Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JOHN DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 18-cv-1057
)
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
METAMORA TOWNSHIP HIGH )
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122; and )
AMY DEFREITAS, MELISSA HEIL, )
DIANE GREBNER, STEFANIE )
MCALLISTER, BLAKE MISHLER, )
JAY SPRINGER, WENDY VOGEL, )
SEAN O’LAUGHLIN, EDWARD LIST, )
TERRY VAUGHN, and PAT RYAN, )
In their individual and official capacities, )
)
Defendants. )
NOW COMES Plaintiff, John Doe, a minor, by and through his attorney, Nina R. Gougis,
and as and for his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, states as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d, et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Illinois common law (as to Plaintiff’s
emotional distress).
2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
1
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 2 of 13
3. The Central District of Illinois is the proper venue for this action because the
Plaintiff’s claims arose within the geographical boundaries of the Central District of Illinois, within
PARTIES
4. The Plaintiff, JOHN DOE (hereinafter the “Plaintiff” of “Doe”) is a minor and a
resident of the State of Illinois. He currently resides in Metamora, Illinois. Doe is a 14-year-old
5. Doe currently is a member of the MTHS freshman football team and is the only
6. MTHS, is the only school owned and operated by Defendant, the BOARD OF
the “Board” or “District”). MTHS and the District’s offices both are located at 101 West Madison
7. The District is an Illinois public school district and local government entity created
under the laws of the state of Illinois, with the capacity to sue and be sued in this Court, and is
8. The District receives federal funding and, therefore, is subject to Title VI of the
the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, DEFREITAS has been a Board of
Education member. DEFREITAS currently is the Board President. At all times relevant to this
2
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 3 of 13
10. Defendant MELISSA HEIL (hereinafter “HEIL”) is an adult resident of the State
of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, HEIL has been a Board of Education member.
HEIL currently is the Board Vice President and Board Secretary. At all times relevant to this
the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, GREBNER has been a Board of
Education member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, GREBNER acted under color of state
resident of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MCALLISTER has been a
Board of Education member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MCALLISTER acted under
State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MISHLER has been a Board of Education
member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MISHLER acted under color of state law.
MISHLER is White.
State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SPRINGER has been a Board of Education
member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SPRINGER acted under color of state law.
SPRINGER is White.
State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VOGEL has been a Board of Education
3
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 4 of 13
member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VOGEL acted under color of state law. VOGEL
is White.
resident of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, O’LAUGHLIN has been
the Superintendent of the District. At all times relevant to this Complaint, O’LAUGHLIN acted
under color of state law and within the scope of his employment. O’LAUGHLIN is White.
17. Defendant EDWARD LIST (hereinafter “LIST”) is an adult resident of the State of
Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, LIST has been the Principal of MTHS. At all times
relevant to this Complaint, LIST acted under color of state law and within the scope of his
State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VAUGHN has been an Assistant Principal
of MTHS. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VAUGHN acted under color of state law and
19. Defendant PAT RYAN (hereinafter “RYAN”) is an adult resident of the State of
Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, RYAN has been the head coach of the MTHS
varsity football team, supervisor for the MTHS freshman and varsity football teams, and physical
education teacher at MTHS. At all times relevant to this Complaint, RYAN acted under color of
state law and within the scope of his employment. RYAN is White.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20. On or about September 23, 2017, four members of the MTHS football team
(hereinafter “Student” or the “Students”) – all minors and all White – recorded a video at one
of the Student’s residences. In the video, the Students can be heard making/taking several
4
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 5 of 13
derogatory, racist, and inflammatory remarks and actions, including without limitation the
following:
a. “I used to own you back in the day,” then when questioned by another
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;
right here,” then forcefully threw the stuffed monkey to the floor and
f. Singing, “I’m an Alabama n***er and I’m born to be free”, and “I’m a porch
n***er”;
h. Stating that “Back in Nam, all our troops were White people. We didn’t
5
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 6 of 13
21. On or about September 23, 2017, one of the Students also sent the video to the
Plaintiff via text message. The Plaintiff notified his father, Willie Williams (hereinafter
22. Williams discussed the incident with VAUGHN on September 25, 2017.
23. On September 26, 2017, VAUGHN informed Williams that the Students involved
would receive a one-game suspension for the incident; however, the Students only missed one day
24. On September 27, 2017, Williams discussed the discipline issued to the Students.
Williams told VAUGHN that the discipline imposed was not strict enough. Furthermore, Willia ms
informed VAUGHN that the Students were not suspended for one game; rather, the Students
missed one day of football practice. Williams then requested to speak with LIST concerning the
25. On or around September 27, 2017, Williams spoke with LIST about the incident.
LIST indicated that he had not had a chance to view the entire video. Williams then requested a
meeting with the Students and their parents. LIST responded that he would set up a meeting later,
as he and the other MTHS administrators were busy with homecoming activities.
September 28, 2017. At that time, O’LAUGHLIN stated that the discipline Williams requested –
banning the Students from football for the remainder of the football season and banning the
Students from all extracurricular activities for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year – was
too harsh. O’LAUGLIN told Williams that he would get back to him with further punishment and
that the Students would not be playing in the September 29, 2017 football game.
6
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 7 of 13
27. On September 29, 2017, three of the Students were not allowed to play in the
football game, but were allowed to stand on the sidelines. The fourth Student was allowed to play
in the game.
