PITTSBURGH – The parents of a Pittsburgh-area high school student have lost claims for punitive damages, attorney’s fees and a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in a lawsuit alleging their son was discriminated against for his race and ethnicity
The lawsuit also alleges his school failed to address the pervasive bullying he was experiencing, leading him to be afflicted with an eating disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. J.C. (a minor, by and through his parents and natural guardians, Mr. J.C. and Mrs. K.C.), Mr. J.C. and Mrs. K.C. (in their own right) of Jefferson Hills filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 28 versus South Hills Assembly of God, Hillcrest Christian Academy, of Bethel Park.
According to the complaint, J.C. is a 16 year-old, Black-Hispanic student with diagnoses of an eating disorder – restrictive eating disorder with exercising, anxiety with OCD traits and situational depression, who began attending the defendant school in August 2017.
“Starting in or around August 2020, J.C. began experiencing bullying by defendant classmates. A student, later identified as A.P., had instigated the ostracizing of J.C. on the basis of him being Black and/or Hispanic. This information was learned through text messages sent from J.C. to his girlfriend. This racial harassment led J.C. to experience severe emotional and physical distress,” the suit said.
“On Sept. 9, 2020, J.C.’s pediatrician, Dr. Tonja DiCamillo, submitted a confidential report of his diagnosis of J.C. to defendant. Dr. DiCamillo included in her letter that ‘in the last few months J.C. had become excessively more obsessed with his weight, eating habits and exercise.’ She shared that she currently would ‘diagnose J.C. with an eating disorder – restrictive eating disorder with exercising, anxiety with OCD traits and situational depression.”
The plaintiffs added that on Sept. 10, 2020, the plaintiffs had a meeting with the defendant school, where they informed Mr. George Wilson and Pastor Zach of the bullying being perpetrated against J.C. by several classmates, further requesting the school investigate and monitor the students in question.
“On or around Oct. 13, 2020, J.C. was asked by his gym teacher to jump on a mat. As a result of his jump, J.C. broke his arm (specifically, the humerus bone) in two. J.C.’s injury was not addressed properly by defendant, as he was sent to the office alone and provided with only an ice pack. It was not until roughly one hour later that J.C. was permitted to call his parents, who ultimately were forced to take him to the hospital to have his broken arm treated,” per the suit.
“What was originally a trip to the hospital to address J.C.’s broken arm turned into a 28-day stay at Children’s Hospital. From Oct. 13 through Nov. 10, 2020, J.C. was admitted as an inpatient to address not only his arm, but also the escalation of his eating disorder. Beginning on Nov. 11, 2020 and continuing for two weeks, J.C. participated in full-time day programming at the Center for Eating Disorders at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital.”
The parties then met both in person on Nov. 20, 2020 and over Zoom on Dec. 8, 2020, at the first meeting providing evidence of the plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to:
• Letters from J.C.’s pediatrician and therapist with details of his condition, as well as his trauma-related diagnoses;
• Email exchanges between plaintiffs, Mr. George Wilson, and Pastor Zach, during which defendant’s bullying policy was discussed;
• Text messages with Ms. McCowan, requesting that she follow up with the situation involving students talking behind J.C.’s back at the beginning of the school year;
• Text messages that plaintiffs sent to A.P.’s family, requesting a meeting to address the situation instigated by A.P., to which no reply was received;
• Pictures of J.C. before and after the physical effects of his eating disorder;
• Pictures of the X-ray of J.C.’s broken arm;
• Video recording of students A.P. and J.N., confirming misconduct in violation of school policy;
• Copies of page 32 and page 35 of defendant’s student handbook, outlining relevant offenses, specifically the Level 2 offense of bullying and the Level 4 offense of gross misconduct.
In a text message to his girlfriend, the suit said J.C. confided that A.P. encouraged his friends to exclude J.C. from all groups and socialization because J.C. is Black.
“On Dec. 9, 2020, Mr. J.C. sent an email to defendant, documenting the two meetings the parties had with each other. Plaintiffs reminded defendant that this was the second time J.C. had been subjected to race-based harassment in conjunction with the school, the first time being when the brother of a classmate, both students at defendant, called J.C. the ‘N-word’ in 6th grade. Plaintiffs reiterated that race-based harassment is both intolerable and illegal, and requested that defendant take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate and respond to the harassment,” the suit stated.
