Sunteți pe pagina 1din 52

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 1 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M.S., a minor, by and through her mother, PARIS HALL, and PARIS HALL, individually, Plaintiffs v. SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, SHAWN A. SHARKEY, KRISTI KAUFFMAN, DR. SUSAN M. KEGERISE, DR. CATHY L. TASCHNER, RALPH LOVELIDGE, AMANDA SALTER, LARRY NAWA, KENNETH POTTER, Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

JUDGE

NO.:

CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, M.S., a minor, by and through her mother, Paris Hall, and Paris Hall, individually, by and through their counsel, Dennis E. Boyle, Esquire, K. Edward Raleigh, Esquire, and the law firm of Boyle Litigation, and hereby submit this Complaint and aver as follows:

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 52

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331, which gives district courts jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. 2. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1343, which gives district courts original jurisdiction over (a) any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (b) any civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of the civil rights. 3. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over M.S.s state law

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 4. This is an action to redress the deprivation of M.S.s constitutional rights

under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 3 of 52

5.

M.S. also files this action to redress the hostile educational environment

created by Defendants pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a), as more fully set forth herein. 6. M.S. also files this action to recover for state law claims arising under

Pennsylvania statutory and common law, all of which arise out of the same common nucleus of facts as the aforementioned claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title IX. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because

a Defendant resides in this District and all Defendants are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES 8. Plaintiff, M.S., is a minor, who, at the time of the incidents which are the

subject of this Complaint, was sixteen (16) years of age and who currently resides with her mother. 9. Plaintiff, Paris Hall, is an adult individual who currently resides in

Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and is the mother and natural guardian of M.S.
3

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 4 of 52

10.

Defendant, Susquehanna Township School District, is a political

subdivision as that term is defined in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 42 Pa.C.S. 8541-8542, which political subdivision is organized and in existence pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Defendant maintains its administrative offices located at 2579 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17110. 11. Defendant, Shawn A. Sharkey, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as an Assistant Principal at the Susquehanna Township High School located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. At all times relevant, Sharkey was acting in his supervisory and personal capacity. 12. Defendant, Kristi Kauffman, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as an Assistant Principal at Susquehanna Township High School located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. At all times relevant, Kauffman was acting in her supervisory and personal capacity.
4

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 5 of 52

13.

Defendant, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, is an adult individual who, at all

times relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as Superintendent of Susquehanna Township School District, with its administrative offices located at 2579 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17110. At all times relevant, Kegerise was acting in her supervisory and personal capacity. 14. Defendant, Dr. Cathy L. Taschner, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as the Assistant Superintendent of Susquehanna Township School District, with its administrative offices located at 2579 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17110. At all times relevant, Taschner was acting in her supervisory and personal capacity. 15. Defendant, Ralph Lovelidge, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as the Principal of Susquehanna Township High School, located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. At all times relevant, Lovelidge was acting in his supervisory and personal capacity.
5

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 6 of 52

16.

Defendant, Amanda Salter, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as a Special Education Teacher and Individualized Education Program Case Manager at Susquehanna Township High School, located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. 17. Defendant, Larry Nawa, is an adult individual who, at all times relevant

to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as a Teacher at Susquehanna Township High School, located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. 18. Defendant, Kenneth Potter, is an adult individual who, at all times

relevant to this suit, was an agent, servant, workman and employee of Susquehanna Township School District, and was employed as a Teacher at Susquehanna Township High School, located at 3500 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, PA 17109. 19. It is believed and therefore averred that all individual Defendants were

and are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 7 of 52

20.

During all times relevant to this action, it is believed and therefore

averred that all Defendants were acting in their individual and official capacities, and under color of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 21. Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Kauffman and Sharkey had the duty and

authority to effectuate the policies and customs of Susquehanna Township School District and to implement and execute all federal, state, and school district regulations and/or policies relevant to the operation of a public school. 22. Susquehanna Township School District was implementing and executing

policies and customs in regard to the events that resulted in the deprivation of M.S.s constitutional, statutory, and common-law rights. 23. Susquehanna Township School District is responsible for actions and/or

inactions of all school district employees. 24. Susquehanna Township School District is responsible to ensure that all

employees are properly trained and supervised in the course of their employment with the school district. FACTS 25. M.S. incorporates the averments in paragraphs 1-24 above as if stated

in full herein.
7

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 8 of 52

26. 27. 28.

M.S. is a female. M.S.s date of birth is May 11, 1996. At all times relevant to this action, M.S. was a minor under the age of

eighteen (18). 29. of age. 30. 31. 32. M.S. is the child of Paris Hall and M.S.s Father. Mrs. Hall and M.S.s Father are currently divorced. Mrs. Hall and M.S.s Father were divorced at the time of the actions At the time of the incidents alleged herein, M.S. was sixteen (16) years

alleged herein. 33. 34. Mrs. Hall currently resides within the Harrisburg School District. Father currently resides within the Susquehanna Township School

District (hereinafter STSD). 35. M.S. attended Dauphin County Area Vocational Technical School and

John Harris High School (hereinafter John Harris) which are part of the Harrisburg School District. 36. Subsequent to attending Dauphin County Area Vocational Technical

School, M.S. briefly attended John Harris.


