Doe v. The Board of Education of Metamora Township High School District No. 122, et al

Filing 24

ORDER AND OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 7/23/2018. IT IS ORDERED: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 20 is DENIED. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 23 July, 2018 04:57:02 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN DOE, a Minor, by and through his
father and Next Best Friend,
WILLIE WILLIAMS.
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
METAMORA TOWNSHIP HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-1057-JES-JEH

ORDER AND OPINION
Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff Willie Williams brings this action on behalf of his minor child, John Doe. At the
time Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, Doe was a 14-year-old freshman student at
Metamora Township High School (“MTHS”) and the only Black student on the MTHS freshman
football team. MTHS is owned and operated by the Board of Education of Metamora Township
High School District No. 122 (the “Board” or “District”), an Illinois public school district and
local government entity created under the laws of Illinois. The District also receives federal
funding, and is therefore subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et
seq. Doc. 22, at 1–2.

1

The following factual allegations are derived from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) and taken as true for
the purposes of this Order. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994).

1

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants the Board; Board President
Amy Defreitas; Vice President and Secretary Melissa Heil; Board members Diane Grebner,
Stefanie McAllister, Blake Mishler, Jay Springer, and Wendy Vogel; District Superintendent
Sean O’Laughlin; MTHS Principal Edward List; Assistant Principal Terry Vaughn; and MTHS
head coach Pat Ryan. The claims are brought against the individual Defendants in both their
individual and official capacities. Id. at 3–4.
The events giving rise to this action first began on or around September 23, 2017, when
four White students on the MTHS football team recorded a video at one of the student’s
residences. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the students made several derogatory remarks
and slurs on the video, including such statements as:
a) “I used to own you back in the day,” then when questioned by another Student
as to what he used to own, the Student then responded, “Black people,” while
pointing a toy gun and making shooting motions toward the camera;
b) “Go back where you came from” – apparently referencing Black people going
to Africa;
c) Raising up a stuffed monkey, one Student stated, “This is a Black person, right
here,” then forcefully threw the stuffed monkey to the floor and forcefully
threw/slammed several items on top of the stuffed monkey;
d) Referring to the stuffed monkey specifically by DOE’s name;
e) Requesting one Student to sing the “Alabama Black person song”;
f) Singing, “I’m an Alabama n***er and I’m born to be free”, and “I’m a porch
monkey and I’m born to be free”;
g) Making numerous references to “porch monkey”, “n***er”, and “stupid
n***er”;
h) Stating that “Back in Nam, all our troops were White people. We didn’t have
no n***ers in the squad”, apparently referencing troops who served during the
Vietnam War; and
i) Referencing Doe specifically by name.
Id. at 5–6. After recording, one of the students sent the video to Doe via text message. Doe
notified his father about the video two days later, on September 25, 2017. Id. at 6.
On September 25, 2017, Williams brought the video to Assistant Principal Vaughn’s
attention. The next day, Vaughn informed Williams that the students who made the video would
2

receive a one-game suspension for the incident. However, the students only missed one day of
football practice and were not suspended for one game. On September 27, 2017, Williams told
Vaughn that a one-game suspension was not strict enough, and that the students did not actually
receive the purported suspension in the first place. Williams also spoke with MTHS Principal
List about the video and the District’s response, and requested a meeting with the students and
their parents. List informed Williams that he had not had a chance to review the entire video yet
and would set up a meeting after the MTHS homecoming activities. On September 28, 2017,
Williams spoke with District Superintendent O’Laughlin about the video. O’Laughlin informed
Williams that the discipline he proposed—banning the students from football for the remainder
of the season and from all extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year—was
too harsh. However, O’Laughlin also told Williams that the students would receive further
punishment and would not be playing in the September 29, 2017 football game. Id. at 6–7.
Three of the four students were not allowed to play at the September 28, 2017 football
game. On September 30, 2017, Williams complained on Facebook about what he perceived to be
the District’s refusal to take adequate disciplinary action against the students. Williams alleges
that the District only arranged for a meeting with the student and their parents after he made the
Facebook post. On October, 1, 2017, the Board held a special meeting to discuss the video
incident and the discipline imposed, and ultimately decided to suspend the students involved for
two football games. Board Member Vogel indicated at the meeting that the Board declined to
impose harsher discipline because MTHS Coach Ryan would not have wanted to do so, and
Ryan wanted the students to feel like they were part of the team. Id. at 6–7.
On November 14, 2017, Doe witnessed two MTHS students repeatedly referring to each
other as “n***er” while walking down the hallway. After Doe reported the incident to

