Robert Warren v. Reading School District

Lori Good brought this action on behalf of her minor son,
Robert Warren, seeking damages under Title IX for sexual
abuse he received at the hands of his fourth grade teacher
in a school that was part of the defendant school district.
Plaintiff also contends that the school's principal was
individually liable for damages under 42 U.S.C.S 1983. The
jury returned a verdict against the school district under
Title IX, but found the principal was not liable under
S 1983. The district court refused to grant a renewed
defense motion for judgment as a matter of law or grant a
new trial, and awarded plaintiff attorney's fees. This appeal
followed. For the reasons set forth below, we will reverse
and remand for a new trial on plaintiff 's Title IX claim.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In April 1995, Robert Warren transferred into the
Reading School District's Tenth and Green Elementary
School where he was assigned to Harold Brown's fourth
grade class. At some point after Robert's transfer, Robert
remained after school at Brown's request. While Robert
remained in the classroom, Brown locked the classroom
door, and asked Robert to play a "game" that Brown called
"shoulders." This consisted of Robert squatting with his
head between Brown's legs and placing his shoulders under
Brown's thighs. Robert would then lift Brown's upper body
from this squatting position as Brown leaned forward. As
Robert lifted, Brown's genitals touched the back of Robert's
head and neck. Brown challenged Robert to squat and lift
as many times as he could and Brown "rewarded" Robert
with candy or money when the "game" was over. Brown
apparently repeated this routine two or three times per
week during the school year. On at least one occasion
during the following summer, Brown also drove by Robert's
house in order to pick Robert up and take him to a"secret
spot" near the woods where they again played "shoulders."

In early November 1995, Lori Good discovered her son's
journal and read an entry in which Robert described
playing "shoulders" with Brown at a secret spot. Good
immediately became concerned and spoke to Robert about
the entry. After that discussion, Good reported Brown's
conduct to the Berks County Children and Youth Services.
That agency reported Brown's suspected abuse to the
school district, and Brown was suspended, and ultimately
resigned his position.

A short time later, Good initiated a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 seeking damages from the Reading
School District, Dr. Sepulveda, the principal of Tenth and
Green Street School; and Dr. James A. Goodhart, the
former superintendent of the Reading School District. The
suit included a state law claim against Sepulveda and
Goodhart under 42 Pa. C.S.A. S 8550. Good subsequently
amended the complaint to add a private cause of action for
damages against the school district under the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. S 1681 et. seq. (Title IX).

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants and against Robert on all claims except the
Title IX claim against the school district and theS 1983
claim against Sepulveda. Those claims proceeded to trial.
Carlos Mercado testified at trial for the plaintiff.
Mercado's son had been a student at Tenth and Green
Elementary School in the early 1990s. Mercado testified
that he went to that school sometime in 1992 or 1993 and
spoke with Sepulveda regarding his concerns about Brown
engaging in inappropriate activity with his son.

* * *

Mercado testified that Vecchio said he was going to talk
to Brown and "get back to me," but Mercado never heard
anything further from Vecchio, Sepulveda, or anyone else at
the school. According to Mercado, Sepulveda appeared to
be in a hurry, and upset about something when he tried to
speak to her. He testified: "I couldn't describe it to the lady
because she was too much in a hurry. She was going out."
Id. at 139-40. Vecchio and Sepulveda also testified, but
they both denied having any such conversation with
Mercado.

Plaintiff also introduced the testimony of Dr. Susan
Kraus, an expert in psychology and sexual abuse of
children. She testified that the "shoulders" game that
Robert described was actually a masturbatory exercise
engaged in for sexual gratification. According to her
testimony, "games" such as this are nothing more than
sexual activity. They did not constitute anything that could
be regarded as "horseplay."

Dr. Chester Kent also testified for plaintiff over the
defendants' objection. Kent was an expert in the field of
school policy, procedure and administration, with a
subspecialty in cases involving molestation or abuse of
children. He opined that the Dr. Sepulveda's internal
policies for student safety were highly deficient and not
conducive to protecting the health, safety, or welfare of the
students at the school. App. 231, 239, 243, 250-1. He also
surmised that, given the number of children that had been
victimized by Brown, the level of activity in Brown's
classroom should have aroused suspicion. He added that
Sepulveda was complacent and her approach to protecting
the welfare of the children at her school conveyed that
complacency to the teachers she was responsible for
supervising. According to him, those teachers "were
certainly incapable of recognizing the signs that they
should have recognized when something was not right
regarding molestation of students." App. 250-1. Kent
concluded that Sepulveda's attitude evidenced deliberate
indifference as exemplified by her response to the Mercado
complaint.

* * *

Later in his testimony, Dr. Kent told the jury
that Dr. Sepulveda's attitude "really served to create a
hostile environment in the building where young boys. . .
became prey of a teacher who was bent on molesting them
and this was happening right under the nose of the
principal." App. 257.

Plaintiff also introduced two "supervisory conference"
memoranda over defense objection. The first memorandum,
dated 1969, was a two-page evaluation of Brown that had
been prepared years before he came to Robert's school. The
memorandum summarized the conference Brown
apparently had with a supervisor back in 1969. It stated in
part: "[w]e also discussed his preparation for graduate
school-- children in his class-- and his involvement with
children after school hours." Warren v. Reading School
Dist., 82 F. Supp. 2d 395, 398 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The
memorandum was in Brown's personnel file in the School
District Administration Building, but there was no evidence
that Sepulveda, or anyone else at Robert's school ever saw
it or knew it existed.

* * *

At the close of plaintiff 's case, the school district moved
for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.
The school district argued that plaintiff had not introduced
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude
that an official of the Reading School District had actual
knowledge of, and was deliberately indifferent to, Brown's
conduct as was required under the standard recently
articulated in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School
District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998). Sepulveda also moved for
judgment as a matter of law arguing that the evidence was
insufficient to impose S 1983 liability on her under
Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District, 882 F.2d 720 (3d
Cir. 1989). The court denied both motions, and the jury
returned a verdict against the school district under Title IX
in the amount of $400,000. The jury's interrogatories
established that the jury found that a school district official
with authority to institute corrective measures had actual
notice of Brown's conduct and acted with deliberate
indifference. However, the jury also found for principal
Sepulveda and concluded that she was not individually
liable under S 1983.
The school district filed timely motions for judgment as a
matter or law, or in the alternative, for a new trial, under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59. The district court denied both
motions, entered judgment against the school district, and
awarded plaintiff $104,000 in attorney's fees under 42
U.S.C. S 1988. This appeal followed.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

For the above reasons, we will affirm the district court's
denial of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter
of law, but we will reverse the district court's denial of the
defendants' motion for a new trial and remand this matter
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

Dr. Susan Kraus, psychologist and Dr. Chester Kent, school policies

Unknown

E-mail suggested comments and/or corrections to:
Kent Morlan

Welcome Video