8

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 9 of 52

37.

At all times while M.S. was a student in the Harrisburg School District

she had an Individualized Education Program (hereinafter IEP). 38. M.S.s IEP stated that she suffers from a Specific Learning Disability

and Emotional Disturbance. 39. The IEP also stated that M.S. participated in the general education

curriculum for all subjects except social skills training. 40. 41. M.S. received Emotional Support for her learning disability. On January 10, 2012, the IEP Team overseeing M.S. at John Harris held

its annual meeting to analyze the progress of M.S. and revised M.Ss IEP. 42. for her age. 43. 44. 45. 46. While in the Harrisburg School District, M.S. struggled emotionally. M.S.s peers habitually bullied her. M.S. was not receiving adequate educational support. M.S. was hospitalized at the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, as well In the revised IEP, the John Harris staff stated that M.S. acts too young

as another hospital in the Philadelphia area, when she was thirteen (13) years old. 47. M.S. suffers from low self-esteem and depression.

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 10 of 52

48.

M.S. has been in counseling at Pressley Ridge for years due to her low

self-esteem issues and depression. 49. In addition to counseling, M.S. took medication to help with her low

self-esteem and depression. 50. The bullying that M.S. endured while in Harrisburg School District

severely impacted her ability to receive a proper education. 51. M.S.s parents noticed this and decided that they would work together

to help their daughter. 52. M.S.s parents decided that M.S. would reside with her Father during the

week so she could attend Susquehanna Township High School (hereinafter STHS), which is part of STSD. 53. M.S. resided with Mrs. Hall on the weekends and during the summer

months when school was not in session. 54. M.S.s parents chose STSD because of its academic reputation. They

believed M.S. would receive a higher quality education at STHS than if she remained in the Harrisburg School District, especially given her IEP. 55. M.S.s parents believed that M.S. would be in a much safer environment

at STHS and would receive the support she needed for her emotional issues.
10

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 11 of 52

56. 57.

In the beginning of calender year 2012, M.S. enrolled in STHS. When M.S. enrolled at STHS, her IEP records from John Harris were

transferred to STSDs Administration. 58. At some point after M.S. enrolled at STHS, STSDs Administration met

to review M.S.s IEP and to make any necessary adjustments and modifications as required by state and federal law. 59. 60. 61. Hall. 62. During the 2012 Fall semester, M.S. was adjusting to her new school and M.S. received a revised IEP while at STHS. Amanda Salter was M.S.s IEP Case Manager at STHS. As M.S.s IEP Case Manager, Salter frequently communicated with Paris

STSD was interviewing potential candidates for an Assistant Principal position. This principal would be primarily responsible for the tenth grade. 63. One of the candidates interviewed was Defendant Shawn A. Sharkey

(hereinafter Sharkey). 64. 65. Sharkey was formerly known as Shawn Alexander Constable. In 1999, Shawn Alexander Constable changed his last name to Sharkey.

11

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 12 of 52

66.

Sharkey was arrested on May 7, 1990 in Washington County,

Pennsylvania and charged with inducing a minor to purchase alcohol, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6310(A). 67. 68. On July 11, 1990, Sharkey pled guilty to a disorderly persons offense. Sharkeys criminal history is easily and freely accessible using the

Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System website. 69. The only information needed to run a background search on the Unified

Judicial System database is a persons name and the case type.1 70. Sharkeys criminal history was revealed by simply inputting his first and

last name as well as indicating criminal as the case type and clicking search. 71. 72. 73. It is unknown whether STSD conducted this basic search. STSD hired Sharkey as an Assistant Principal despite his prior arrest. On or about January 22, 2013, STSD hired Sharkey as an Assistant

Principal at STHS. 74. As an Assistant Principal, it is believed and therefore averred that

Sharkey was responsible for assisting in the administration of STHS, working with

Other combinations of information can also be used to conduct a search on this database.
1

12

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 13 of 52

department chairs, supervising teachers, directly supervising a specific grade level, and conducting other administrative duties. 75. 76. M.S.s IEP was still active at this time. During the week of January 28, 2013, M.S. was in her math class where

several male students bullied her. 77. 78. the incident. 79. her. 80. It is believed and therefore averred that as the Assistant Principal to the Sharkey and Salter spoke with M.S. about the other students bullying This bullying caused M.S. to become emotionally upset. Sharkey, M.S.s new principal, removed M.S. from her class to discuss

tenth grade at STHS, Sharkey had access to and knew of M.S.s IEP and its contents. 81. Even if Sharkey did not review M.S.s file and IEP Plan, he knew that

M.S. had an active IEP because Salter was present during the January 28th discussion about the other students bullying M.S. 82. Consequently, Sharkey was aware of M.S.s IEP and as a result he was

also aware of her emotional issues.

13

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 14 of 52

83.