3

O’Laughlin, one of the students posted on his Facebook profile that he was going to jump Doe
for reporting him to O’Laughlin. Williams requested that the student be disciplined for
threatening to retaliate against Doe, and that the student be removed from Doe’s math class to
minimize any future threat to Doe. However, O’Laughlin and the District refused to take any
further action in response to the threat. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have a long-standing history of refusing to
investigate and take appropriate action in response to bullying, especially with repespect to
bullying based on race or other protected categories. In support, Plaintiff alleges the following
conduct:
a) Repeated racism toward and mistreatment of Black freshman football players,
going back several years;
b) Repeated racial slurs and taunting directed toward a student during the 20172018 school year (done by three of the four Students involved in the September
23, 2017 incident);
c) Incessant bullying of a female student based on her gender in 2011;
d) The rape of a former female MTHS student by former male members of the
MTHS football team approximately four years ago (specifically, the District
promised to institute annual District-wide training on the issue of sexual
harassment and rape, but later declined to hold the training); and
e) The incessant bullying of an Asian-American student based on his race
approximately three years ago.
Id. at 8. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants’ repeated failures to investigate allegations
of bullying encouraged a climate where students were frequently bullied, harassed, and
victimized on the basis of their race or other protected category, and that the offending students
were emboldened to retaliate against reporters of racism, bullying and harassment. Id.
According to Plaintiff, the students who made the September 23, 2017 video and the
student who threatened to retaliate against Doe were emboldened to bully Doe because of the
Defendants’ lack of action with respect to prior incidents of bullying or harassment. Additionally,
the discipline imposed on the students is insufficient to deter MTHS students from engaging in
4

similar conduct in the future. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ failure to take appropriate
action in response to the above incidents constitutes an intentional failure to protect Doe and is
indicative of a District policy or practice that is deliberately indifferent to Doe’s constitutional
rights. Id. at 9.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ actions were motivated by Doe’s race or the race of
Doe’s abusers, that Defendants had actual knowledge of and were deliberately indifferent to the
bullying and harassment of Doe, and 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. Plaintiff then alleges that each of the individual Defendants were
personally involved in the deprivation of Doe’s constitutional rights, including:
a) VAUGHN, LIST, and O’LAUGHLIN failed to take appropriate measures to
address the race-based bullying against DOE (the September 23, 2018 video tape)
when it was first reported by WILLIAMS and were unresponsive to WILLIAMS
until WILLIAMS complained of the District’s lack of responsiveness on social
media;
b) RYAN advocated for minimal or no punishment to be given to the Students
involved in the September 23, 2017 video, stating to VOGEL that he wanted the
Students to feel like they were part of the team;
c) At RYAN’s direction, DEFREITAS, HEIL, GREBNER, MCALLISTER,
MISHLER, SPRINGER, and VOGEL:
i. decided on October 1, 2017 to impose an insufficient punishment of a two
football game suspension against the Students;
ii.
failed to ensure that the Students actually served the suspension that the
Board imposed;
iii. failed to adequately address threats directed to DOE for reporting the
September 23, 2017 video;
iv. failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected classes that occurred prior to the September 23, 2017 video;
and/or
v.
failed to properly investigate incidents of bullying based on race and other
protected classes that occurred after the September 23, 2017 video.
d) LIST, O’LAUGHLIN and VAUGHN:
i. initially issued an inadequate one-game suspension against the Students;
ii.
failed to ensure that the Students actually served the two-game suspension
that the Board ultimately imposed;

5

iii.
iv.

v.

failed to adequately address threats directed to DOE for reporting the
September 23, 2017 video;
failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected categories that occurred prior to the September 23, 2017 video;
and/or
failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected categories that occurred after the September 23, 2017 video.

Id. at 10–11. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a discriminatory practice with
malice or reckless indifference to Doe’s federally protected rights.
Based on the conduct alleged above, Plaintiff asserts seven different theories of liability
based on alleged violations of 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. Id. at 11–14. On May 17, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss and a supporting memorandum. Docs. 20, 21. Therein, Defendants argue that (1)
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state causes of action against the individual Defendants in
their individual capacities; and (2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint warrants dismissal because of
the “shotgun” pleading format. With respect to the latter, 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.” Doc. 21, at 5–
6. Plaintiff has filed a Response addressing the arguments raised in Defendants’ motion. Doc. 23.
This Order follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts have traditionally held that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears
from the pleadings that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of her claim which
would entitle her to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957); Gould v. Artisoft, Inc., 1

6

F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 1993). Rather, a complaint should be construed broadly and liberally in
conformity with the mandate in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e). More recently, the
Supreme Court has phrased this standard as requiring a showing sufficient “to raise a right to
relief beyond a speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).
The claim for relief must be “plausible on its face.” Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1953
(2009). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and all well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true. Albright v.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984); Lanigan v.
Village of East Hazel Crest, 110 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1997); M.C.M. Partners, Inc. v. AndrewsBartlett & Assoc., Inc., 62 F.3d 967, 969 (7th Cir. 1995); Early v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 959
F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1992).
DISCUSSION
(1) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint States a Cause of Action Against the Individual Defendants
Defendants argue in their memorandum in support of their Motion to Dismiss that
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state causes of action against the individual Defendants in
their individual capacities under § 1983 because Plaintiff does not allege that any of the
individuals had a personal involvement in depriving Doe of a constitutional right. Doc. 21, at 3.
Similarly, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a § 1981 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.
Id. at 3–4.

