A.H. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District

Background

A.H., a minor student at De Anza High School, alleged that her teacher, Jane Shetterly, sexually abused her during the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 school years. The complaint alleged that school officials knew or should have known about warning signs, including social-media posts, inappropriate conduct at school, and Shetterly teaching remotely from A.H.’s home. A.H. also alleged that the District did not formally reprimand Shetterly or follow up after learning that she was teaching from the home.

A.H. and J.D., identified as A.H.’s mother and guardian ad litem, sued the District, Shetterly, and Summer Sigler, the principal of De Anza High School. The first amended complaint asserted claims against the District under Title IX, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It also asserted California-law claims against all defendants.

Motion to dismiss standard

The District and Sigler moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible, rather than relying on legal conclusions or unsupported deductions.

Title IX claim

The court held that the first amended complaint did not plausibly state a Title IX claim against the District. In a case involving sexual abuse by a teacher, Title IX damages generally require allegations that an official with authority to address the discrimination and take corrective action had actual knowledge of the misconduct and failed to respond adequately, unless the claim is based on an official policy.

The court found that the complaint alleged only conclusorily that the District and its officials knew or should have known about the abuse. It did not provide sufficient facts showing that Sigler or another authorized official had actual knowledge of the sexual abuse. The allegations about two unidentified teachers also did not explain what they knew or whether they had authority to take corrective action.

The court further held that constructive knowledge—facts suggesting officials should have known—was not enough under the theory presented. The complaint did not allege an official District policy of deliberate indifference to sexual harassment, similar incidents during the relevant school years, a known overall risk of sexual harassment, or that A.H.’s abuse arose from such a policy. The court dismissed the Title IX claim with leave to amend.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims

The court also held that the complaint did not plausibly state claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those claims required allegations that A.H. was discriminated against because of her disability; the Rehabilitation Act claim required discrimination solely because of disability under the standard discussed by the court.

The complaint alleged that A.H. was targeted because of vulnerabilities including depression, social anxiety, special-needs status, and an individualized education program. It also alleged generally that students with disabilities are more likely to experience sexual misconduct by school employees. The court found that these allegations were not connected to facts supporting a plausible inference that Shetterly abused A.H. because of her disability. The court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims with leave to amend.

State-law claims and next steps

The court said the federal claims supplied the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Because those claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims until A.H. alleged a plausible federal claim. The opinion did not dismiss those state-law claims on their merits.

A.H. was permitted to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by January 20, 2023. The court stated that she could not add new claims or defendants without prior approval and that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Disposition

The first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The Title IX, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims against the District were dismissed with leave to amend, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.