During the January 28, 2013 meeting, M.S. discussed with Sharkey her

problems with bullying. 84. 85. 86. 87. days. 88. 89. 90. On February 1, 2013, M.S. went to the nurses office for a band-aid. Sharkey was also in the nurses office at this time. For reasons unknown to Plaintiffs, the nurse was not in her office during M.S. also discussed with Sharkey her anxiety issues. Sharkey was fully aware of M.S.s vulnerabilities. M.S. encountered Sharkey again on February 1, 2013. As of February 1, 2013, Sharkey was employed by STSD for ten (10)

the entire encounter. 91. 92. Seizing this opportunity, Sharkey asked to see M.S.s cell phone. Believing that she was in trouble for something, M.S. gave her cell

phone to Sharkey. 93. 94. Sharkey looked through M.S.s cell phone, including the picture files. Sharkey then wrote down his cell phone number on a piece of paper and

gave it to M.S. 95. Later that day, Sharkey sent a text message to M.S.
14

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 15 of 52

96.

M.S. believed that Sharkey was someone who cared about her and was

concerned for her well-being. 97. On the evening of February 1, 2013, M.S. called Sharkey and asked him

what he was doing. 98. Sharkey replied that he was at the Econo Lodge in Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. 99. Sharkey resided in the Philadelphia area, but he would stay at the Econo

Lodge and other local motels on Tuesdays and Thursdays when he attended school board meetings or functions at STHS in the evenings. 100. Sharkey then asked M.S. where she lived. 101. After telling Sharkey where she lived, Sharkey arrived approximately ten (10) minutes later to pick her up. 102. M.S. snuck out of her fathers house to meet Sharkey, who was waiting in his car for her. 103. Sharkey then drove M.S. to the Econo Lodge where he was staying. 104. There, Sharkey engaged in oral sex with M.S. 105. Sharkey also engaged in vaginal intercourse with M.S.

15

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 16 of 52

106. Sharkey drove M.S. back to her fathers house and dropped her off at approximately 1:00 a.m. 107. After this first encounter, M.S. felt like she was on top of the world and felt special because Sharkey was older and her Assistant Principal. 108. Sharkey continued his inappropriate behavior with M.S. for the next two (2) months. 109. Sharkey drove over to M.S.s fathers house around 10:00 p.m. and waited for M.S. to come outside. 110. M.S. snuck out of her fathers house around the same time because her Father was asleep by then. 111. M.S. walked over to Sharkeys car where Sharkey was waiting. 112. Sharkey drove M.S. to whatever motel he was staying at that night. 113. Sharkey engaged in unprotected sex with M.S. 114. Sharkey engaged in oral sex with M.S. 115. These encounters usually occurred on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. 116. Between February and March 2013, Sharkey engaged in sexual acts with M.S. approximately ten (10) times.

16

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 17 of 52

117. Sharkey rented a motel room at the Red Roof Inn in Harrisburg approximately twenty-eight (28) times between February 2013 and August 2013. 118. Sharkey talked to M.S. on the phone almost every day after school during his drive home to Philadelphia. 119. During these conversations, Sharkey asked M.S. about her day. 120. Sharkey also discussed with M.S. his unhappiness at home. 121. More specifically, Sharkey told M.S. that he wanted to divorce his wife. 122. While at school, Sharkey continued to cultivate his relationship with M.S. 123. Sharkey used his position as an Assistant Principal to gain access to M.S.s personal information. 124. Specifically, Sharkey looked up M.S.s schedule to see what classes she was in during the day. 125. On at least four (4) separate occasions, Sharkey pulled M.S. out of class and had her come to his office. 126. During these meetings, Sharkey discussed with M.S. any problems she was having and would inquire about her emotional state.

17

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 18 of 52

127. M.S. believed that Sharkey was someone she could trust and discussed her problems with him. 128. Sharkey already knew that M.S. suffered from low self-esteem and used his office to pay attention to M.S. 129. Sharkey gave M.S. compliments so that he could continue his relationship with her. 130. On many occasions, Sharkey told M.S. that she was pretty and that she had a nice ass. 131. Other students at STHS noticed the special attention that Sharkey gave to M.S. 132. When Sharkey called M.S. to his office, other students rolled their eyes, sighed and made noises as M.S. left the classroom. 133. Teachers at STHS knew that M.S. was being called to the office an inordinate amount of times. 134. Teachers also heard and saw the adverse reactions of the other students when M.S. was called to Sharkeys office. 135. STHS office staff also saw and knew that M.S. spent an inordinate amount of time with Sharkey in his office.
18

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 19 of 52

136. Office staff knew that M.S. had no reason to be in Sharkeys office. 137. The other Assistant Principals of STHS also saw M.S. in Sharkeys office an inordinate amount of times. 138. Sharkey became jealous of adolescent boys that M.S. expressed an interest in and asked M.S. if she was talking to them. 139. M.S. knew the term talking referred to having sexual relations. 140. Sharkey told M.S. not to talk to them. 141. STHS students made statements that M.S. was having a sexual relationship with Sharkey. 142. Some of these students called M.S. a whore and a home-wrecker. 143. Other students stated that Sharkey was probably hittin that. 144. Additionally, students made statements that M.S. probably seduced him. 145. M.S.s peers at STHS habitually harassed and accosted M.S. with these vulgar statements and slurs. 146. Consequently, M.S. felt intimidated about going to school. 147. M.S. was and felt targeted by her peers at STHS because of Sharkeys behavior and actions.
19

