In the case of Garza v. Lansing Sch. Dist., 6th Cir. Case No. 1:15-cv-01128, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that school officials may be held liable for teacher-to-student abuse when there was a history of student abuse complaints made against the same teacher.
In this case, multiple student abuse complaints were made against the same teacher for over a decade. While school officials received and responded to multiple complaints, the appellate court found that their responses over this continuous period may amount to deliberate indifference. For example, the appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of fact – to be determined by a jury – as to whether the superintendent demonstrated deliberate indifference by repeatedly channeling reports of teacher-to-student abuse to human resources and other subordinates, whose actions where inadequate and ineffective. By way of further example, the appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of fact – to be determined by a jury – as to whether the school principal actively encouraged the teacher-to-student abuse by consistently providing the teacher with strong positive reviews while, at the same time, being aware of, and allegedly concerned about, the lengthy history of teacher-to-student abuse complaints. By way of further example, the appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of fact – to be determined by a jury – as to whether the special education director may have either knowingly acquiesced and/or acted deliberately indifferent to the possibility of continued teacher-to-student abuse by transferring the teacher to a new school in spite of having both received multiple reports of teacher-to-student abuse (one of which resulted in the teacher’s suspension), assured the principal that the teacher was a good teacher, and reported that none of the teacher-to-student abuse allegations had been substantiated. As a result, the appellate court remanded this case back to the district court.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.