A.M v. Clarkstown Central School District

Background

A.M., a student at Clarkstown High School North, and her father, Marc Manara, sued Clarkstown Central School District and school officials under Title IX, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, New York’s Dignity for All Students Act, and New York tort law. They alleged that J.S., another student, sexually assaulted A.M. off school grounds and later continued to harass or intimidate her at school. They also alleged that school officials did not take adequate steps to prevent contact between A.M. and J.S.

The complaint further alleged that school officials restricted Mr. Manara from school property and football games after an assistant coach reported that Mr. Manara had threatened J.S. Mr. Manara denied making a threat. A temporary and later permanent protection order required J.S. to stay away from A.M.; J.S. was eventually transferred to another high school in the district.

Claims and analysis

The District Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The court dismissed the Title IX claims against Superintendent Jeffrey Sobel, Principal Harry Leonardatos, Assistant Principal Angie Watt, and teacher and coach Joseph L. Trongone. The court held that Title IX authorizes claims against covered institutions and programs, not against individual school officials, teachers, or other individuals. The opinion does not dismiss the Title IX claims against the school district in this ruling.

The court dismissed the Dignity for All Students Act claim because it concluded that the statute does not create a private right to sue. It dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the plaintiffs did not allege compliance with New York’s notice-of-claim requirements. The court did not reach the merits of that emotional-distress claim. It also dismissed the claim for punitive damages against the school district because punitive damages are unavailable against a government entity.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claim under the federal civil-rights statute. It concluded that A.M. was not alleged to have been suspended, expelled, or otherwise excluded from the entire educational process. The court also stated that the school district’s municipal-liability claim failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege a widespread or persistent policy or custom causing a constitutional violation.

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim concerning Mr. Manara’s exclusion from the school campus and football games. It reasoned that the complaint did not adequately show that the restrictions were unreasonable or based on viewpoint discrimination. The court additionally held that Sobel and Leonardatos were protected by qualified immunity because, based on the allegations, reasonable officials could have believed that Mr. Manara posed a safety or disruption risk.

Disposition

The court granted the District Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the complaint. The First and Second Causes of Action against Sobel, Leonardatos, Watt, and Trongone, the Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action against the District Defendants, and the punitive-damages claim against Clarkstown Central School District were dismissed with prejudice. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action against the District Defendants were dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint concerning claims not dismissed with prejudice by December 1, 2023. If they did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The complaint’s assault, battery, and false-imprisonment claims against non-appearing defendant J.S. were not part of this motion.