“Upon information and belief, defendant never responded to plaintiffs’ Dec. 9 email. On Dec. 12, 2020, J.C. began intensive Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy with Mr. Frank E. Colosimo, LPC at his Shadyside office, continuing with weekly sessions through March 13, 2021. Based on the extreme trauma experienced by J.C. as a result of the racially hostile environment at defendant, Mr. J.C. and Mrs. K.C. withdrew J.C. from defendant at the end of December 2020. In January 2021, J.C. began attending a new school to finish the remainder of his 10th grade year. Although in a more positive environment, he has been traumatized to the point of not wanting to talk about what happened while enrolled at defendant. J.C. shakes and gets nervous when the harassment is discussed. J.C. has continued to require and receive mental health support as he continues to recover physically and mentally from his PTSD.”
In its motion to dismiss, the defendant countered that the plaintiffs had not shown direct evidence of their claims.
“Although they allege that the Academy failed to take appropriate action upon being informed of the harassment of J.C., plaintiffs offer no facts that the Academy’s alleged conduct and/or inaction were based upon J.C.’s race, or, more importantly, taken because of J.C.’s race. Nowhere in the complaint do plaintiffs connect J.C.’s race with the Academy’s alleged action/inaction, as they have alleged no more than that the Academy failed to respond to known harassment, without offering any allegations supporting its motivation or that would serve as direct evidence of the Academy’s alleged racial animus,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs allege that the 2020-2021 HCA Student Handbook created a contract between the Academy and J.C., which obligated the Academy to maintain a safe environment for J.C., free from bullying. They allege that the Academy breached this duty by failing to intervene and appropriately discipline the other students for harassing J.C. Even if the Handbook established a contract between the Academy and J.C., which the Academy does not concede, it did not create the duties owed to J.C. alleged to have been breached.”
The defendant sought the dismissal of the discrimination, breach of contract and Pennsylvania Human Relation Act violation counts, in addition to dismissing the claims for attorney’s fees associated with the breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts, and the claim for punitive damages associated with the breach of contract count.
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV opted to dismiss the counts for punitive damages, attorney’s fees (since Pennsylvania law prohibits those recoveries in breach of contract cases) and the PHRA violation, in a memorandum opinion handed down on Aug. 16.
However, the judge said that the Title VI claim would be retained.
“Plaintiffs informed the Academy, on several occasions, of their concerns regarding J.C.’s mistreatment by his peers. Specifically, on Sept. 10, 2020, plaintiffs met with their Academy to discuss ‘the exclusion J.C. was experiencing by his classmates…[and] the school’s responsibility to enforce school rules and conduct.’ Plaintiffs restated their concerns in a follow-up email on Sept. 16, 2020, and requested the Academy to investigate and closely monitor the students’ conduct,” Stickman said.
“Then, plaintiffs requested to meet with the Academy on Nov. 20, 2020, and again on Dec. 8, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that the Academy did not intervene or respond to plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the race-based harassment they contend J.C. was being subjected to. These allegations are sufficient to demonstrate that the Academy’s alleged inaction regarding the race-based harassment directed towards J.C. by its students support an inference that the Academy’s actions were discriminatory. The Court will deny Academy’s motion to dismiss Count I.”
Stickman continued that the PHRA claim would be dismissed, albeit without prejudice.
“Plaintiffs state that on May 5, 2021, they did file a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. However, plaintiffs make this allegation in their brief in opposition of the motion to dismiss, not in their complaint. A brief in opposition is not a pleading from which the Court can consider new factual allegations to decide a defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit has recognized that ‘briefs are helpful only to the extent that they find support in the allegations set forth in the complaint,” Stickman stated.
“Accordingly, when looking only to plaintiffs’ complaint, they have failed to plead that they exhausted their administrative remedies by filing a PHRC complaint. Without that foundation, any allegations in plaintiffs’ brief that reference a PHRC complaint cannot be used by this Court for support.”
However, Stickman did allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint by Aug. 30, as it pertains to their PHRA violation claim, only.
For counts of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, liability for student-on-student harassment, violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages against the defendant, together with court costs, interest and all other relief permitted by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Kristen C. Weidus of Ruder Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Jason H. Peck and Kathleen S. McAllister of DiBella Weinheimer, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01558
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com