PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County woman continues to stand by her claims that a local school district did not warn her that she was assigned to work with a student who had shown violent behavior, and as a result, that student attacked and injured her.
Hieshia LeGrande of Phoenixville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 7 versus Downingtown Area School District and Downingtown Area School Authority of Downingtown, plus Lionville Middle School, of Exton.
“Plaintiff was sent to defendant Lionville Middle School and subsequently assigned to help a 7th Grade student at the defendant school. Defendants knew or should have known of the student’s dangerous propensities, behavioral issues and violent tendencies. Despite this knowledge, defendants failed to warn or alert plaintiff of same,” the suit said.
“The student had a long history of being violent toward students, teachers, aides and others in the school, including tripping and causing injury to individuals within the school on many occasions. On or about Nov. 20, 2019, shortly after being assigned to the student, plaintiff was severely injured when the student tripped plaintiff, causing her to fall the ground. Defendants knew or should have known that the student would attempt to and would injure plaintiff based on numerous similar occurrences with others.”
LeGrande maintained she was never warned about the student’s violence towards others, yet was told afterward by those working for defendants that the student was “very violent and often would trip and attack teachers and other aides” – and despite this, the defendants allegedly failed to act on such knowledge to prevent injury to plaintiff or anyone else prior to this incident.
As a result of the fall, LeGrande said she suffered injuries to her right knee, left side, left shoulder, left shoulder tear, left wrist with carpal tunnel, left ulnar neuropathy and wrist derangement, low back with disc injuries and radiating pain with radicular symptoms.
“Defendants’ policies and procedures failed to require, but should have required, disclosure of the student’s behavioral and violent past to plaintiff who was directly assigned to him when it was or should have been known to defendants that the exact type of incident that occurred, had occurred previously,” per the suit.
“As a direct and proximate cause of the deliberate and/or reckless indifference of defendants, plaintiff suffered severe physical pain and suffering, humiliation, mental anguish, fear, physical injuries, economic loss, scarring and disfigurement.”
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on April 5, charging that LeGrande did not demonstrate liability to them for her unspecified civil rights claims, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and what most closely resembled a state-created danger theory.
This led the plaintiff to file an amended complaint on April 19, and the defendants likewise filed a second motion to dismiss the case on May 5.
“In this case, the allegations of plaintiff are only that defendants allegedly failed to warn her that the particular student to which she was assigned had allegedly acted out violently in the past. There is nothing averred to suggest that defendants knowingly and intentionally with malice placed the plaintiff, an aide whose job it was to work with special needs students, in a position that they knew she would be injured,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Though plaintiff added language in her amended complaint to aver that the actions of the defendants ‘shocked the conscience,’ this addition amounts to nothing more than conclusory language.”
According to the defendants, nothing in the plaintiff’s complaint substantiated her allegations under a state-created danger theory of liability.
“The only affirmative act alleged is that plaintiff contends defendants ‘assigned her’ to this particular student. In that the nature of plaintiff’s employment was an aide working with special needs students, assignment to work with a student cannot in and of itself constitute an affirmative action on the part of defendants that would rise to the level of ‘creating’ a danger to plaintiff,” per the motion.
“Therefore, it is submitted that plaintiff has failed to plead any facts which would support a finding under the fourth prong of the state created danger requirements. Again, in her amended complaint, plaintiff has added language amounting to nothing more than legal conclusions to support her claims; however, there are no new or additional facts pled which would support any of plaintiff’s claims in this matter.”
The defendants say that, at most, the plaintiff’s claims would be best pled under a failure to warn liability theory in state court, not under a state-created danger theory in federal court.
“Such a claim may support a finding of negligence; however, there is no basis for a finding of a constitutional violation that would in any manner support plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As such, at most plaintiff has pled facts that would support claims that would be appropriate in state court, not before this Honorable Court,” the motion stated.
UPDATE
The plaintiff responded to the defendants’ second attempt to dismiss her complaint by reiterating her claims and denying the defendants’ contrary allegations.
“It is admitted that plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable as they created a ‘state-created danger’ which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries. It is denied, as these allegations are clearly identified throughout plaintiff’s amended complaint. It is denied, as the facts and allegations of plaintiff’s claims are contained in plaintiff’s amended complaint, which speaks for itself,” the response filing stated.
“It is admitted that plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable under violations of Section 1983, which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries. It is denied, as the facts and allegations of plaintiff’s claims are contained in plaintiff’s amended complaint, which speaks for itself.”
For counts of civil rights claims in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, costs, attorneys’ fees and any other relief, including declaratory relief, that the acts of defendants were unconstitutional, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Thomas F. Sacchetta of Sacchetta & Baldino, in Media.
The defendants are represented by Joseph P. Connor III and Julia Jacobelli of Connor Weber & Oberlies, in Paoli.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00078
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com