HARRISBURG – A Chambersburg woman who alleged she was sexually molested by her then-high school chemistry teacher over a six-month time period in 2021 and 2022, and that the school district lacked adequate policies and procedures for the protection of its students, seeks the Court to approve her moving forward in the case under a pseudonym.
Jane Doe and her parents first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 31 versus Chambersburg Area School District, its Superintendent Dion Betts, its Assistant Superintendents Mark Long, Janilyn Elias and Kurt Widmann and Benjamin A. Duran-Tobias. All parties of Chambersburg.
“Beginning in approximately October of 2021 and continuing until April 2022, Duran-Tobias engaged in inappropriate physical/sexual contact with Ms. Doe Duran-Tobias’s victimization of Ms. Doe began in October of 2021 when he returned from paternity leave. At the beginning of the 2021 school year, Ms. Doe was assigned to a seat within Duran-Tobias’s classroom in a corner far from his desk. Following his return from paternity leave, Duran-Tobias inexplicably moved Ms. Doe’s seat directly next to his desk. At around the same time, Duran-Tobias began asking Ms. Doe personal questions about her life, including asking her whether she had ‘matured quicker’, which she understood to mean whether she had begun menstruating at an early age. Duran-Tobias also began leaving notes to Ms. Doe on her desk complimenting her physical appearance,” the suit said.
“Duran-Tobias also began asking Ms. Doe to come to his classroom outside of her chemistry class period. Duran-Tobias also began to request that Ms. Doe spend her study hall period each day in his classroom, where he would write notes to Ms. Doe, Duran-Tobias further began contacting Ms. Doe’s prep period proctor to ask that the teacher send Ms. Doe to his classroom during her prep period. Beginning around January and February of 2022, Duran-Tobias became increasingly more inappropriate with conversation, including, asking whether Ms. Doe ever wore tight, revealing clothing, offering his opinion on which prom dress she should select, and stating that he had emailed her because he ‘missed [her]’. Also in January or February of 2022, Duran-Tobias began to ask Ms. Doe to stay after school with him in his classroom, which occurred approximately two to three times per week. On one occasion during class, a fellow student made a comment aloud that Ms. Doe had a ‘big butt’. In response, Duran-Tobias wrote Ms. Doe a note stating that the student was ‘not wrong’, expressing agreement with the student’s statement.”
The suit added Duran-Tobias requested to see photographs of the minor plaintiff in her prom dress, commented on her figure and on March 1, 2022, sexually assaulted her in his classroom – allegedly grabbing her buttocks, fondling her breasts and rubbing her vagina.
The suit continued that that Duran-Tobias committed a second sexual assault upon the minor plaintiff one week later, on March 8, 2022, where he allegedly grabbed her buttocks, pulled her onto his lap, moved her hips while on top of him, lifted her top and bra, sucked on her nipples for approximately 30 seconds, rubbed her vagina inside her clothing and then digitally penetrated her.
Following that subsequent assault, the suit said Duran-Tobias made the minor plaintiff swear to keep the knowledge of the alleged assaults a secret.
“On March 30, 2022, the District received a Safe2Say Something report from an anonymous source the detailing inappropriate comments and actions by Duran-Tobias toward multiple female students during the 2021-2022 school year, including Ms. Doe. On April 7, 2022, a ChildLine report regarding Ms. Doe was made and information regarding the sexual assault and harassment was reported to the District police. On April 8, 2022, Duran-Tobias was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated indecent assault – forcible compulsion, two counts of intercourse/sexual contact with a student, one count of corruption of minors, one count of unlawful contact with a minor – sexual offenses, and one count of indecent assault without consent of another,” the suit stated.
“On April 22, 2022, Long filed a ‘Discrimination/Sexual Harassment/Bullying/Hazing/Dating Violence/Retaliation Report Form’, an informal report of the sexual assault under Title IX. On April 22, 2022, the Title IX Coordinator filed a Title IX complaint on behalf of Ms. Doe The Title IX complaint detailed that Duran-Tobias had also victimized other minor female students at the District’s high school, including R.B., M.S. and J.S. [Attorney] David Walker soon thereafter conducted an independent investigation of the allegations contained in the Title IX complaint.”
