Yates v. East Side Union High School District

Background

Haley Yates and her parents sued East Side Union High School District, teacher Archie Kregear, principal Traci Williams, and fellow student Toure Oliver. The claims arose from Yates’s junior year at Piedmont Hills High School, when she was 15. The opinion states that Oliver sexually abused Yates from October 2016 to early January 2017 and physically abused her on campus from October 2016 to May 2017.

In December 2016, students reported that an explicit sexual video involving Yates and Oliver was being shared. The school assigned an investigation, but Yates was not interviewed, only one of several identified students was interviewed, and the District took no disciplinary action against Oliver. The parties disputed why Yates was not interviewed and disputed many other important facts. Williams was Oliver’s cousin. After Yates’s mother complained, the District reprimanded Williams for an inadequate and biased investigation and for attending Oliver’s juvenile detention hearing in support of Oliver.

Yates had dyslexia and received specialized education under an Individualized Education Plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the District’s response amounted to deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment and involved discrimination and retaliation related to Yates’s disabilities and the family’s complaint.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A genuine dispute exists when a reasonable jury could decide for the opposing party. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties.

Immunity defenses

The defendants argued that the Eleventh Amendment, California discretionary immunity, and qualified immunity barred some claims. The court rejected the Eleventh Amendment defense because defendants waited until the summary-judgment stage to raise it, after litigating the case for almost three years and conducting extensive discovery. The court treated the defense as waived.

The court also declined to grant California discretionary immunity at that stage. It concluded that Kregear was not involved in the December 2016 investigation and that the alleged duty to report suspected child abuse was not discretionary. As to Williams and the District, the court found factual disputes about whether a mandatory reporting duty was triggered. The court stated that discretionary immunity was denied without prejudice to further consideration if warranted.

The court rejected qualified immunity as a defense here. The District, an entity, could not claim qualified immunity, and the claims against Kregear were state-law claims. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute commonly associated with qualified immunity.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court denied summary judgment on the Title IX and California Education Code section 220 claims against the District. Those claims required a jury to decide whether the District’s response to known harassment was clearly unreasonable. The court cited evidence that employees received reports about explicit videos, may have instructed Oliver to delete videos, viewed an explicit photo involving Yates, failed to interview Yates and other students, and later considered the investigation improper and biased.

The court also denied summary judgment on disability-discrimination claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion identified factual disputes about whether Yates was excluded from programs or activities because of a disability and whether the defendants intentionally discriminated against her. The court also found factual disputes concerning the family’s allegations that Williams retaliated against them for making a sexual-harassment complaint. The Unruh Act issue involving public schools was not reconsidered at this stage.

The negligence and negligent-supervision claims were allowed to proceed. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that those claims lacked a sufficient statutory basis under California law.

Claims resolved for defendants

The court dismissed the Bane Act claim against the District, Kregear, and Williams. The claim was brought only on Yates’s behalf. The court concluded that the alleged threatening statement to Yates’s mother was not connected to Yates’s exercise of a right, and that the alleged support for Oliver did not sufficiently connect to a right to be free from discrimination.

The court dismissed the claims based on California Penal Code section 11166 because that criminal statute does not create a private right of action. It also dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. The court concluded that the alleged cover-up, statements about the explicit photos and videos, and Williams’s attendance at Oliver’s detention hearing—even if unwelcome—did not constitute conduct extreme or outrageous enough to support those claims.

Disposition

The order states: “Summary judgment is granted for defendants on the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth claims. It is denied in all other respects.”