By Robert N. Itri, MS & Michael S. Carroll, PhD
A former high school football player sued the town of Milton, Vermont and its high school, Milton High, for negligence stemming from a 2012 hazing incident. The plaintiff seeks redress, arguing that the school knew of other homophobic bullying incidents on the Milton High School football team and failed to properly address the misconduct. This article will discuss the details of the case along with the decision.
Background
Milton is a small suburban town in Chittenden County, Vermont with a population of roughly 12,000 people. The community is built around a patchwork of farms and small industry. The local school district is comprised of one high school, Milton High. It is a comprehensive public high school serving students grades 9 through 12 with a student enrollment of 490 for the 2019-20 academic year. Milton offers 17 sports through the fall, winter, and spring seasons, including varsity and junior varsity football. Approximately 60 percent of the student body participates in at least one sport.
In 2009, Milton High School administrators were informed that football players were playing a game called “no homo,” which entailed a student complimenting another same-sex student and then declaring “no homo.” The coach, as well as school administrators, took actions to stop these activities in part by putting the team on behavior probation for the 2010 season. On the surface this appeared to have an impact. However, in the spring of 2013, a teacher was informed of actions of misconduct within the football team when he learned about a 2011 assault of a student, Jordan Peavy. In the fall of 2011, while attending a football dinner at the school, Peavy was attacked on the soccer field by teammates who held him down and assaulted him with a broomstick by stabbing it at his rectum through his clothing. Less than a year later, Peavy took his own life (Stopford v. Milton Town School District, 2018).
In 2015, Peavy’s mother, Tracy Stopford, and the Peavy estate sued Milton Town School District (MTSD) for negligence, stating that the school knew of inappropriate behavior by the football team and did nothing to stop it. If they had done something, they argued, it would have prevented the assault. The trial court ruled in favor of MTSD, granting summary judgment, which was appealed to the Vermont Superior Court where it was dismissed. The case was finally appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court where the ruling stated that because MTSD could not have foreseen the attack they therefore could not be held liable for failing to protect Peavy (Lamdin, 2018).
In the fall of 2012, a year after Peavy was assaulted, an almost identical attack on a freshman Milton football player occurred. This time the incident took place at the home of a football team member. The victim was dragged into the basement, pushed onto a couch, and a pool cue was forcibly inserted into his rectum over his clothing (Lamdin, 2017). Initially, the victim made no complaint about the incident. Almost a year later, the victim and another teammate were called into the Milton principal’s office to discuss rumors about football team initiation rituals. Both boys were told their parents did not need to attend the meeting. During this meeting the principal threatened the boys that if the rumors were true the football program would have to be shut down. Fearing retaliation both boys denied the rumors, and were told by the principal to tell incoming freshmen that the rumors were not true (Lamdin, 2017).
Case Details
Stemming from this incident, a lawsuit was filed in April 2017 against the town of Milton, Milton School District and the Milton School Board. The lawsuit stated that because these parties knew of the misconduct, they had a duty under the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act (VPAA) to protect the plaintiff from harassment “so as to avoid a hostile school environment.” However, because this protection was not given, the lawsuit alleges, the ensuing harassment was so “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” that it deprived the plaintiff of a sound education. The suit asked for damages in the amount of $2.5 million for the “permanent and ongoing psychological damages” the plaintiff sustained due to this incident (Lamdin, 2017). Ultimately, the lawsuit rests on two claims: first that administrators were negligent because they did not properly oversee the football team despite prior incidents of hazing, and two that MTSD did not investigate the situation in a timely manner (Flanders, 2019).
Following the filing of the lawsuit, the lawyers for the defendants argued for summary judgment before a superior court judge asking for the judge to find that the plaintiff lacked evidence to bring the case before a jury. They also argued that the principal’s statement about cancelling the program was acknowledgement that she would take action against the harassment. Contrary to the ruling in the Peavy case, Judge Helen M. Toor ruled against summary judgment, drawing an important contrast between the two cases. In her ruling, she stated that because the district had knowledge of the previous incidents, including the assault on Peavy, a jury could conclude the attack on the plaintiff was foreseeable, and therefore, the district would be held negligent. Additionally, Judge Toor noted that a jury could find the principal’s statement as a threat of retaliation against the defendant himself (Flanders, 2019).