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 20 of 52

148. Teachers at STHS became aware that students were making vulgar statements and slurs about and to M.S. 149. In April of 2013, a teacher reported to STSD Administrators that Sharkey was having a sexual relationship with M.S. 150. Merely three (3) years ago, STSD was sued when a teacher forced a student to perform oral sex on him. 151. Following the initial allegation in that case, STSD, amongst other deliberately indifferent conduct, did not contact law enforcement or PA Childline, did not make any effort to limit contact between that teacher and student, and allowed an employee to solicit funds for the alleged perpetrators legal defense. 152. It is believed and therefore averred that STSD maintains a policy, practice, and culture which tolerates teachers, staff, and administrators having inappropriate relationships with students. 153. It is further believed and therefore averred that STSD is deliberately indifferent when allegations regarding such inappropriate conduct arise. 154. While STHS was conducting standardized testing in April 2013, Sharkey and Assistant Principal Kristi Kauffman pulled M.S. and five (5) other female students out of class to discuss the statements and slurs about M.S. and Sharkey.
20

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 21 of 52

155. During this meeting, Kauffman and Sharkey were present at all times. 156. It is believed and averred that prior to this meeting being conducted, Kauffman informed STHS Principal, Ralph Lovelidge, about this meeting. 157. It is believed and averred that Lovelidge instructed Kauffman on how to conduct the questioning of the students during the meeting. 158. When the students arrived at Sharkeys office, Kauffman questioned all of the students regarding the statements being made about Sharkeys sexual relationship with M.S. 159. Sharkey was present during this questioning. 160. Not surprisingly, all five (5) female students denied making any statements regarding Sharkey and M.S. 161. Because M.S. had feelings for Sharkey and did not want him to get in trouble, she denied having any sexual relationship with Sharkey. 162. This questioning in the presence of Sharkey was extremely embarrassing for M.S. 163. Kauffman knew or should have known of M.S.s mental condition based on her IEP.

21

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 22 of 52

164. Kauffman knew or should have known that M.S. suffered from low selfesteem. 165. It was outrageous conduct for Kauffman to question M.S. as she did. 166. Kauffman questioned M.S., knowing of her emotional problems, in the presence of her peers and abuser. 167. It is believed that the conduct of Kauffman in questioning M.S. as she did amounted to outrageous conduct detrimental to the emotional state of M.S. 168. Additionally, Kauffman knew or should have known that it was a fruitless exercise to question M.S. and these girls collectively in front of Sharkey. 169. As such, Kauffmans questioning was not done for the purpose of gathering information, but to appear that STSD was handling this situation appropriately. 170. M.S., embarrassed and angry, left Sharkeys office and returned to her classroom. 171. On the way back to her classroom, M.S. deleted from her cell phone all the text messages and phone calls from Sharkey as well as his contact information. 172. Kauffman never interviewed M.S. without Sharkey present. 173. Kauffman never interviewed M.S. without her peers present.
22

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 23 of 52

174. Kauffman never requested to see M.S.s cell phone. 175. Later that same day, M.S. was called to the office to speak with Superintendent Susan Kegerise and Assistant Superintendent Cathy Taschner. 176. When M.S. arrived, Kegerise and Taschner asked if M.S. knew why she was at the office. 177. M.S. responded that it was because of the other students statements about her and Sharkey. 178. Kegerise and Taschner told M.S. that a teacher had now reported that Sharkey was having an inappropriate relationship with her. 179. During the meeting, Kegerise and Taschner both asked M.S. if she had any pictures regarding Sharkey or herself on her phone. 180. M.S. indicated that she did not have information on her phone. 181. Kegerise and Taschner then looked at M.S.s phone. 182. Kegerise and Taschner did not search M.S.s deleted files folder. 183. If they searched the deleted files folder, Kegerise and Taschner would have uncovered the relationship between M.S. and Sharkey. 184. Kegerise and Taschner did not ask M.S. whether Sharkey touched her inappropriately.
23

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 24 of 52

185. Kegerise and Taschner did not ask M.S. whether she had a sexual relationship with Sharkey. 186. A trained investigator would have asked M.S. whether Sharkey touched M.S. inappropriately. 187. A trained investigator would have asked M.S. whether she had a sexual

relationship with Sharkey. 188. A trained investigator would have thoroughly searched M.S.s phone, including the deleted files folder for evidence of a relationship. 189. Kegerise and Taschner subsequently called the other five (5) girls in and questioned them in front of M.S. 190. Therefore, the Defendants including Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge and Kauffman never actually investigated these allegations. 191. Despite all the evidence to the contrary and the absence of an investigation, the STSD administration concluded that Sharkey was not having an inappropriate relationship with M.S. 192. The same day M.S. was questioned in front of her peers and abuser at STHS, Taschner called Mrs. Hall and told her about the statements being made about Sharkey and M.S.
24

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 25 of 52

193. Taschner informed Mrs. Hall that STSD was looking into the allegations. 194. Mrs. Hall believed that an investigation was being conducted by law enforcement or Children and Youth Services. 195. A few days later Taschner called Mrs. Hall back and informed her that nothing was found. 196. During the same conversation, Taschner told Mrs. Hall that they were not going to ruin a mans career over these rumors. 197. Additionally, the administration at STSD did not report the allegations to the Pennsylvania ChildLine or law enforcement. 198. STSDs Administrators were required by law to report the allegations to the Pennsylvania ChildLine and law enforcement. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. 6311, 6352, and 6353. 199. By April 2013, STSD had reasonable cause to suspect that Sharkey had an illicit relationship with M.S. 200. Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Sharkey and Kauffman were individuals responsible for the administration of STHS.

