Posted on 09/19/2014 7:58:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ACTUAL TITLE: Justice Department sides with 14-year-old girl raped while serving as 'bait' in middle school sting
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- The federal government today sided with the guardian of a teenage girl who was raped during a botched sting operation in the boy's bathroom, arguing the Madison County School system was liable under federal law to investigate harassment and protect female students.
"A school board cannot avoid summary judgment as a matter of law when a school administrator willfully ignores a plan to use a 14-year-old special needs student as bait to catch a student with a known history of sexual and violent misconduct, and as a result, the student is sodomized," reads the federal brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals late today.
The U.S. Department of Justice argues administrators at Sparkman Middle School near Huntsville knew the boy was dangerous and showed "deliberate indifference."
"According to Principal (Ronnie) Blair," reads today's brief, "June Simpson, a teacher's aide, reported that for several weeks, (a 16-year-old boy) had repeatedly been trying to get girls into the boys' bathroom and in fact had sex with a student in the bathroom on the special needs students' corridor."
Blair rejected the aide's recommendation that the boy be constantly watched, "and told Simpson that (the boy) could not be punished because he had not been 'caught in the act,' short-hand for the school's policy that students could not be disciplined without substantiation of student-on-student misconduct."
The brief states the teaching assistant then devised a plan to use the girl as bait.
"On January 22, 2010, while assisting custodians near the end of the day, (the 16-year-old boy) approached (the 14-year-old girl), who had already rebuffed his recent, repeated propositions to meet in the boys' bathroom for sex," reads the federal amicus brief filed late today.
"(The girl) immediately reported the incident to Simpson, a teacher's aide, who suggested that (the girl) meet (the boy) in the bathroom where teachers could be positioned to catch him 'in the act' before anything happened. (The girl) initially refused, but then acquiesced."
The federal brief highlights, over several paragraphs, the boy's history of sexual aggression and violence. He hit a student in 2008 and was given in-school suspension. In February of 2009, he was suspended for "sexual harassment." In April of 2009, he received in-school suspension for disrespecting a teacher. In September of 2009, he offered to pay another student to beat up a girl and was suspended.
In October of 2009, he told off the bus driver and touched a girl. He was put off the bus for 10 days and given three days in-school suspension. In November of 2009, he groped a girl on the bus and was suspended from the bus for 24 days. In December, he was suspended two days for "kissing."
It makes a recipient of federal funds, here, the school district, 'liable for [its] deliberate indifference to known acts of peer sexual harassment.'On Jan. 13, 2010, he got in trouble again for "inappropriate touching" of a female student. "Finding no eyewitnesses to corroborate the victim's accusation, they concluded that (the boy) was not guilty but nonetheless discussed punishment." Administrators assigned him to in-school suspension and clean-up duty. The rape occurred nine days later.
The Justice Department says Simpson had alerted the administration of her plan.
"Simpson and (the girl) then went to Vice-Principal (Jeanne) Dunaway's office, where Simpson told Dunaway about her plan to use (the girl) as bait to catch (the boy). Dunaway did not respond with any advice or directive," reads today's brief.
"(The girl) left Dunaway's office, found (the boy) in the hallway, and agreed to meet him for sex. (The boy) told (the girl) to go to the sixth grade boys' bathroom and she complied. No teachers were in the bathroom to intervene, and (the boy) sodomized (the girl)."
Simpson and Dunaway are among those named in the suit first filed in 2010. The district court allowed some state claims for negligence and wantonness. The district court threw out the federal claims, including those against the Madison County school board. Both sides appealed to Circuit Court.
"We're grateful that the Department of Justice has gotten involved," said Eric Artrip, attorney for the girl and her father. "It's important for us to have people with their credibility standing up and saying this is clearly a violation of Title IX."
The Justice Department argued that the school shredded student discipline records each year, required officials to witness sexual harassment in order to take action, diminished serious incidents in its record-keeping, and had been "closing its eyes" to evident dangers.
The Justice Department argues the girl's guardian should be allowed to sue under Title IX. "It makes a recipient of federal funds, here, the school district, 'liable for [its] deliberate indifference to known acts of peer sexual harassment.'"
Medical evidence confirmed anal tearing and bruising. The girl withdrew from school and moved to another state.
The federal brief argues school officials minimized the incident, listing it in the boy's extensive record as "inappropriate touching." The federal attorneys note one assistant principal, despite seeing photos of the injuries, contended school officials could not know if the girl had consented.
"Vice-Principal Dunaway testified that (the girl) was responsible for herself once she entered the bathroom," wrote federal attorneys.
