Improper Teacher and Student Relationship
Improper Teacher and Student Relationship
U10a1 Case Study
ED7823 Education and the Law
Donald E. Dodson
Capella University
3233 Hebron Valley Rd.
Madison, Va. 22727
Email-dodson_donald@yahoo.com
Instructor:
1
Table of Contents
Case Summary
4
Major Legal Issues
4
Major Case Law Governing Issues
5-9
Arguing a Position
9-10
Synthesis of Weakness in Argument
10
Avoiding or Preventing Legislation
11
Reflections
11-13
References
14
2
Abstract
The major legal issues, case law, arguments are discussed as a high school teacher and coach is
suspected of an improper relationship with females students. This case study examines the legal
issues when parents threaten the principle, superintendent, and school board with legal action for
employing such an educator. Female students were visiting the coach's residence late at night
and on weekends. These girls were also seen wearing the coach's tee-shirt around school. The
principal was notified on two separate occasions of the girl's actions concerning visiting the
coach and his clothing. A parent comes forward and admits that their daughter spent the night at
the coach's house. The girl insists nothing happened but the parents intend to hold the school
system accountable. Rumors spread rapidly that the coach was having sexual relations with one
of his students. The legal issues that pertain to this scenario include: tort liability/negligence,
breach of duty, foreseeability, injury, and causation.
3
Coach Suspected of Improper Relationship Case Summary
The football coach at your school is popular and well respected by the students. However, it’s
been reported to you, the principal, that he has been having some of his classroom female
students over to his house. Some girls had come to school with the football coach’s t-shirts on.
Parents are reporting that these girls go over to his house very late at night and on weekends.
This is the second time you have been informed of this behavior. The rumor spreads that this
football coach is having sex with the girls. One parent admits to the principal that their daughter
spent the night at the coach’s house one weekend. The girl in question said nothing happened.
The parents want to sue you, the superintendent, and the school board for hiring such a teacher.
Issues Relevant to the Case Study
In order for this legal action to proceed the parents must prove that the principal, superintendent,
and school board were liable for the actions of the employee. The parents insist that the principal
was neglectful and failed in his duties to protect the female student by not exploring or reporting
the coach's actions. Negligence is described as, "unintentional conduct that breeches a duty of
care and injures another person or persons." (Russo, 2009) The principle's failure to report the
alleged actions of the coach establishes liability for school system. Representatives of the
superintendent and school system must fail to ask for a summary judgment based on immunity,
assumption of risk, and or contributory/comparative risk which may release them of some
liability. A criminal case must be brought forth against the coach to find just cause for any civil
action. Issues such as the age of the female student and the state in which the scenario occurred
would have a large influence on the outcome of the criminal case and subsequently, a future civil
suit.
4
Major Case Law Governing the Issue
The case law associated with this scenario is clear and effective is deciphering the potential
outcome of a law suit. "In order for school officials to meet the elements of negligence, injured
parties must prove that the educators failed to meet the requirements of negligence." (Russo,
2009) These elements include duty, foreseeability, injury, and causation. The plaintiff is
burdened with proving that a defendants act or lack thereof is directly responsible for an injury.
In this case, the principal's lack of action in addressing the accusations against the coach resulted
in an alleged inappropriate sexual encounter.
Duty of Care
A principal is entrusted, along with the rest of the school system, with protecting the students and
promoting a better community. The principal and other school employees have a duty to assist all
students even if they do not know an individual child or group of students personally. (Russo,
2009) §63.2-1509 of the Virginia Law Code establishes that a school employee is a mandated
reporter as pertaining to child abuse. The principle's failure to investigate or report the
accusations against the coach violates his duty as a mandated reporter. The plaintiff will
illustrate that this failure violated the principle's duty of care and therefore was a negligent act.
School boards are expected to ensure that school laws are explained, enforced and observed
within their school districts as part of Virginia law code §22.1-79 . (Kaminski, 2004) The
principal's lack of action in this scenario constitutes a failure to follow procedure associated with
his duty as a mandatory reporter. The school system may then be considered liable for failing to
uphold state law.
5
The plaintiff may also prove that school system did not adhere to the conditions set forth by Title
IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 which establishes a duty of care for school systems.
Title IX stipulates that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…" (Russo, 2009) When
the principle failed to act on the student's behalf to investigate or report the actions of the coach,
he is presumably guilty of discrimination against the female student. It is the duty of the school
system to protect against acts of discrimination under Title IX.
Breach of Duty
By failing to address the accusations with the coach and ignoring the evidence such as the
coach's clothing, the principal disregarded his duty as a mandated reporter and violated the
student's rights is association with Title IX. Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education (2004)
recognized that the administrator's indifference to the reported encounters between the coach and
female students is actionable in a court of law. In this case, a female high school student
reported inappropriate sexual encounters with her teacher to an administrator. It was concluded
that the student was lying and the abuse was never reported to the police or social services. A
few years later, teacher was found guilty of an illegal sexual relationship with a fifteen year old
student. The court held that because the administrator failed in his duty to report the allegations
and establish a system of guidelines for further employment, the principal was guilty of
negligence. This case illustrates that the principal's inaction is considered an act of negligence.
By failing to act, the principle was in breach of his duty of care for the student.
6
The principles' failure and thus the school systems' inability to protect the student violated Title
IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
(1998) affirmed that a school district is liable if an administrator with supervisory power over the
offending employee actually knew of the abuse, had the power to end it, and failed to do so.
(Gebser, 1998) This case involved a teacher and student having a sexual relationship. The
student did not inform school officials of the relationship and the two were eventually caught
having sex. The court ruled that school district could only be held liable if a school official was
made aware of the allegations and failed to act to secure the safety of the student. In this
scenario, an employee with a supervisory role was aware of the allegations and did not act to
protect the student.
This failure is a breach of duty to uphold the standards of Title IX and is
considered grounds for establishing liability upon a school system.
Foreseeability
Foreseeability is defined as the event which is the primary cause of the injury—is established by
proof that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence and circumspection, should reasonably
have foreseen that his or her negligent act would imperil others, whether by the event that
transpired or some similar occurrence, and regardless of what the actor surmised would happen
in regard to the actual event or the manner of causation of injuries. (2005)
"Schoolteachers, school officials, and school authorities have a special responsibility to protect
those children committed to their care and control. School officials and school authorities, in
particular, have special relationships with their teachers and direct control of the environment in
which their teachers and students interact. When these persons are informed that one of their
schoolchildren has been sexually abused by one of their teachers, they should readily appreciate
7
that all of their schoolchildren are in danger." (Yates, 2004) Administrators and school
personnel are required to participate in abuse training seminars and are given guidelines to
instruct them on the proper steps to take when dealing with instances of child abuse.
Administrators are expected foresee the dangers associated with not reporting even the smallest
cases of abuse. In this case, the plaintiff will need to establish the reasonable judgment of an
administrator. Placed in the same situation, would another administrator foresee a lack of action
would result in an injury to the plaintiff? If this leads to an affirmative response then the
principle is guilty of a negligent act for failing to report.
Injury
In order for the plaintiff to establish negligence an injury must be identified that is direct result of
the negligent act. In most tort cases the injury is easily established with physical harm or
wrongful death. Spears on Behalf of Spears v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. (1994) established
precedent for injury due to emotional harm. The court concluded that the actions of a physical
education teacher, that explained to a five year old student that he had hung his friends with a set
of jump ropes, caused emotional injury to the student. It was held that the parents were entitled
to damages as a result of the experience. This case illustrates that emotional injury is recognized
as a legitimate concept in a court of law which will most likely be the basis of the injury
complaint of the plaintiff. The principal's duty as a mandatory reporter is established after he
was made aware of the situation, thus any injury before this period is not valid to the case. The
plaintiff in this scenario will have the burdened to prove that the girl received emotional harm
from the negligent act or failure of the principal to properly report the accusations against the
coach.
8
Causation
Causation is explained as, "the last person or group of persons in a temporal chain of events who
could have taken steps to prevent injuries from occurring are typically considered as at least
contributing to, if not actually the legal cause of mishaps." (Russo, 2009) Proximate causation is
associated with the foreseeability of the defendant and the outcome of violating their duty of
care. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) demonstrates that liability can only be
established if the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that their actions would cause injury
to another. In this case, a woman was injured when two men were running for a train and one of
them dropped a package of fireworks. The fireworks ignited upon hitting the tracks and caused
scales to fall upon the woman at the other end of the train track. The court held that the Long
Island Railroad Co. was not liable for damages because the duty of care in this situation was not
broken. The railroad attendants could not reasonably foresee the danger when the man boarded
the train. In this scenario, the plaintiff must prove that the inaction of the administrator could
have reasonably been foreseen to cause injury. The principal's professional experience and level
of education would suggest that he should be very aware of the negative ramifications of child
sexual abuse and that his inaction would result in injury to the student. Thus the principal is
guilty of a negligent act for failing to foresee that his inaction would allow this abuse to continue.
Arguing a Position
Immunity, assumption of risk, or contributory and comparative neglect will be the platforms
upon the defense will build their case. If a summary judgment is not awarded, the parents should
be victorious in their claim against the principal. The evidence shows that the principal was
negligent in reporting the accusations brought forth to him about the coach's relationship with
9
female students. This failure of duty, under state law as a mandatory reporter, is considered
negligent. The principal is in a position to be well informed of the negative outcomes of child
abuse so it is reasonable to assume that the principal knew his lack of action could cause injury
to the plaintiff.
This failure of duty by the principle will also hold the school system liable. As a federally
funded agency of the government, the school district can be held liable if they do not protect
their students from sexual harassment or discrimination. The failure of the school system to
meet Title IX requirements suggest they can be held liable for monetary damages.
Weaknesses of the Argument
The duty of the school officials as being coextensive with, and concomitant to, their physical
custody and control over children. (Russo, 2009) The allege events happened late at night and
on weekends when the student was not in the care of the school system. The duty of care was
the responsibility of the parent. Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001) establishes
that the school system has no duty to protect students that are not within its custody or control.
In this case, a young student was chased off of school premises by fellow classmates. During the
chase the student was hit by a car on a neighboring street. The court ruled that the school system
was not liable because the event happened before classes had begun and off of school premises.
The actions of the coach did not happen on school grounds and were conducted after school
hours. The defense may suggest that the parents committed a negligent act and thus breached
their duty of care by allowing their young daughter out late at night unsupervised.
In this
scenario, the parents' lack of action in protecting their daughter could establish comparative
neglect and reduce the monetary compensation that would be awarded.
10
Prevention of and Avoidance of Related Litigation
The school system and its employees are protected by immunity in cases such as these if proper
protocol and procedure is followed. The principal and school district would have been protected
by law if the principal had reported the accusations to the proper authorities. Feagins v. Waddy
(2007) provides protection to school employees when acting within their duties to the school
system. A female track participate injured herself while doing the high jump event. The track
participate suggested that the track coach was liable for failing to adequately train the young girl.
The court contended that the coach acted in accordance to his duty to the school system and
could not be held liable for the injury.
The principal in this scenario did not uphold his duties to the school system and cannot be
protected by immunity. The principal has a duty to report circumstances of abuse within seventy
two hours under Virginia §63.2-1509. This is a sufficient time period for the principle to
ascertain the relevancy of the accusations and make a decision to report the instances to social
services. These procedures are in place to help reduce the frequency of law suits and protect the
school system and employees from liability in instances such as the one this scenario presents.
Reflection
Understanding the Larger Context
The principal's inaction demonstrates a lapse in judgment that cannot be ignored by the school
division. Actions must be taken to ensure this is a single occurrence. The circumstances
surrounding this scenario are vague and the incomplete data allows for assumptions to be made
as to the validity of the accusations. The job of the principle is to be proactive and determined,
11
when securing the safety of the students. The principal should have approached the teacher to
discuss the situation long before the parents initiated the lawsuit. Principles must be willing to
explore delicate situations for the safety of the student. Simply asking the coach how the
students obtained the tee-shirts would provide an avenue to investigate the rumors and help to
make a more educated decision. In cases of child abuse, being indecisive or ignoring the signs
just adds to the misery of the victim.
Responding to Larger Context
The school system must ensure that the laws set forth by the state are carried out and students are
provided with best opportunity possible to succeed. The school system may not reach all
students but it can assure that all students are given a fair and equal chance to obtain a degree
and move on to further education. This fair and equal chance includes removing educators that
pose a threat to the security of the students. School systems cannot afford to employ educators
that are unfit for their duties or that exemplifies a prime candidate for a liability lawsuit. The
current state of the economy has led to reduced funding for schools and an emphasis on doing
more with less. This cannot be compounded by easily prevented lawsuits that only act to
diminish already strained finances.
Influencing the Larger Context
The actions and initiatives of the school system must be in accordance with the vision of the
Board of Supervisors or governing body of the community. The two government entities must
work together to promote the wellbeing of the constituents while also protecting the rights of the
socio-economically disadvantaged. The communities' future is directly correlated with the future
of its young people. Providing an education free of sexual abuse, discrimination, and violence
12
will pay dividends to both students and the community. These students will return to the
community, after furthering their education, to start small businesses that help to bolster the local
economy and provide further revenue for the school system to hire more highly qualified
teachers.
13
References
Feagins v. Waddy, 978 So. 2d 712 (Alabama 2007)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 96-1886 106 F. 3D 1223 (Fifth Circuit 1998)
Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District No. 253, 21 P3d 573 (Kansas 2001)
Kaminski, K., Cafferky, J., Ewing, E., & Lacy, D. (2004). Virginia school law deskbook (2004
ed. p. 149). Charlottesville: LexisNexis
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928).
Russo, C. J. (2009). Reutter's the law of public education. (7th ed.). New York, NY: Foundation
Press.
Spears v. Jefferson Parish Board of Education, 646 So.2d 1004 (Fifth Circuit 1994)
Virginia Gen. Law Welfare (Social Services), Chapter 15 § 63.2-1509.
Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education, 150 Ohio App.3d 241 (Fifth District 2002)
(2005). West's encyclopedia of American law (2nd ed. p. 6727). Thompson & Gale.
14
15