25

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 26 of 52

201. Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge and Kauffman were required to report Sharkeys actions upon receiving a report of child abuse to law enforcement and the district attorney. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. 6353(a). 202. Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge and Kauffman could not use their discretion in reporting Sharkey to law enforcement. They were required by law to report Sharkey to law enforcement upon receiving a report of child abuse. 203. Salter was also required to report immediately to law enforcement because she had reasonable cause to suspect Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. and because Sharkey was responsible for the administration of STHS. 204. STSD continued to employ Sharkey as an Assistant Principal after the questioning of M.S. and the other five (5) girls in April 2013. 205. STSD did not put him on administrative leave or suspend him. 206. By doing this, STSD allowed Sharkey to stay in contact with M.S. 207. STSD failed to provide proper and adequate training to identify obvious sexual harassment. This failure created an environment that was unsafe to all students and faculty which amounts to deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights. 208. STSDs failure to train its teachers and staff resulted in teachers and staff not calling law enforcement.
26

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 27 of 52

209. Because M.S. still believed that Sharkey cared for her, she did not speak to the authorities. 210. In the weeks that followed, M.S. continued to be harassed by other students and was called names such as whore and home-wrecker. 211. Teachers were are aware of the statements made by students concerning Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. 212. Larry Nawa and Kenneth Potter, teachers at STHS, knew of the statements made by students concerning Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. 213. Nawa and Potter were also required to report immediately to law enforcement because they had reasonable cause to suspect Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. and because Sharkey was responsible for the administration of STHS. 214. Other teachers at STHS also harassed M.S. 215. Salter, Nawa, and Potter harassed M.S. and made illicit comments and called M.S. illicit names. 216. Specifically, Salter, Nawa, and Potter called M.S. a slut. 217. The statements made by STHS teachers and students about Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. went beyond mere rumor and adolescent gossip.
27

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 28 of 52

218. These statements were known facts. 219. M.S. felt anxiety, embarrassment and anger over these smears. 220. M.S. was intimidated by these smears. 221. These aspersions by her peers and teachers adversely impacted M.S.s ability to learn and study. 222. These salacious statements created a hostile educational environment for M.S., and would detrimentally affect any reasonable person. 223. As these statements persisted, additional teachers at STHS made reports to STSD administrators regarding the illicit relationship between M.S. and Sharkey. 224. It is believed and averred that at least four (4) teachers reported to STSD administrators that something inappropriate was happening between M.S. and Sharkey. 225. As such, direct complaints to STSD officials were made. 226. STSD and STSH administrators knew law enforcement should have been contacted in order to do a proper investigation into the allegations. 227. All Defendants and all teachers who knew of these allegations failed to contact Child Protective Services or law enforcement, even though four (4) teachers reported that Sharkey had an illicit relationship with M.S.
28

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 29 of 52

228. STSD, Kegerise, Taschner, and Lovelidge placed no restraints on Sharkeys contact with M.S. 229. STSD, Kegerise, Taschner and Lovelidge failed to re-assign M.S. to a different Assistant Principal at STHS in order to limit her contact with Sharkey. 230. STSD, Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Kauffman, Salter, Nawa, and Potter acted with deliberate indifference in regard to the incidents of harassment and assault by Sharkey. 231. Despite the fact there was clear evidence of sexual harassment by Sharkey, STSD had a practice and custom of not adequately investigating nor disciplining obvious sexual harassment. 232. Defendants actions amounted to willful misconduct because they all knew that Sharkey had a sexual relationship with M.S. but failed to discipline him. 233. Defendants persistently acted with deliberate indifference to the discrimination perpetrated against and the resultant harm to M.S. 234. Consequently, Sharkey continued to have contact with M.S. throughout the summer of 2013. 235. August 26, 2013 was the first day of school for the 2013-2014 school year at STHS.
29

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 30 of 52

236. Despite the summer vacation, the smears still persisted about Sharkeys illicit relationship with M.S. 237. At some point after the beginning of the school year, a student reported the illicit relationship between M.S. and Sharkey to a STSD resource officer. 238. On September 17, 2013 Susquehanna Township Police received information from the STHS resource officer, Patrolman Rowe, regarding the allegation of an inappropriate relationship between M.S. and Sharkey. 239. On September 18, 2013, Detective Osman of the Susquehanna Township Police Department obtained a search warrant to obtain the cell phone records of M.S. 240. Later that day, Patrolman Rowe, Detective Osman, and Detective Mull of the Susquehanna Township Police Department removed M.S. from class to discuss the allegations with her. 241. At that time, Detective Osman confiscated M.S.s phone and searched the contents which revealed the relationship between M.S. and Sharkey. 242. On September 20, 2013, an Affidavit of Probable Cause was filed with Magisterial District Court 12-1-01 alleging that Sharkey engaged in a sexual relationship with M.S.