28. Williams complained about the incident and the District’s refusal to take adequate
action on his Facebook profile on September 30, 2017. Only then did the MTHS administra tio n
29. On October 1, 2017, the Board held a special meeting to discuss the
September 23, 2017 incident and the discipline imposed. During the meeting, the Board decided
to suspend the Students involved for two football games. VOGEL indicated that the Board refused
to issue harsher discipline to the Students because that is what RYAN wanted and because RYAN
wanted the Students to feel like they are part of the team.
30. On or around November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff witnessed two MTHS students –
one biracial student and one White student – repeatedly referring to each other as “n***er” while
walking down the hallway. The Plaintiff reported the incident to the O’LAUGHLIN.
31. After the Plaintiff reported the November 14, 2017 incident, one of the students
posted on his Facebook profile that he was going to jump the Plaintiff for reporting the incident to
O’LAUGHLIN. Williams requested that the student be disciplined for threatening to retaliate
against the Plaintiff and that the student be removed from Plaintiff’s math class to minimize any
future threat to the Plaintiff. However, O’LAUGHLIN and the District administration refused to
32. The Board, District and the other Defendants have a long-standing history of
refusing to investigate and take appropriate action in response to bullying, especially bullying
based on race and other legally-protected categories. Specific examples include, but are not limited
7
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 8 of 13
to, the Defendants’ refusal to investigate and take appropriate action regarding the following
allegations that were brought to the attention of one or more of the Defendants:
b. Repeated racial slurs and taunting directed toward a student during the
2017-2018 school year (done by three of the four Students involved in the
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
harassment and rape, but later declined to hold the training); and
33. The Defendants have repeatedly refused to investigate allegations of bullying and
have failed to take appropriate action to deter students from bullying on the basis of race and other
legally-protected categories. The Defendants’ actions and lack thereof allowed and encouraged a
climate to flourish in which students were frequently bullied, harassed, and victimized on the basis
of their race and other legally-protected categories and in which students were emboldened to
retaliate against anyone who reported incidents of racism, bullying, and harassment to District and
MTHS administration.
8
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 9 of 13
34. The Students involved in the September 23, 2017 incident, seeing the Defendants’
lack of action or concern regarding prior allegations of bullying, were emboldened in their bullying
35. The student who threatened to retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting the
November 14, 2017 incident, seeing the Defendants’ lack of action regarding incidents of racism,
bullying, harassment, and retaliation, was emboldened in his harassment and threatened retaliatio n
36. The discipline imposed and efforts taken by the Defendants for the
September 23, 2017 incident and threats of retaliation made after Plaintiff reported the
November 14, 2017 incident are insufficient to deter MTHS students from engaging in similar
37. Further, the Defendants, by failing to take appropriate action in response to the
38. The Defendants, through their failure to adequately address the bullying and
harassment of Plaintiff and other MTHS students, have established District practices that are
39. The Defendants’ actions were motivated by the Plaintiff’s race, the race of
40. The Defendants had actual knowledge of and were deliberately indifferent to
above-described bullying and harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive
that it deprived Plaintiff of access to educational benefits and opportunities provided by MTHS
9
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 10 of 13
41. By virtue of the Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, the Plaintiff has suffered
severe emotional distress, for which he is receiving counseling and therapy. Plaintiff’s family has
COUNT I
EQUAL PROTECTION – DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. § 1981
42. The foregoing paragraphs 1-41 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
43. The Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, violated Plaintiff’s right to equal
protection of the laws guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
44. It was a custom in the District to respond with inaction or lack of adequate action
COUNT II
EQUAL PROTECTION - DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. § 1983
45. The foregoing paragraphs 1-41 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
46. The Defendants’ actions, as described above, violated Plaintiff’s right to equal
protection of the laws guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
47. It was a custom in the District to respond with inaction or lack of adequate action
COUNT III
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et. seq.
48. The foregoing paragraphs 1-47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
49. The above conduct constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VI of the
10
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 11 of 13
COUNT IV
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983
50. The foregoing paragraphs 1-49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
51. Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his equal protection and due process
rights, as well as his rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
and 1983.
COUNT V
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Illinois Common Law
52. The foregoing paragraphs 1-51 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
common scheme to commit an unlawful act and/or a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
COUNT VI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Illinois Common Law)
54. The foregoing paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
55. The Defendants have intentionally acted in an extreme and outrageous manner.
56. The Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff emotional distress so severe that no
reasonable person – much less a 14-year-old child – should be expected to endure it.
COUNT VII
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Illinois Common Law)
57. The foregoing paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
58. The Defendants have acted in an extreme, outrageous, and grossly neglige nt
manner.
11
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 12 of 13
59. The Defendants, through their negligence, have caused Plaintiff emotional distress
so severe that no reasonable person – much less a 14-year-old child – should be expected to endure
it.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, requests that Court award him the following
relief:
(a) That the Defendants, upon trial by jury, be adjudicated to have violated the
Plaintiff’s rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,
et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Illinois common law (as to
(b) Equitable relief ordering the Board to take appropriate measures to deter future
incidents of bullying and racism toward Plaintiff and other MTHS students;
(c) That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, and all other
Defendants’ violations;
(e) That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses
(f) That Plaintiff be awarded any such other and further relief deemed just.
12
1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 13 of 13
JURY DEMAND
Respectfully Submitted,
13