B.W. v. Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County, 2024 W.L. 4300718 (M.D. Pa. 2024). On various claims arising from alleged abuse of former students, Federal District Court denies summary judgment for career technology center, ruling that claims did not extend to center’s participating school districts.
BACKGROUND
Title IX and Federal civil rights claims against public bodies often are interpreted broadly, but a recent decision from the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to extend liability against a career technology center to school districts who were participating districts in the center’s operations.
The Career Technology Center of Lackawanna County (“CTC”) is a vocational-technical school that is under a Joint Operating Agreement involving several School Districts. The Joint Operating Committee (“JOC”) operates the CTC, and the JOC’s duties include hiring and firing of CTC employees. The JOC approved the hiring of Richard Humphrey as an automotive technology instructor. But over the following two school years, Humphrey sexually abused nine minor male students in his automotive technology class. Plaintiffs also claimed that three other CTC teachers or teacher’s aides, the CTC’s Director and Assistant Director, as well as an outside educational consultant were told about or witnessed firsthand Humphrey’s sexual abuse or conduct. But the CTC did not report such abuse to law enforcement or otherwise discipline the teacher. Eventually a parent reported Humphrey, using ChildLine Services, and the police began a criminal investigation into Humphrey. Humphrey was suspended and eventually resigned; he was later charged and convicted of multiple sex crimes and pled guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault and one count of corruption of a minor. He was adjudicated a violent sexual predator and sentenced to serve 11 to 33 months in Lackawanna County Prison.
Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the CTC and several of the participating School Districts in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, with Defendants removing the complaints to Federal court. After pruning several of the claims, discovery was taken and subsequently the Defendants filed summary judgment motions on the remaining claims, including for Title IX Sexual Harassment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Violation, and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action for Failure to Train and Supervise. While the motions were pending, the Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint to include common law claims related to negligence and vicarious liability against the CTC and School Districts.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The legal standard for summary judgment motions is that such should be granted if the pleadings and discovery show there is no general issue to any material fact and from the facts the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding the Title IX Sexual Harassment claim, the Court found the issue was whether an appropriate person at the CTC and each of the four Districts had actual knowledge of the substantial danger Humphrey posed to students. The Court noted that such Title IX liability cannot be based on negligence but whether the defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to known acts of discrimination towards students and where such deliberate indifference to this actual knowledge caused the discrimination. Further, there must be an official decision by the defendant not to remedy the situation. The CTC argued that the students failed to show that an appropriate person at CTC had actual knowledge of the danger Humphrey posed to students. But the Court found abundant evidence that the highest-ranking administrators were directly told by multiple students about Humphrey’s abuse. Moreover, no administrator took any action to protect the students upon receiving reports of such abuse or even made an attempt to investigate. Such behavior was clearly indicative of “deliberate indifference” by the CTC. Further, it was clear that the Plaintiffs were intentionally discriminated against by Humphrey who was criminally convicted of assaulting them. That discrimination affected Plaintiffs’ training experiences at the CTC, in violation of Title IX.
The students argued that such liability should also flow to the School Districts. But the Court found that they failed to establish that an appropriate person at each District had actual knowledge of the danger posed. Pointing to the CTC Director was insufficient: the Court found that the Director was employed by the CTC, not the participating districts, and the district administrators did not have the authority to take unilateral action against Humphrey. Also there is no evidence that the JOC had knowledge that it should have terminated him prior to the state investigation.
On their Section 1983 claims, the Plaintiffs argued that the CTC and the Districts, through their policymaking officials, maintained and endorsed practices that resulted in violation of their constitutional rights, including the right to bodily integrity (such as being free from sexual abuse). The Court found the record showed the CTC’s policies and procedures for reporting sexual abuse were inconsistent with Pennsylvania law, especially as the CTC directed its teachers to report suspected abuse only to the school building administrator and not to ChildLine first. In its failure to report, a reasonable jury could find the CTC’s training deficiency was a result of deliberate indifference by CTC officials. But in extending this liability to the District, there was no evidence to show that a training deficiency on the District’s part, and none of the Districts through their JOC representative could have unilaterally approved any policy changes.
The Court also considered reviewed claims made under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (“Act”). Under the Act, public entities are generally immune from injury claims, but under a recent amendment, sexual abuse claims are excluded from immunity. The Court rejected CTC’s argument that its officials’ failure to report the crimes was outside the Act, to the contrary, such actions for failing to report were related to the CTC administrators’ official duties. Further, it was clear that the CTC could theoretically be sued for negligence for sex abuse, as well as for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims related to sex abuse. But there was no proof that the CTC knew or could have known of any incidents relating to Humphrey’s past. Further, liability could not attach to the individual School Districts as there was no employment relationship between the individual School Districts and the CTC employees.
The Court ruled in favor of the CTC on issues such as negligent hiring as no proof existed that the CTC knew of Humphrey’s past. More important, the Court overall granted summary judgment in favor of the District on any claims against them. While the Plaintiffs argued that as members of the JOC, the Districts were ultimately responsible for the activities at the CTC, the Court noted that career technology centers are separate legal entities from school districts and no evidence existed that any of the Districts were aware of the teacher’s behavior before his arrest.
PRACTICAL ADVICE
One could misinterpret the primary holding of the B.W. case and believe that participating school districts are automatically free from legal actions involving career and technology centers. But the true lesson is that any school entity must be vigilant in addressing sexual harassment cases. Even if a school entity has policies that address Title IX or sexual abuse issues, entities still must follow all requirements under law, such as ChildLine communications, and maintain training in reporting abuse incidents in order to preclude liability.
