PHILADELPHIA – Downingtown Area School District claims that a school counselor’s litigation - which alleges it was negligent in failing to warn her of her work with a student who had shown violent behavior - both fails to state a claim and is barred by official and qualified immunity.
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.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Paul S. Diamond ruled on June 23 to reject the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case.
“First, as alleged, plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable and direct given the student’s known history of tripping and injuring adults, including aides like plaintiff. Second, defendants purportedly acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety by assigning her to work with the student but did not warn her about his violent propensities or provide training on how to manage them, even though they knew of the high likelihood that he would attempt to trip and injure her, just as he had done on ‘numerous’ occasions,” Diamond said.
“Third, plaintiff was a foreseeable victim, as she was assigned to work with the very student who tripped her. Fourth, defendants took affirmative action increasing the risk of injury by assigning plaintiff to work with that particular student shortly before the tripping.”
Diamond added that LeGrande’s factual allegations make out a basis for imposing Monell liability: That the District and its leadership “intentionally implemented policies of concealing the violent tendencies and acts of students as a means of protecting the reputation of the District’s schools, these policies exhibited deliberate indifference to the risk of constitutional violations and these policies caused plaintiff’s injuries.”
“At summary judgment, defendants will have the opportunity, if appropriate, to argue an absence of evidence to support these allegations. At this stage, however, I am obligated to conclude that plaintiff’s amended complaint is sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, I will deny the motion,” Diamond said.
UPDATE
The defendant filed an answer in the matter on July 21, denying the complaint in its entirety as nothing more than conclusions of law which did not require a response, and asserting no less than 15 affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. None of the four students in the room where plaintiff was assigned had any history of dangerous behavior at any time relevant to this complaint, and none of the students had any history of ‘tripping’ or injuring aides or other individuals in any manner similar to that alleged by plaintiff,” the defenses stated.
“There was no policy or practice or custom of answering defendants which caused any constitutional injury to the plaintiff. Answering defendants’ policies, practices or customs did not play an affirmative role in bringing about the alleged injuries to the plaintiff. Answering defendants did not fail to warn plaintiff of any alleged dangerous condition; no dangerous condition or circumstance existed at any time relevant to plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ causes of action against answering defendants are barred by qualified or official immunity.”
The District added that punitive damages are not available against it, due to it being a municipal entity, and that respondeat superior liability is also unavailable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
For counts of civil rights claims in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 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