doe-2 characterizes as 2's injury was a criminal sexual assault by jon white, a district's control. as for doe-2's tort claims, the court of care to a student on a school bus, such that the district board of directors, et al., propriate to consider such a dismissal. see id. at 608 the school district must have "substantial control over the verification form, and in particular, the defendants' penis. school officials would be more proactive in protecting doe-2's complaint describes the facts leading to foreseeable injuries). "take place in a context subject to [their] control." id. at 20 u.s.c. � 1682, the supreme court has held that title ix mon law duty owed to her by the defendants. verwaltungsgesellschaft mbh v. arbor, 692 n.e.2d 812, 817- doe-2 claims that the defendants carefully orchestrated in mclean county. following his arrest by urbana police 2 no. 09-1936 tendent of the mclean county school district; and john sexual harassment of his students. heinemann, chapman, the mclean county school district decided to get rid taught for a full "180 days" during the 2004-05 school which white would blindfold students and then place doe-2's complaint describes as a "taste test game," in having students massage him and wrap their legs school districts, first the mclean county school district federal claims are frivolous and so do not engage the tricts. in this appeal, we address the liability of the common law to protect doe-2. comment on subject matter jurisdiction. the district court title ix of the education amendments of 1972 of children and family services. 325 ilcs 5/4. but defendants knew that white was a sexual harasser in urbana. recognizing this fact, doe-2 pegs her theory student-victim and the place of injury are outside of the knowledge of a risk that white would sexually abuse on her appearance. mclean county students but, rather than sound the cluding doe-2. app. ct. 2003) (finding allegations that the school board one common law duty to protect against third-party who were aware, at least at some level, of white's harass- court or the parties thought of dismissing doe-2's state- requisite control over white's harassment of doe-2 in doe-2 without a remedy for their school districts' failure several of its female students with whom the abusive 200 (recognizing the school board's potential liability to was an elementary schoolteacher in two central illinois cmt. d (1965) (the rule that an actor ordinarily has no defendants-appellees. district's failure to protect its own students from he sexually abused several female students in both dis- plaintiffs-appellants, white's harassment of her in urbana, facts that we had supplemental jurisdiction over doe-2's state-law the district court dismissed doe-2's complaint under the termination of the recipient's federal funding, liable for white's abuse of an urbana student after he attacks arises where the defendant has a "special relation- 18 no. 09-1936 it is not entirely implausible to characterize the defen- created the risk that white would harass doe-2 and, in toward urbana students in this manner, the defendants county students and eight of his urbana students, in- doe-2 appeals the dismissal of both her title ix claim student sufficient to show a conscious disregard for sexual harassment to state authorities, and that this ference to harassment that it lacks the authority to pre- damages, cannon, 441 u.s. at 717; franklin v. gwinnett fed. r. civ. p. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. we indifference to the safety of the students in urbana. doe-2 school district acts with "deliberate indifference" to the at 734 (same). accordingly, we will take up the merits of could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the of her claims in federal court and never requested the 10 no. 09-1936 officer's misconduct on the ground that the arrestees (declining to abandon the special relationship doctrine penalties for willful violations of its reporting require- student had not alleged that school officials "created jane doe-2, et al., her urbana classroom, the alleged facts do not support claims under 28 u.s.c. � 1367(c)(3). hansen v. bd. of trs. of urbana would advance doe-2's tort claims. see sassak v. school for failing to prevent one of its students from nonetheless, given the supreme court's reluctance to school where the defendants had no supervisory author- both the harasser and the context in which the known while teaching in urbana from 2005 to 2007, white so doing, assumed a duty to protect her. graphs, and commenting on students' sexual attractive- of its patients. the court found "no evidence that the