PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh-area high school stands ready to settle claims that it permitted one of its students to be discriminated against for his race and ethnicity, or that it failed to address the pervasive bullying he was experiencing, which led 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 first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 28, 2021 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 – and 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.
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.
Stickman continued that the PHRA claim would be dismissed, albeit without prejudice. However, Stickman did allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint by Aug. 30, as it pertains to their PHRA violation claim, only.
The school answered the complaint on Sept. 14, largely denying the plaintiffs’ claims against it as conclusions of law to which no response was required and providing a number of affirmative defenses.
“The first amended complaint fails to state claims against the Academy to the extent it does not plead the Academy intentionally discriminated against J.C. based upon his race, color, national origin, or other prohibited basis. The Academy did not breach any contract with plaintiffs, as the Handbook did not create any contract between plaintiffs and the Academy. The Academy is not a public accommodation. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part on constitutional grounds (both state and federal) because the Academy is a parochial school and a church ministry that is distinctly private and religious in nature, and adjudication of its faith-based approach to student development and conduct would result in an unconstitutional entanglement. The Academy’s actions and inactions were reasonable under the circumstances, and in light of the information then known and available to it,” according to those same defenses.
“The Academy’s actions and inactions were not extreme or outrageous, and were not intentional or reckless. The Academy did not intentionally discriminate against J.C. based upon his race, color, national origin, or any other unlawful basis. The Academy did not create, cause, facilitate or otherwise permit to exist any racially-hostile environment. The Academy did not permit, facilitate, allow or otherwise fail to properly respond to any harassment of J.C. based upon his race, color, national origin or other unlawful factor. The Academy was not deliberately indifferent to any harassment that was so severe and pervasive so as to deny J.C. access to education. The Academy properly responded to, and intervened with respect to, the complaints raised by J.C.’s parents with respect to their allegations regarding the treatment of J.C. by his classmates.”
UPDATE
A joint status report filed by counsel for all parties on Feb. 15 explained that a settlement was in the process of being finalized.
“The plaintiffs and the defendants, South Hills Assembly of God, Hillcrest Christian Academy, by and through their respective counsel, and hereby file the within joint status report on alternative dispute resolution. The parties engaged in mediation before Carole Katz, Esq. on Jan. 10, 2023. All interested parties agreed at the mediation to settle all claims involved in this litigation. The parties are currently in the process of exchanging drafts of the settlement agreement,” the report stated.
Stickman approved such an action through judicial order on the same day.
“Upon review of the joint status report on alternative dispute resolution, all deadlines in this matter are terminated. The Court will await the filing of a stipulation of dismissal to close this case,” Stickman said.
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