7

In his Response, Plaintiff argues that he sufficiently alleged causes of action against the
Defendants in their individual capacities, quoting the following portion of the Amended
Complaint in support:
42. All of the Defendants named in their individual capacities have been personally
involved in and played a role in the deprivation of DOE’s federally-protected rights,
including without limitation, the following:
a) VAUGHN, LIST, and O’LAUGHLIN failed to take appropriate measures to
address the race-based bullying against DOE (the September 23, 2018 video
tape) when it was first reported by WILLIAMS and were unresponsive to
WILLIAMS until WILLIAMS complained of the District’s lack of
responsiveness on social media;
b) RYAN advocated for minimal or no punishment to be given to the Students
involved in the September 23, 2017 video, stating to VOGEL that he wanted
the Students to feel like they were part of the team;
c) At RYAN’s direction, DEFREITAS, HEIL, GREBNER, MCALLISTER,
MISHLER, SPRINGER, and VOGEL:
i. decided on October 1, 2017 to impose an insufficient punishment of a
two football game suspension against the Students;
ii. failed to ensure that the Students actually served the suspension that the
Board imposed;
iii. failed to adequately address threats directed to DOE for reporting the
September 23, 2017 video;
iv. failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected classes that occurred prior to the September 23, 2017 video;
and/or
v.
failed to properly investigate incidents of bullying based on race and
other protected classes that occurred after the September 23, 2017 video.
d) LIST, O’LAUGHLIN and VAUGHN:
i. initially issued an inadequate one-game suspension against the Students;
ii.
failed to ensure that the Students actually served the two-game
suspension that the Board ultimately imposed;
iii. failed to adequately address threats directed to DOE for reporting the
September 23, 2017 video;
iv.
failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected categories that occurred prior to the September 23, 2017
video; and/or
v.
failed to properly investigate incidents bullying based on race and other
protected categories that occurred after the September 23, 2017 video.
Doc. 23, at 10–11.

8

“Because there is no theory of respondeat superior for constitutional torts, a plaintiff
‘must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual
actions, has violated the Constitution.’ ” T.E. v. Grindle, 599 F.3d 583, 588 (7th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)). Thus, “[a]n individual cannot be held
liable in a § 1983 action unless he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional
deprivation.” Kuhn v. Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Wolf–Lillie v.
Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that each of the individual
Defendants participated in depriving Doe of his constitutional rights by failing to protect him
against racial discrimination and harassment by MTHS students. Vaughn, List, and O’Laughlin
failed to take appropriate remedial measures to address the bullying of Doe, issued an inadequate
punishment and failed to ensure that punishment was carried out, and failed to respond to threats
to Doe. Ryan advocated for no punishment or minimal punishment for the students who made
the video. Defreitas, Heil, Grebner, McAllister, Mishler, Springer, and Vogel followed Ryan’s
suggestion and imposed inadequate discipline on the students who made the video. See Doc. 23,
at 10–11. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a § 1983 claim against each of the individual
Defendants.
(2) Plaintiffs’ Pleading Format Provides Sufficient Notice to Defendants
The second argument advanced by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss is that
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint warrants dismissal because the “shotgun” pleading format.
Specifically, 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.” Doc. 21, at 5–6. In his Response, Plaintiff argues that his

9

Amended Complaint is sufficiently clear in light of the fact that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action
arise from the same or similar facts. Doc. 23, at 4.
The primary purpose of Rules 8 and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is “to
give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds supporting the claims.”
Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 946–47 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Stanard v.
Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011)). As discussed above, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that
each of the individual Defendants participated in depriving Doe of his constitutional rights. The
individual Defendants need not look further than paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
for notice of their alleged involvement in the purported deprivation of Doe’s civil rights. In sum,
this is not the case where a complaint consists of a “vague, confusing, and conclusory
articulation of the factual and legal basis for the claim and [takes] a general ‘kitchen sink’
approach to pleading the case.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co., 722 F.3d at 946–47. If Defendants
believe that Plaintiff has failed to properly plead the elements of a specific cause of action, the
proper response would be to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) that states the elements
of the cause of action, cites to relevant authority, and explains why Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is deficient with respect to one or more of those elements.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

Signed on this 23rd day of July, 2018.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

10