PHILADELPHIA – Springfield School District and three of its officials have denied that a lawsuit claiming they failed to notify a student’s parents that he was being bullied before he later committed suicide last year has any factual basis.
Gary Byrne (individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Ethan Byrne, deceased) and Genevieve Byrne of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 19 versus Springfield School District, the Springfield Board of School Directors, its Superintendent Dr. Anthony Barber and Principal Joseph Hepp. All parties are of Springfield.
According to the suit, in a group chat among politically-diverse fellow students and soccer players who were discussing the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging Black Lives Matter movement on June 2, 2020, Ethan made a racial comment to a liberal-minded teammate who had been defending Black Lives Matter.
The suit said Ethan made the “regrettable” remark of, “You’re saying counterpoints that have nothing to do with what I’m saying, because you can’t dispute n—s doing n—r shit.”
After being rebuked for his comment, Ethan admitted he was wrong for making it and profusely apologized. However, the suit added Ethan was subjected to extensive bullying when he returned to in-person classes the following October.
Furthermore, on the afternoon of Ethan’s passing, fully aware of the magnitude of the bullying Ethan had been enduring and its consequences on Ethan’s delicate psyche and emotional state, Hepp told Ethan to “Watch out, because people are pissed,” meaning numerous other students and their parents were angry with Ethan.
Allegedly, Hepp did nothing else, and did not notify or otherwise attempt to notify Ethan’s parents of the bullying or its consequences on Ethan, as the school’s policy did not require him to do so. The plaintiffs added the failure to notify them of the bullying and foreseeable impact it was having on Ethan deprived them of the ability to take any protective action(s) on Ethan’s behalf.
“On Oct. 19, 2020, seventeen-year-old Ethan shot himself in the head in a desolate wooded area. On that day and four days earlier, Ethan met and spoke extensively with Hepp, the School’s principal, about the unrelenting consistent bullying Ethan was receiving in person at school and through social media,” the suit said.
The suit argued that the District was at fault for Ethan’s death.
“Had Ethan’s parents known the dangers he faced at Springfield High School, they would have immediately intervened and secured proper help for him. Defendants, with utter reckless wanton disregard for Ethan’s well-being, and with full knowledge of the bullying he underwent, concealed and enabled a dangerous school environment to become even more so with Ethan’s death,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiffs now bring this suit seeking fair compensation for Ethan’s untimely death and to ensure that, in the future, students in the Springfield School District are kept safe and school administration institutes appropriate mandatory training and policies so no other instances of bullying and aggressive behavior are hidden from the parents of the students with grievous consequences.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on Sept. 20, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims are groundless and not legally supported.
“Here, there are simply no facts pled demonstrating an awareness on the part of the District (or Mr. Hepp individually) of a risk to plaintiffs. To the contrary, the allegations set forth in the complaint confirm that there was no indication that Ethan was in danger of committing suicide or that he was ever bullied. Indeed, parents expressly confirm that they were unaware of any issues Ethan was having at school, or otherwise,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Moreover, the facts pled regarding Ethan’s limited interactions with Mr. Hepp demonstrate that he made no complaints about alleged bullying, and he expressly denied any involvement with posting or saying any racial slurs at any time – which appears to be the reason plaintiffs now contend Ethan was bullied. While plaintiffs appear to allege that suicide is a risk whenever a student is bullied, the Third Circuit has never held this to be true. To the contrary, the Third Circuit (and courts within the circuit) have routinely dismissed state-created danger claims premised on bullying in school. As plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that any harm to them was a foreseeable direct result of defendants’ actions, Count I of plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed.”
Though the complaint alleged that Hepp was “deliberately indifferent to the danger Ethan faced and his actions and inaction increased the risk of danger to Ethan” and further alleged that “Hepp knew Ethan was under severe attack for a regrettable insensitive comment he made many months before” – the dismissal motion argues that an actual review of the complaint confirms that “no one” had an understanding or belief that Ethan was in danger, and an absence of actions shocking the conscience.
“Indeed…plaintiffs confirm that ‘neither of Ethan's parents had any reason to believe Ethan could ever become suicidal.’ Similarly, like Sanford, the allegations levied against defendant Hepp consist of two meetings where (1) Mr. Hepp allegedly advised Ethan of an allegation that Ethan called another student a racial slur (which Ethan denied); and (2) Mr. Hepp showed Ethan the screen shot using the racial slur and Ethan told Mr. Hepp ‘it wasn't me and someone [probably] changed the name or something but I don't know why’ and Mr. Hepp believed him,” the motion stated.
“Unlike Sanford, there is no indication that any suicidal comments made by Ethan were referred to Mr. Hepp or anyone else at SSD and there is no factual assertions in the complaint that Ethan advised Mr. Hepp – or anyone else at SSD – of purported bullying. In fact, the only reference to bullying appears to concern that ‘Student #2 and her friends are behind me laughing and talking about me.’ As there are no facts demonstrating ‘conscience-shocking’ actions by defendants, Count I of plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed.”
For counts of state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, municipal liability, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be shown at trial, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; pre-judgment interest, such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Podraza Jr. of Lamb McErlane, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Lee C. Durivage of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03199
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com