C.S. v. Southern Columbia Area School District et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle 17 is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 9 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (3) Plaintiff's Quid Pro Quo cla im is DISMISSED. (4) Plaintiff's punitive damages claims against Southern Columbia School District are DISMISSED. (5) The remaining claims are: (a) Count I, Hostile Environment in violation of Title IX against the SCASD. Plaintiff's availa ble remedies are compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys fees. (b) Count II, a Equal Protection gender claim in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the SCASD and Becker. The remaining available remedies are compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Also remaining is a potential punitive damages award against Becker in his individual capacity. The action is remanded to Magistrate Judge Arbuckle. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 5/21/13. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

C.S.,

Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-I013
Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.
SOUTHERN COLUMBIA
SCHOOL DISTRICT and
JAMES A. BECKER"
(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
May 21,2013
I. BACKGROUND:
On May 30, 2012, plaintiff, C.S., instituted the instant action by filing a
complaint. Complaint, ECF No.1. The complaint names as defendants Southern
Columbia Area School District (hereinafter "SCASD") and James A. Becker, the
principal of the Southern Columbia High School, where C.S. was a student.
The complaint contains two counts. Count I is brought pursuant Title IX,
20 U.S.C. § 1681 and is a Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment claim against
SCASD. The requested remedies are compensatory and punitive damages, interest,
costs and attorneys fees. Count II is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is a

1

I

f

Equal Protection gender claim against the SCASD and Becker in both his

f

individual and official capacities. The requested remedies are compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, costs and attorneys fees.
On July 31, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.9. On November 19,2012, Magistrate Judge
William I. Arbuckle, III filed a thirty-page report and recommendation,
recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Report and

I
I

l

I

Recommendation, ECF No. 17. Both plaintiff and defendant filed responses to the
report and recommendation.
When objections are filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate
judge, the district court makes "a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objections are

I

made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C); United States v Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-75;
100 S.Ct. 2406; 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980). The court may accept, reject or modify,
in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Id.
Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits
whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to
place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. Raddatz,
447 U.S. at 675; see also Mathews v Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v.
2

)
r
t

Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).
The defendants object to the report and recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Arbuckle as follows: Defendants argue that plaintiff did not state a hostile
environment claim; did not state an equal protection claim; and that Magistrate
Judge Arbuckle's damages dismissal should be clarified.

II. DISCUSSION:
As an initial matter, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her Quid Pro Quo claim
along with her punitive damages reward request against the school district.
As the Court writes only for the parties, the undersigned will not recite the
facts or rehash the sound reasoning of the magistrate judge, which the Court will
adopt in full. The Court will only address defendants objections to the report and
recommendation.
First, defendants argue, by relying on 24 Pa. C.S.A. §§5-5l 0, that the hostile
environment claim fails to state a claim. Additionally, defendants argue that
Magistrate Judge Arbuckle erred by relying on federal district court holdings from
outside of Pennsylvania. Both of defendants' arguments fail. Magistrate Judge
Arbuckle's analysis is correct that plaintiff has stated a claim for hostile
environment under Title IX. Defendants confuse a possible argument for their
defense, provided by the Pennsylvania statutes as a reason that plaintiff has failed
3

to state a claim. The underlying litigation is in too early a stage to rely on a
potential defense to dismiss a claim. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle did
not err by relying on sound reasoning set forth by another federal district.
Second, defendants argue that the equal protection based on gender claim
should be dismissed. As Magistrate Judge Arbuckle pointed out, this type of
claim needs discovery, and accordingly, should not be dismissed at this early stage
of litigation.
Finally, defendants argue that the damages claims need to be clarified. The
undersigned agrees and will clarify the pending damages reward claims.

III. CONCLUSION:
Plaintiffs Quid Pro Quo claim will be dismissed. Plaintiffs claims for
punitive damages against the SCASD and Becker in his official capacity will be
dismissed.
The claims that remain are as follows: Count I, Hostile Environment in
violation of Title IX against the SCASD. Plaintiffs available remedies are
compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Count II, an Equal
Protection gender claim in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the SCASD and
Becker. The remaining available remedies are compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorney's fees. Also, remaining is a potential punitive damages award
4

against Becker in his individual capacity.

An appropriate Order in accordance with this Memorandum will follow.

sf Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA
C.S.,

Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-I013
Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.
SOUTHERN COLUMBIA
SCHOOL DISTRICT and
JAMES A. BECKER"
(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)
Defendants.
ORDER
May 21,2013

In conformity with the memorandum issued this date,

1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle is
ADOPTED in full. Report and Recommendation, November 19,
2012, ECF No. 17.

2.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, July 31,2012, ECF No.9.

3.

Plaintiff's Quid Pro Quo claim is DISMISSED.

4.

Plaintiff's punitive damages claims against Southern Columbia
School District are DISNIISSED.

5.

The remaining claims are:
a.
Count I, Hostile Environment in violation of Title IX against
the SCASD. Plaintiff's available remedies are compensatory
damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees.
1

b.

6.

Count II, a Equal Protection gender claim in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the SCASD and Becker. The remaining
available remedies are compensatory damages, interest, costs
and attorney's fees. Also remaining is a potential punitive
damages award against Becker in his individual capacity.

The action is remanded to Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III.

sf Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

2