When the case was finally brought before the Chittenden County Superior Court, lawyers for the plaintiff argued that Milton’s “renegade” football program had an established history of homophobia. He cited the 2009 incident of the “no homo” game, a request by a student a couple years later requesting more supervision in the locker room because of the harassment he was enduring, and an incident where a student had become suicidal because of alleged homophobic bullying. These incidents, along with the assault on Peavy in 2011, provided plenty of circumstances to make the assault on the plaintiff foreseeable. When the school district chose not to protect the plaintiff and he was assaulted, it left him with PTSD resulting in years of nightmares, and multiple suicide attempts (French, 2019).
In defending the school district, lawyers for the defense argued that the assault was wrong, but that the plaintiff’s lawyers did not prove that the school district was legally responsible. Vermont law limits districts’ responsibilities and as such the school district did not owe constant supervision to its students, and must only specifically protect them from foreseeable risks. As both perpetrators in the Peavy case had graduated and were no longer attending the school the district had no way to know that the perpetrators in this case posed a risk. Additionally, Vermont law makes schools responsible for supervision of students only during educational functions. The defendants argued that the dinner was a private event where no teachers or administrators were in attendance. In arguing against the VPAA, the district maintained that because the victim failed to report the incident, they had no duty to investigate, and that when the plaintiff was brought to the principal’s office and told the football team would be shut down if the rumors were true it demonstrated that she intended to take action against the harassment. They concluded by instructing jury members to take into account that since the assault the victim had been able to work, have girlfriends, and have a normal social life (French, 2019).
Conclusion
The jury, after two days and 10 hours of deliberation, ruled in favor of the former Milton High School student and against the town and school district for negligence in the 2012 sexual assault (French, 2019). The jury found that the district failed to ensure the safety of the student after a similar incident happened in 2011 and awarded the plaintiff $280,000 for pain and suffering. The school assumed 60 percent of the blame and the student 40 percent of the blame (Cutler, 2019). The jury’s initial verdict was rejected by the judge because it found the school was not negligent, but still awarded the plaintiff a settlement. The judge said if they were to award the plaintiff the school district must also be held negligent. After additional deliberation the jury unanimously concluded the school’s negligence caused the harm (French, 2019).
It should be noted that the state of Vermont, like 43 other states in the US, has an anti-hazing law. 16 V.S.A. § 140b defines hazing as:
[A]ny intentional, knowing or reckless act committed by a student, whether individually or in concert with others, against another student:
(1) in connection with pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization which is affiliated with the educational institution; and
(2) which is intended to have the effect of, or should reasonably be expected to have the effect of, endangering the mental or physical health of the student.
The statute further proscribes that:
(c) It shall be unlawful to:
(1) engage in hazing;
(2) solicit, direct, aid, or attempt to aid, or abet another person engaged in hazing; or
(3) knowingly fail to take reasonable measures within the scope of the person’s authority to prevent hazing.
16 V.S.A. § 570 states the following:
(a) It is the policy of the State of Vermont that all Vermont educational institutions provide safe, orderly, civil, and positive learning environments. Harassment, hazing, and bullying have no place and will not be tolerated in Vermont schools. No Vermont student should feel threatened or be discriminated against while enrolled in a Vermont school.
References
Cutler, C. (2019). School district partly to blame for Milton hazing. WCAX 3. Retrieved from https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Jury-deliberating-over-Milton-hazing-case–565350271.html
Flanders, C. (2019). Trial date set for Milton hazing lawsuit. Milton Independent. Retrieved from https://www.miltonindependent.com/news/trial-date-set-for-milton-hazing-lawsuit/article_5a8b58cd-9a23-5bab-a81d-dc4287433a3e.html
French, E. (2019). Lawyers make closing arguments in Milton football assault trial. VTDigger. Retrieved from https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/21/lawyers-make-closing-arguments-in-milton-football-assault-trial/
Lamdin, C. (2017). Another hazing victim files suit. Milton Independent. Retrieved from https://www.miltonindependent.com/news/another-hazing-victim-files-suit/article_c32ae6ce-0e06-54cc-9296-b62fcf5c4d11.html
Lamdin, C. (2018). Supreme Court affirms ruling in Preavy case. Milton Independent. Retrieved from https://www.miltonindependent.com/news/supreme-court-affirms-ruling-in-preavy-case/article_7bc6a2b3-8ccb-5801-9200-badbe978b74a.html
Stopford v. Milton Town School District, 202 A.3d 973 (2018).
Robert Itri is a full-time doctoral student at Troy University. He is a former college baseball coach and has spent the past 13 years working in youth sports training and developing young baseball athletes. He lives in Wilmington, DE.
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 lives in Orlando.
