ALLENTOWN – Authorities in the Owen J. Roberts School District have denied allegations that they failed to protect a Chester Springs woman from being molested by her philosophy teacher when she was a high school student in 2020.
M.L. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 3 versus Owen J. Roberts School District, its Superintendent Susan Lloyd, its Assistant Superintendent Kathy Soeder and its Principal Ken Napaver, all of Pottstown, plus one of its former teachers, Stephen E. Raught of Reading.
“On or about March 16, 2020, Raught engaged in inappropriate, physical/sexual contact with the plaintiff, a minor at the time, including but not limited to touching and hugging and kissing her, stomach, legs and vaginal area, despite the District being on quarantine due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These occasions were not the first alleged improper contacts by Raught with high school children in his charge,” the suit says.
“While employed at the District, complaints about Raught’s inappropriate behavior towards female students, including touching, during the years of 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2015 were reported and upon information and belief a thorough investigation by the District was not conducted into each complaint. Upon information and belief, the District’s documentation about the investigation regarding Raught’s previous behavior was ‘scant and lacking details.’ Neither the District nor any official of Owen J. Roberts High School made any attempt to thoroughly investigate Raught’s previous inappropriate behavior and conduct, said investigation was inadequate.”
Raught was acquitted of most criminal charges but was found guilty of endangering the welfare of children. Prosecutors want him to spend 23 months in jail for it.
Despite the number of allegations made against Raught, a teacher at the school of 18 years at the time the events of the instant lawsuit took place, the suit states that District administrators took no action against him. Even after an independent assessment of prior District practices in this regard, Raught faced no discipline, according to the litigation.
The suit goes on to allege that Raught engaged in classic “victim grooming” conduct to the plaintiff over a period of years, gaining her trust before molesting her on school property.
“As a result of the outrageously shocking conduct of the defendants, plaintiff has sustained severe harm, including but not limited to physical abuse, sexual molestation, severe emotional distress and anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and social withdrawal, including, among other things, bouts and fits of crying, disruption of her ability to enjoy life’s pleasures, and destruction of her sense of safety and well-being,” the suit states.
“As a result of these harms, the plaintiff has suffered irreparably and will continue to suffer permanently, necessitating therapeutic medical and/or psychological treatments, which are likely to persist throughout her lifetime. As further result of the abuse she has suffered, plaintiff has suffered a significant interference with her ability to learn and otherwise enjoy the benefits of the education and educational services of the District, all to her permanent detriment.”
UPDATE
Defendant Raught filed an answer with affirmative defenses in the case on April 20.
“In prior statements, plaintiff alleged that her pants were on at the time defendant allegedly kissed her vaginal area. It naturally follows that if plaintiff’s allegations were true and correct, then defendant’s saliva would have been deposited within that area of her pants. In such an instance, a standard DNA test of plaintiff’s pants would likely have conclusively proven that defendant kissed plaintiff’s vaginal area as she now claims. However, rather than preserve her pants following the alleged assault committed by defendant and thereby preserving any physical evidence thereon such as defendant’s saliva, by her own admittance, plaintiff washed the subject pants, thereby, destroying any conclusive physical evidence,” according to Raught’s answer.
“Moreover, plaintiff’s prior statements further reveal that she failed to report the alleged incident with defendant for a period of approximately three to four days thereafter. As such, plaintiff eliminated any chance of the discovery of physical evidence on her person which could either support or deny her claims. Plaintiff also prevented the discovery of any other probative evidence which an immediate investigation may have revealed. By way of her failure to preserve the pants she was wearing at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct and her failure to report the same in a timely fashion, plaintiff has caused the spoilation of the best evidence in this case.”
The remaining defendants filed an answer of their own on April 22.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant, Owen J. Roberts School District under Title IX in that there was no actual acknowledge and deliberate indifference on the part of the District, regarding the allegations if proven to be true. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendants, Owen J. Robert School District, Susan Lloyd, Kathy Soeder and Ken Napaver for violations of any rights brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action under the state created danger theory is that there is no allegations of an affirmative act. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action against the individual defendants in that claims against them merge into claims against the School District as they were acting in their official capacity. To the extent that the claims against Susan Lloyd, Kathy Soeder and Ken Napaver are barred and/or limited pursuant to qualified immunity, statutory, or common law immunity, responding defendants claim same,” the defendants’ answer stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were not foreseeable or as the result of any action or inaction by responding defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a Monell claim against the District in that there is no custom policy or practice which would impose liability upon the School District, and the District had that proper policies and procedures in place. At all times material to this civil action, the responding individual defendants acted in a reasonable proper and lawful manner. To the extent plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to any applicable statute of limitations, responding defendants claim same. To the extent that plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to and equitable doctrine, responding defendants claim same.”
For counts of civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a Title IX violation, intentional and outrageous infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery, the plaintiffs are seeking, individually, jointly and separately, general and compensatory damages against all defendants, punitive damages against Raught, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and Title IX; and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael F. Barrett, Joseph G. DeAngelo and Michael Mongeluzzi of Barrett DeAngelo, in West Chester.
The defendants are represented by Joseph J. Santarone Jr. of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in Philadelphia, plus Peter J. Daley II of Peter J. Daley & Associates, in Brownsville.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:22-cv-00812
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com