30

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 31 of 52

243. Also on September 20, 2013, pursuant to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, an Arrest Warrant was issued for Sharkey. 244. Sharkey was charged with violations of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3124.2 (A)(21) School - Intercourse/Sexual Contact with Student; 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6301 (A)(1)(ii) Corruption of Minors - Defendant Age 18 or Above; and 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6318(A)(1) Unlawful Contact With Minor - Sexual Offenses. 245. On September 21, 2013, Sharkey surrendered to the custody of the Susquehanna Township Police Department. 246. Paul Blunt, Esquire, is the Solicitor for STSD. 247. On September 25, 2013, Attorney Blunt released a statement to the media concerning the allegations surrounding M.S. and Sharkey. In his statement, Attorney Blunt stated that the allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Sharkey and M.S. were unsubstantiated. 248. Attorney Blunt further stated [u]nder the law, reporting unsubstantiated rumor could subject the district to possible criminal and civil liability. 249. However, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 6311 states that as long as an individual does

so in good faith they will not be subject to criminal and civil liability.

31

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 32 of 52

250. Despite the fact that M.S. was never identified in any police reports or to the media, other students at STHS, teachers and administrators already knew that the student involved was M.S. 251. Other students at STHS continue to harass M.S. via social media such as Twitter and Facebook, causing M.S. to discontinue her accounts. 252. The harassment increased since this matter was revealed. 253. Due to the increased harassment and hostile learning environment at STHS, M.S. was forced to transfer to a different school district. 254. Due to the inappropriate behavior of Sharkey, M.S.s life is severely and permanently damaged. 255. M.S. became withdrawn after this incident. 256. M.S. refused to leave her home or bedroom. 257. M.S. suffers from emotional outbursts as a result of the stress caused by the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants in this matter. 258. M.S. has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants in this matter.

32

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 33 of 52

259. Due to the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants, M.S. was subjected, for a substantial amount of time, to harassment and ridicule in school, inhibiting her ability to receive an education. 260. Due to the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants, M.S. missed a significant number of days from school, inhibiting her ability to receive an education. 261. Due to the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants, M.S. suffered damages as a result of the missed educational opportunities she might otherwise have engaged. 262. The damages M.S. suffered, as a result of these missed educational opportunities, have and will negatively impact her future earning capacity. 263. M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a result of being deprived of a normal childhood education due to the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants.

33

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 34 of 52

COUNT I Violation of Personal Security and Bodily Integrity 42 U.S.C. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution M.S. v. Shawn A. Sharkey 264. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 263 above as if fully set forth herein. 265. Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. has the right as a public school student to personal security and personal bodily integrity. 266. Also pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. had the right to be free from invasion of her personal security through a sexual relationship at the hands of public school employees such as the Defendant, Shawn A. Sharkey. 267. Sharkey, as an employee of STSD, and acting under color of state law, violated the rights of M.S., as a public school student, to receive personal security and bodily integrity by making a series of sexual advances and engaging in a sexual relationship with M.S.

34

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 35 of 52

268. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress. 269. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer violations of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 270. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT II Deliberate Indifference & Custom and Practice 42 U.S.C. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise and Dr. Cathy L. Taschner

271. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 270 above as if fully set forth herein.

35

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 36 of 52

272. M.S. is vested with certain rights, privileges and immunities as a student of STSD, and as a citizen of these United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 273. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. has the right as a public school student, to personal security and bodily integrity and the Equal Protection Laws. 274. STSD receives federal financial assistance. 275. Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. had the right to be free from invasion of her personal security through a sexual relationship at the hands of public school employees such as Sharkey. 276. Kegerise and Taschner, as employees of STSD, and acting under the color of state law, subjected M.S. to violations of her right to personal security and bodily integrity by allowing the actions of Sharkey, by failing to adequately investigate the allegations of misconduct, failing to adequately supervise Sharkey, failing to adequately train Sharkey, and manifested deliberate indifference to Sharkeys misconduct.

