Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-24-2022
Case Style:
Michael Newman; Anthony Sieg; Brian Raho; and Victor Gentry v. J.A., a minor, by and through S.A., his mother and next friend
Case Number: 2021-ca-1044
Judge: Clayton
Court: Court of Appeals for Kentucky on appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Mark S. Fenzel, Kevin L. Chlarson
Description:
During the 2018-2019 school year, J.A. was a freshman at Western High School ("Western") in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Newman, Raho, and Sieg were principals at Western during the applicable period (Newman, Raho, and Sieg are referred to collectively herein as the "Principals"), and Gentry was J.A.'s teacher. J.A. received special education instruction and services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") under an Individual Education Plan. J.A. spent most of the school day in two special classrooms; each had no more than ten students and was staffed with a teacher and two assistants.
All the students in the special classrooms, including J.A., were supervised at all times, including in the hallways and restrooms.
In his complaint, J.A. alleged that beginning in January 2019, another special needs student - G.S. - bullied him. More specifically, J.A. alleged that G.S. grabbed his genitals on two occasions, hit him in the face with a basketball, and intentionally tripped him in the hallway, causing him to fall and chip his teeth. Only certain incidents were reported after the fact by J.A.'s mother, S.A., allegedly either to Gentry or Raho.
On June 6, 2019, J.A., through S.A., filed a complaint. On June 19, 2019, J.A., through S.A., filed an amended complaint alleging the following claims: (1) Appellants failed to provide him with the opportunity to receive an adequate public education; (2) Appellants negligently supervised J.A.; (3) Appellants failed to follow Jefferson County Public School ("JCPS") policy regarding the reporting of bullying and harassment to the Superintendent and/or his or her designee; and (4) Appellants failed to provide J.A. with a free and appropriate public education pursuant to IDEA.
On November 5, 2020, Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 20, 2021, the trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specific to Appellants, the trial court denied their motion by
ruling that they were not entitled to qualified official immunity from suit. On September 8, 2021, Appellants filed this interlocutory appeal.
* * *
As the Kentucky Supreme Court explained in Yanero v. Davis, when an officer or employee of the state or county is sued in his or her individual capacity, that officer or employee is often entitled to qualified official immunity, "which affords protection from damages liability for good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment." 65 S.W.3d 510, 522 (Ky. 2001) (citation omitted). The application of qualified immunity "rests not on the status or title of the officer or employee, but on the function performed." Id. at 521 (citation omitted). Specifically, "the analysis depends upon classifying the particular acts or functions in question in one of two ways: discretionary or ministerial." Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Ky. 2010).
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, the Jefferson Circuit Court's order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Principals based on qualified immunity.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: