By Justin B. Kozubal, MSA & Michael S. Carroll, PhD
A high school football player in Peoria, Illinois sued numerous Defendants, including the school, school district, principal, assistant principal, several school board members, district superintendent, and football coach for alleged constitutional rights violations resulting from bullying and harassment from fellow students on the football team. John Doe was a 14-year-old freshman student at Metamora Township High School (MTHS) in Metamora, Illinois and the only Black student on the freshman football team. During the 2017-18 academic year, Doe alleges that four White students on the football team, beginning September 23, 2017, subjected him to bullying, harassment, and retaliation over three months stemming from a video recording containing derogatory remarks sent to Doe by one of the four White student football players. Doe, through his father Willie Williams, alleged a failure by MTHS administration to properly investigate claims, discipline the students involved, and further protect Doe. On May 17, 2018 the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss on July 23, 2018.
Background
On or around September 23, 2017, Doe alleges he received a video through text message containing derogatory comments and slurs by four White members of the MTHS freshman football team. Doe notified his father, Willie Williams, two days later on September 25, 2017 who subsequently brought the video to the attention of Assistant Principal Vaughn for review. The next day, Vaughn informed Williams that the four students would be suspended for one football game. After disagreeing with the initial punishment and discovering that the students did not receive the promised discipline, Williams approached Principal List about the video. Principal List allegedly informed Mr. Williams that he had not yet reviewed the video, but promised he would set a meeting with the students and parents after MTHS homecoming activities. On September 28, 2017, Mr. Williams approached District Superintendent O’Laughlin about the video and requested the four students be banned for the rest of the football season and all extracurricular activities. O’Laughlin informed Mr. Williams the proposed discipline was too harsh but that the students would receive further punishment by not being permitted to play in a September 29, 2017 football game. On September 30, 2017, Mr. Williams complained on Facebook about what he perceived to be inadequate action by the District resulting in an October 1, 2017 special meeting held by the Board to discuss the video and discipline. The Board ultimately decided to impose a two game suspension against the four students. Board Member Vogal indicated at the Board meeting that the Board declined to impose harsher penalties because MTHS football coach Ryan would not have wanted to do so. Doe alleged continued harassment and retaliation as a result of the failure to discipline the students involved. Doe cites a November 14, 2017 incident where he reported to District Superintendent O’Laughlin student using the “n” word in the hallways and threats against him by the same students listed on Facebook. Mr. Williams requested the students be disciplined and his son be protected. O’Laughlin and the District refused to take any further action. Mr. Williams subsequently brought suit, asserting seven different theories 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d, and Illinois common law causes of action for conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that (a) the complaint failed to state causes of action against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities and (b) the complaint warrants dismissal due to the “shotgun” pleading format in which it was filed.
Arguments & Decision
Courts have traditionally held that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it is clear from the pleadings that the Plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of the included claim(s), which would entitle Plaintiff to relief. Defendants argue in support of their Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state causes of action against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities because Plaintiff does not allege that any of the individuals had a personal involvement in depriving Doe of a constitutional right. Instead, the alleged events involved four students in the school. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities because Plaintiff does not allege that any of the individual Defendants participated in any acts of discrimination in violation of civil rights laws. However, the complaint alleges that the Defendants have a long-standing history of refusing to investigate and take appropriate action in response to bullying, especially with respect to bullying based on race or other protected categories and cited examples. Mr. Williams alleges that the Defendants’ actions were motivated by Doe’s race or the race of Doe’s abusers and that Defendants had actual knowledge of and were deliberately indifferent to the bullying and harassment of Doe. Further, it is alleged by Mr. Williams that the harassment was so severe and pervasive that it deprived Doe of access to educational benefits and opportunities at MTHS and caused him severe emotional distress. The Court noted that the Defendants imposed inadequate discipline on the students who made the video and that Plaintiff thus sufficiently pleaded a § 1983 claim against each of the individual Defendants.
The second argument advanced by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss is that Mr. Williams’ Amended Complaint warrants dismissal because the “shotgun” pleading format. Defendants argue that, “since the allegations against all of the Defendants are made collectively and all of the collective allegations are made for each separate cause of action, both federal law and state law causes of action, it is impossible for Defendants to discern the issues with regards to the seven counts.” In response, Plaintiff argues that the complaint was sufficiently clear that all causes of action arise from the same or similar facts. The Court noted their previous finding that the Amended Complaint sufficiently demonstrated a basis for a § 1983 claim against each of the individual Defendants. As such, the complaint was not vague or conclusory but instead detailed the factual and legal basis for the claim. As such, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. As of this writing, there were no additional updates on this case.
Justin B. Kozubal is an Executive Professor of Sport Management at Capital University and PhD student Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He is currently serving as President of the Sport and Recreation Law Association. He lives in Orlando, FL.