As part of his investigation, Walker conducted interviews with the minor plaintiff and multiple witnesses, and gathered evidence including Safe2Say Something reports, ChildLine reports, class seating charts and other pertinent documents.
Walker interviewed other students who corroborated both the minor plaintiff’s allegations of sexual assault by Duran-Tobias, and that he used grooming tactics on her and other female students at the school.
On Nov. 30, 2022, Duran-Tobias pled guilty to institutional sexual assault in school, indecent assault and corruption of minors, and was sentenced to a period of incarceration. During his hearing on that same day, he admitted to having “inappropriate conversations and physical contact” with Ms. Doe and further admitted to “touching [Ms. Doe] under her shirt” and touching her vagina.
The suit claimed that as a result of the District’s failures, Duran-Tobias’s predatory nature was left unchecked and he was free to prey upon vulnerable minor students at Chambersburg Area High School.
On Oct. 6, the defendants (minus Duran-Tobias) motioned to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the defendants Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann because their service to the District, and its students, was performed in their official capacity as administrators, and as such, their legal identity is identical to that of the public entity for which they serve or have served. Consequently, the claims against each of them must be dismissed. Plaintiffs have failed to state Monell claims against the individual defendants because plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of any allegations against any one of them that states, or infers, their personal involvement in any of the alleged failures set forth in Paragraph 135. As such, defendants Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann have no liability to the plaintiffs according to the allegations set forth in their complaint and this claim against them should be dismissed,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state state-created danger claims against defendants Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann because no allegations of the requisite elements of this claim have been pleaded upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts within Count III of their complaint against the ‘District’ which includes Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann. Even if this Court deems their incorporation Paragraph 136 to include all allegations set forth under the Monell claims in Count II, or beyond that to the preceding paragraphs, plaintiffs have plead only ‘failures’ of the moving defendants, which pleading is insufficient to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the jurisprudence of this Circuit for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, no affirmative acts by defendants Betts, Elias, Long or Widmann have been pleaded under this theory of liability, and the claims against them must be dismissed. It is axiomatic that individuals cannot be held liable under Title IX. As such, the Title IX claim against defendants Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann must be dismissed. In order to state a claim for negligence infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs, and each of them, must allege: (1) The defendant’s negligence caused the death or serious physical injury to (2) A close family member… (3) Plaintiff had a sensory and contemporaneous observation of the death or injury of the close family member; and (4) The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress. Here, plaintiffs’ pleading in Count VIII falls short of the mark in that neither of the adult plaintiffs alleged to have seen the injury of/to their minor daughter, Ms. Doe. Consequently, the elements of this claim have not been met and it therefore must be dismissed against defendants Betts, Elias, Long and Widmann.”
The motion also asserted that the plaintiff failed to plead these counts against the District itself, as well.
UPDATE
The young adult plaintiff motioned to proceed under a pseudonym and for the seal of any prior filings containing her identity, on Oct. 25.
“As a result of the harm Ms. Doe has already endured, and the mental health conditions that continue to plague her, Ms. Doe reasonably fears she would suffer severe harm if her identity continues to be publicly accessible in these proceedings. She has a reasonable fear that continued public revelation of her identity in connection with this case would exacerbate her trauma and anxiety and impede her ability to seek justice. No countervailing public interest favors forced disclosure,” the motion stated, in part.
“The status of plaintiff as a then-minor sexual assault victim is the kind of information that courts seek to protect and disclosure of her identity by permitting public access to the prior filings will cause serious injury to plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court direct the prothonotary to seal all prior filings related to the instant action.”
The motion added that if Doe were forced to identify herself, the Court would risk “chilling other victims of sexual harassment from coming forward to report their harassment and to prosecute their rights in court”, which would “defeat the public interest in allowing victims to seek redress, and in holding wrongdoers accountable.”
For counts of civil rights violations and state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Monell respectively, discrimination under Title IX, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking general and compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Derek R. Layser and Melissa Paris Miller of Friedman Schuman, in Fort Washington.
The defendants are represented by Sharon M. O’Donnell of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-01276
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com