Exactly who are we protecting?

 Exactly who are we protecting?

 

A student was attending Vashon High School in Missouri.  During a school year, a school suspension monitor groomed the student for sexual abuse.  The monitor asked for photos of the student’s genitals, offered him money for sex, and tried to turn him into a prostitute with the monitor acting as the pimp.   The boy finally told his father about what was happening to him.  The father called the police.  The monitor was charged with sexual trafficking of a child and child pornography.

The monitor did NOT lose his job at the school.

In fact he kept his job until the story hit the news media.  The student was not allowed to return to the school because the school did not want the student and the monitor in the same building.  The school district offered the student virtual enrollment or the opportunity to transfer to another high school on the other side of town.   Ultimately the student opted for an online program.

The student sued the school district and two individual school administrators asserting due process violations, Title IX violations and negligence in the form of seven separate claims against each defendant.

The defendants claimed qualified immunity which therefore barred the due process claims against them.

The judge rejected much of their arguments.  He said the defendants did not prove entitlement to immunity because if taken as true, the student’s allegations showed they had actual knowledge of West’s persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct and were deliberately indifferent to it.  He agreed that the response of the defendants was unreasonable and deprived the student of access to educational opportunity.

The Title IX claims were denied since it only applies to federal grant recipients.  And the individual administrators did not receive any federal grants.

The court denied the district’s defense in full.  It rejected the immunity from due process for the same reasons it rejected the defense for the individual defendants.   Title IX claims against the district held because the district is a grant recipient.  

The student also made negligence claims against the district.  The district argued it was immune from such claims because it is a government agency.  However, the student responded that the district had insurance against such claims and the insurance company had no such immunity against claims of negligence.  The Court ruled that if the district did have insurance, then negligence claims could be made and paid.

This entire case played out in the St. Louis, Missouri school district, not some 3^rd world country.  What earthly reason could the district have had for sustaining the monitor's employment???   And- can’t help but wonder if the two school defendants were terminated.   Truly shocking case.