Following a five-day suspension, the boy was sent to an alternative school, but soon returned to Sparkman Middle, writes the Justice Department.
The brief contends "...a jury could easily conclude that the school acted with deliberate indifference when, despite two sexual misconduct complaints against (the boy) days before he sodomized (the girl), it provided him unsupervised access to students and failed to protect (the girl)."
"In fact, Sparkman's practice of recording unrevealing and misleading descriptions of past incidents, coupled with its failure to maintain any record of unsubstantiated complaints and documentation for proven infractions beyond the current academic year, amounts to intentionally closing its eyes to (the boy's) dangerousness."
Updated at 11:10 a.m. on Sept. 18 with comment from girl's attorney.
That was Ken McElroy.
One thing which stands out to me is the school did not contact her parents or report the incident to the police before they set up this sting.
This girl needs to sue this school district into bankruptcy due to the outrageous conduct by their employees.
Agreed
noob...
And in none of this do I feel that the girl was treated right. By either school or the boy. Nothing she did “deserved” the result.
Schools don’t need to notify parents when the remove girls from school to shuttle them to an abortionist, why would the school notify parents when they are using daughters as rape bait?
My prescription for the perp: a healthy dose of pain therapy regularly applied to the affected area. If the condition persists, amputation is indicated.
Once he’s “well”, we’ll discuss consequences...
The Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty to protect you.
Sounds like your typical Kennedy.
It seems to me that the teaching assistant, the teachers, the principal and vice principal are are guilty of corruption of a minor for agreeing to use the 14 year old special needs girl in a ‘sting’ without PARENTAL CONSENT.
Certainly not old enough to consent to performing an adult act of law enforcement.
I mixed Bundy up with Dahmer. Now I have to look up McElroy, a new one on me.
Well, yes it is relevant, and she was ASSURED she would not be at risk by ADULTS IN AUTHORITY OVER HER (and responsible for her safety).
The alleged ADULTS had no business asking a minor to participate in an ADULT ACTION, especially one with danger.
The alleged ADULTS did not get permission from her parents, yet the same child would have to have a DOCTOR's and PARENT's written consent to take an aspirin while in school.
If they did not get permission from her parents, they are guilty of violating school policy and STATE and FEDERAL LAW.
You don’t hear about it much. They know how to shoot, shovel, and shut up in Skidmore.
Even though they have complete proof. AND they (the school staff) knew BEFOREHAND that the boy was planning to rape the girl.
I thought much about the same thing. However, we need to change that. IF ONLY BECAUSE it led to this type of behavior by the 'teaching assistant'.
I'd say, "that depends." Obviously, she didn't consent to sex of any sort, nevermind rape. Statutory rape, FWIW, is typically invoked when both parties consent to sex, but the sex is illegal anyway.
Children as young as 7 can assume the risk of their dangerous behavior
I'm also not defending the school, and I see there are cases where schools lost/settled on facts less egregious than presented here. negligent security: when is crime your problem?
In Jane C. v. New York City Board of Education, Queens County, New York Supreme Court, 2009, the plaintiff was a minor who was sexually assaulted. The plaintiff was a 16 year-old student who was sexually assaulted by three 18 year-old students in one of the school's restrooms. The plaintiff argued that the school's policy specified that seven guards would be stationed throughout the school to prevent after hours re-entry into the school of any students who did not have to attend an after school program, and that none of the assailants attended an after school program, but that they were able to enter the school after hours because the guards were all in a meeting. The plaintiff's counsel also argued that several janitors saw the assailants, but that they were not asked to leave. One of the assailants had a history of sexual violence against students and teachers, and that the school had received evaluations that indicated that the other two assailants were also potentially dangerous. After the first day of trial, the case was settled for $1,650,000.00.
The posture in this case is motion for summary judgment. I figure the case survive the school's motion to dismiss.
I'm not defending the school, just describing the school's legal argument. I think the administrators are lower than low. I haven;t done as much research as you have into violations of state and federal law as they relate to the incident. I tend to disregard school policy, as much of it is nonsense on stilts.
Students should be made wary of promises, suggestions, etc. made to them by teachers and others in positions of authority, and be REALLY wary when hearing an assurance of "promise to look out for you." Those promises are worthless.
Ugh. It just gets worse and worse.
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/09/madison_county_boe.html#incart_related_stories
Here is the blog of the local talk show host (Dale Jackson). He has quite a bit of detail. He also interviewed the girl’s attorney this morning which he’ll probably upload.
http://www.theattackmachine.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.