36

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 37 of 52

277. Kegerise and Taschner had actual knowledge of the misconduct of Sharkey. 278. STSD instituted and permitted unconstitutional customs and policies which fail to adequately supervise and train its employees with regard to protecting students from violations of their right to personal security and bodily integrity. 279. Additionally, STSD instituted and permitted unconstitutional customs concerning its investigation of STSD employees tortious misconduct against STSD students. 280. Kegerise and Taschner are policymakers for the purpose of implementing STSDs unconstitutional policies or customs. 281. Kegerises contract with STSD states: [t]he administration of school policy, the operation and management of the schools, and the direction of employees shall be through the Superintendent. . .The administration of policy, the operation and management of the schools, and the direction of employees of [STSD] shall be through the District Superintendent. Duties and responsibilities therein shall be performed and discharged by her or by her staff under her direction. 282. As Superintendent, Kegerise had final and unreviewable discretion to make a decision or take action.
37

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 38 of 52

283. Kegerise oversees operation of STSD and is bestowed by statutory authority with certain specific duties which qualify her as the final policymaker for STSD. 284. Taschners contract with STSD states: [t]he Assistant Superintendent shall be charged with the administration of the schools under the direction of the Board of School Directors as assigned by the District Superintendent and subject to the supervision of the District Superintendent. 285. M.S. believes and therefore avers that STSD, including all Defendants, acted with deliberate indifference with regard to the allegations of harassment and the possibility that an illicit sexual relationship was occurring between Sharkey and M.S. 286. It is believed and therefore averred that STSD has a practice and custom of not adequately investigating nor disciplining obvious allegations of sexual harassment. 287. The actions of STSD, including Kegerise, Taschner, Kauffman, and Lovelidge amounted to willful misconduct as they were aware of the sexual relationship between Sharkey and M.S., but failed to discipline or remove Sharkey from all contact with M.S.

38

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 39 of 52

288. Kegerise and Taschner failed to act affirmatively, despite the obvious need for action to deter the misconduct of Sharkey. 289. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress. 290. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey and all other Defendants, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer violations of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 291. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT III Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision & Retention 42 U.S.C. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, Dr. Cathy L. Taschner and Ralph Lovelidge 292. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 291 above as if fully set forth herein.

39

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 40 of 52

293. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. has the right as a public school student, to personal security and bodily integrity and the Equal Protection Laws. 294. Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, M.S. had the right to be free from invasion of her personal security through a sexual relationship at the hands of public school employees such as Sharkey. 295. STSD did not act with adequate scrutiny in determining whether to employ Sharkey and keep Sharkey employed. 296. Had STSD acted with adequate scrutiny, any reasonable policymaker would have concluded that it would not have been prudent and reasonable to employ Sharkey as an Assistant Principal in light of his previous criminal record. 297. Had STSD acted with adequate scrutiny, any reasonable policymaker would have fired or suspended Sharkey after the first allegation surfaced. 298. This failure by STSD to use adequate scrutiny amounts to deliberate indifference. 299. Had STSD acted with adequate scrutiny, Sharkey would not have violated the constitutional rights of M.S.
40

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 41 of 52

300. It was obvious that hiring Sharkey and/or keeping him employed after April 2013 would result in an individuals constitutional rights being violated. 301. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of STSD, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress. 302. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of STSD and all other Defendants, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer violations of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 303. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT IV Hostile Educational Environment 20 U.S.C. 1681, Title IX M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District 304. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 303 above as if fully set forth herein.

41

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 42 of 52

305. STSD created and/or permitted a hostile educational environment to exist, all in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a) (hereinafter Title IX) due to: a. b. M.S. was a minor and member of a protected class; M.S. was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexual contact/conduct from her Assistant Principal, Sharkey; c. d. The harassment was based on her sex; The sexual harassment unreasonably interfered with her school performance and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive educational environment that severely affected her psychological well-being; e. f. The discrimination was pervasive and regular; and The discrimination would have detrimentally affected any reasonable person in M.S.s position. 306. STSD administrators, including Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge and Kauffman, had authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of STSD and had actual knowledge of the misconduct of Sharkey no later than April 2013 but were deliberately indifferent to the actions of Sharkey.
42

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 43 of 52

307. As an Assistant Principal of STHS, Sharkey qualifies as an Appropriate Person for purposes of Title IX. As such, Sharkey had actual knowledge of his harmful conduct and was deliberately indifferent to this misconduct by repeatedly engaging in a sexual relationship with M.S. 308. Due to STSDs failure to adequately act or investigate the allegations, M.S. was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexual advances and sexual intercourse with her Assistant Principal, Sharkey. 309. Defendant, STSD, failed to adopt a sexual harassment policy which conforms to the requirements of Title IX with respect to procedures for investigation and resolution of complaints of sexual harassment. 310. STSD failed to take immediate, effective, and remedial steps to protect M.S., and thereby acted with deliberate indifference to the situation of M.S. 311. STSD continued in its actions and inaction even after it had actual knowledge of the harm suffered by M.S. 312. STSD engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed and intended to discourage and dissuade students and parents of students who had been victimized by sexual discrimination or harassment from seeking protection and minimizing the nature and effects of serious incidents to which female students had
43

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 44 of 52

been subjected. This policy and/or practice constituted disparate treatment of females and had a disparate impact on female students. 313. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of STSD, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress. 314. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of STSD suffered physical harm and suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress. 315. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of STSD and all other Defendants, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer violations of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 316. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

44

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 45 of 52

COUNT V Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District, Kristi Kauffman, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, Dr. Cathy L. Taschner, Ralph Lovelidge, Amanda Salter, Larry Nawa, and Kenneth Potter 317. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 316 above as if fully set forth herein. 318. The actions of STSD, Kauffman, Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter were intentional, oppressive, malicious and/or in wanton disregard of the rights of M.S., and constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. 319. All Defendants deliberately and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon M.S. by their actions and inactions in allowing the misconduct of Sharkey to happen and continue to happen after having knowledge of the inappropriate behavior. 320. All Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the effect their actions or inactions would have on M.S. 321. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or inactions of all Defendants, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress.

