ALLENTOWN – The Reading Recreation Commission seeks to dismiss litigation that one of its former employees committed repeated acts of sexual abuse against a then-11-year-old girl, and that it both failed to stop the abuse from happening and violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Jane Doe (a minor child by and through her father and next friend, John Doe) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 29 versus Reading Recreation Commission and its Executive Director Daphne E. Klahr, in her official and individual capacity. All parties are of Reading.
“On Dec. 10, 2019, Detective Heather P. Calabria, a County Detective with the Berks County District Attorney’s Office, was detailed to investigate allegations of suspected child abuse, regarding concerns of interactions between a 20 year-old male employee of the 11th and Pike Street Recreational Center, located at 1185 Pike Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, and an 11 year-old female child, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, which was occurring at the Recreation Center,” the suit said.
“On Jan. 14, 2020, Austin Lewis Quigg was interviewed by Berks County detectives and denied any inappropriate actions between him and Doe.”
The plaintiff added that three days later, on Jan. 17, 2020, Quigg was interviewed again and admitted to the investigating detective that he exchanged nude photographs between him and Doe, via texting and various social media platforms, including Instagram.
“Quigg also told the detective that he touched Doe on her buttocks outside her clothing and that she was grabbing his penis outside of his clothing. A forensic examination of Quigg’s mobile device resulted in the detective locating numerous nude photographs of Doe’s vagina and breasts. Quigg also admitted that there were two other occasions he took photographs of his genitals and the genitals of Doe, at the Schlegel Pool, another City of Reading facility located at 299 North Carroll Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania,” the suit stated.
“Quigg was ultimately found to be in possession of more than 68 photographs of the 11 year-old child plaintiff, including photographs of her vagina and breasts, and said photographs constitute child pornography as a matter of law. Even after Quigg was interviewed by the detective on Jan. 14, 2020 and again on Jan. 17, 2020, Quigg contacted the 11 year-old child plaintiff again and exchanged additional nude photographs and videos of them touching their genitals with his personal laptop. Quigg also took pictures of his penis and recorded an Instagram video of himself masturbating his penis and sent it to the 11 year-old child plaintiff.”
Quigg is now incarcerated at the Berks County Prison in Leesport, after being charged with possession of child pornography and various other offenses and ultimately pleading guilty to them.
UPDATE
Through its counsel, the Reading Recreation Commission motioned to dismiss the case on Dec. 6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“It is respectfully submitted that the allegations set forth in Count I of plaintiff’s complaint fall woefully short of meeting the necessary elements of a state-created danger theory based upon affirmative acts of the defendant. Critically missing from the pleading is the identity or description of any affirmative action that was taken by the RRC that placed the minor plaintiff in greater harm than she would have been in had the action not been taken,” per the dismissal motion.
“Had such facts been pleaded, an analysis of the DeShaney factors would likely be useful to assist the Court in determining whether the facts pleaded sufficiently suggest the elements. However, based upon a host of missing facts resulting in a failure of pleading, a state-created danger under the 14th Amendment, Count I of plaintiff’s complaint must fail.”
Furthermore, the RRC’s counsel said that it is equally ineligible to be the target of a Monell claim, since there was no factual support to suggest that it violated customs or policies.
Additionally, the RRC said that no liability was connected Klahr as an individual.
“Plaintiff cites no facts that connect any identified policy or custom that defendant Klahr allegedly either did personally, or failed to employ, that created an unreasonable risk of harm to the minor plaintiff by Austin Lewis Quigg. By simply alleging that defendant Klahr ‘failed to’ create a culture of awareness of Austin Lewis Quigg’s tendencies towards the minor plaintiff that, if implemented, would have protected the minor plaintiff from him, plaintiff falls short of meeting the requisite standards of pleading under the jurisprudence of our Circuit,” the motion said.
“Neither does this pleading identify any specific alleged supervisory act, practice or procedure that defendant Klahr performed outside of a written policy, which placed the minor plaintiff unreasonably in harm’s way in violation of her constitutional right to bodily integrity. There is simply no specific, factual description of the content of a policy, a custom or a practice that was unconstitutional on its face, or as applied by defendant Klahr, that caused plaintiff’s harm. Likewise, there are no specific facts describing a supervisory act committed personally by defendant Klahr that placed the minor plaintiff in harm’s way.”
Finally, the defendant argued that “no Title IX jurisdiction exists that creates liability for a non-educational institution” and with that being the case, Count III must be dismissed.
“Plaintiff has done nothing more in Count III than recite elements of a Title IX legal standard. There are no facts pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that would suffice to establish any element of a legal theory under Title IX. Therefore, plaintiff’s pleading of an alleged Title IX violation cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under Rule 8 or Rule 12(b)(6) and should be dismissed,” the motion stated.
For counts of violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1983 and Title IX, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in an amount proved at trial, for exemplary and punitive damages against the defendants for costs of suit therein, including plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and for such other and further relief as the Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by David R. Dautrich Sr. in Reading.
The defendants are represented by Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-04851
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com