45

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 46 of 52

322. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or inactions of all Defendants, M.S. suffered physical harm and has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress. 323. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT VI Negligence Per Se M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District, Kristi Kauffman, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, Dr. Cathy L. Taschner, Ralph Lovelidge, Amanda Salter, Larry Nawa, and Kenneth Potter 324. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 323 above as if fully set forth herein. 325. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 6311, 6352, 6353 requires school officials to report to authorities when they have a reasonable cause to believe that a child is the victim of child abuse or inappropriate conduct towards a child and student. 326. STSD, Kauffman, Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter have a statutorily imposed duty to report child abuse or inappropriate conduct towards a child.
46

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 47 of 52

327. STSD, Kauffman, Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter had reasonable cause to believe that Sharkey was involved in a sexual relationship with M.S. 328. Kegerise, Taschner, Kauffman Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter did not report this conduct or allegation to Child Protective Services or law enforcement as required by law. 329. The failure of Kegerise, Taschner, Kauffman, Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter to report the conduct of Sharkey amounts to Negligence Per Se. 330. If STSD, Kauffman, Kegerise, Taschner, Lovelidge, Salter, Nawa, and Potter abided by and followed their statutorily imposed duties, M.S. would not have endured physical and emotional harm. 331. All Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the effect their actions or inactions would have on M.S. 332. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or inactions of all Defendants, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress.

47

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 48 of 52

333. As a direct and proximate result of the actions or inactions of all Defendants, M.S. suffered physical harm and has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress. 334. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT VII Battery M.S. v. Shawn A. Sharkey 335. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 334 above as if fully restated herein. 336. Sharkey engaged in harmful and offensive contact with M.S. which was intended to cause M.S. to suffer physical and emotional distress through an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor and a student. 337. Because Sharkey was M.S.s Assistant Principal, M.S. could not consent to engage in the contact. 338. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of all Defendants, M.S. suffered physical harm and has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress.
48

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 49 of 52

339. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, M.S. incurred attorney fees and costs associated with this matter.

COUNT VIII Negligent Hiring M.S. and Paris Hall v. Susquehanna Township School District, Susan Kegerise, and Ralph Lovelidge 340. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 339 above as if fully restated herein. 341. Defendant, STSD, owes a duty to all students and parents of students residing within the boundaries of its district, to employ persons who will protect the physical and emotional well being of the STSD students. 342. STSD knew or should have known that by employing Sharkey, violations of the rights of its students may be violated due to the criminal history of Sharkey. 343. Despite the criminal history of Sharkey, STSD employed Sharkey as an Assistant Principal at STHS.

49

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 50 of 52

344. As a direct and proximate result of the hiring of Sharkey, M.S. was physically and emotionally abused by Sharkey. 345. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey, M.S. suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent psychological damage and emotional distress. 346. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Sharkey, Paris Hall suffered and will continue to suffer financial loss and emotional distress.

COUNT IX Punitive Damages M.S. v. Susquehanna Township School District, Shawn A. Sharkey Kristi Kauffman, Dr. Susan M. Kegerise, Dr. Cathy L. Taschner Ralph Lovelidge, Amanda Salter, Larry Nawa, and Kenneth Potter

347. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 346 above as if fully set forth herein. 348. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants knew or should have known of the pattern of conduct in which Sharkey engaged in.

50

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 51 of 52

349. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants knew or should have known that the aforesaid pattern of conduct was in violation of the law. 350. Despite such knowledge, Defendants failed to adequately investigate, discipline or discharge Sharkey who sexually assaulted M.S. and subjected M.S. to a hostile educational environment, sexual harassment, sexual assault and disparate treatment because of her gender. 351. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted willfully, wantonly, recklessly and with an outrageous disregard and indifference to the rights, safety and well being of M.S. 352. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to follow mandatory reporting laws. 353. As such, M.S. demands that judgment be entered in her favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, M.S. and Paris Hall, demand judgment be entered in their favor against all Defendants, as follows: A. Demand for a Jury Trial;
51

Case 1:13-cv-02718-YK 3:02-at-06000 Document Document 1286 1 Filed 11/05/13 Page 52 of 52

B. C. D. E. F. G.

Declaratory Relief against Susquehanna Township School District; Nominal Relief against all Defendants; Compensatory Relief against all Defendants; Punitive Damages against all Defendants; Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and, Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

BOYLE LITIGATION /s/ Dennis E. Boyle Dennis E. Boyle, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 49618 K. Edward Raleigh, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 312229 4660 Trindle Road, Suite 200 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 737-2430 Fax: (717) 737-2452 Email: deboyle@boylelitigation.com keraleigh@boylelitigation.com Counsel For: Plaintiffs Dated: November 5, 2013

52

S-ar putea să vă placă și