JANE DOE v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts

E.D. Pa.February 4, 2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE Civil Action No: 17-cv~035'70-TR v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUELINE A. RATTIGAN AND GINA DEBONA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In response to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Statement of Material Facts in Support of Summary Judgment, Defendants respond as follows: Admitted. It is admitted that Doe began attending schools within PSD in kindergarten and that she was a lotll grade student at PHS during the 20l4~2()l5 school year. It is denied that Doe left PHS on April 12, 2016. Rather, she stalted the Twilight Program at PHS on April 12, 2016. 2. Admitted that Dr. Rattigan was Superintendent of PSD beginning in 2013. It is denied that she is currently the Superintendent of PSD, as she has since retired. 3 I Denied as sta ted. The Board policies are writ ten documents which speak for themselves. By way of further response, PSD Policy 218 states, "the Superintendent or designee shall ensure that reasonable and necessary rules and regulations are developed to implement Board policy governing student conduct." See Exhibit 4, p. 2. By way of further response, it is denied that Rattigan has any current responsibilities, given her retirement from her position as Superintendent. 4. 1. Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 21 Admitte d tha t Dr. Ra ttiga n wa s Ms . McHa le 's s upe rvis or a t the time of Ms . McHa 1e 's de pos ition on J a nua ry 29 , 2018 . It is de n ie d tha t Dr. Ra ttiga n is curre n tly he r s upe rvis or, a s s he re tire d e ffe ctive J uly l, 2018. 6. Adm itte d . Adm itte d . 8. Denied as stated, in s o fa r a s P la in tiff re fe re n c e s writ te n Bo a rd p o lic ie s wh ic h s pe a k for the m s e lve s . By wa y of furthe r re s pons e , the Boa rd polic ie s c ite d by P la in tiff re quire tha t the compla ints cons titute ha ra s s me nt be fore the proce dure s cite d a re trigge re d. Additiona lly, De Bona wa s not s o le ly re s pons ib le for a s s ign ing s tude nt d is c ip line , a s th is could be a nd ofte n wa s de le ga te d to a s s is ta nt principa ls . 9. Admitte d tha t Ms . De Bona is Mr. He ge n 's s upe rvis or. The re ma inde r of th is pa ra gra ph is de nie d a s s ta te d. Ms . De Bona te s tifie d tha t s he ha s fina l s a y ove r Mr. He ge n's decis ions when they have a disagreement-not a s to eve ry action tha t he takes . See Exhibit 6, pp. 149-150. 10. Adm itte d . 11. Admitted. 12. It is a dm itte d tha t Doe m a de a lle ga tions s uch a s thos e de s cribe d to he r guida nce c ouns e lo r on J une 15 , 2015 . It is de n ie d tha t the quo te "s he wa s fe e ling uns a fe a s a re s u lt, " a ppe a rs in the c ite d re cords , howe ve r. S e e a ls o De fs . Exhib it 140, a tta che d he re to , Doe ~P S D 001795 (reporting tha t Doe was found "be ra ting" N. in the ha llway ea rlie r tha t moming). 13. De nie d. This is a gross mischa ra cte riza tion of Mr. He ge n's te s timony. Mr. Ha ge n wa s pre s e nte d with a n e -ma il da te d J une 15, 2015 a nd te s tifie d tha t, a t the time of the de pos ition, he could not re ca ll s e e ing tha t e -m a il. S e e Exhibit 8, p, 417:16 - 418:2. He wa s the n a s ke d, "Is it 5. 7. 2 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 21 poss ible , s itting he re , tha t you may have some of your da te s confused?" and re sponded "I don't think I do. I think it jus t wa s not re me mbe ring s e e ing this e -ma il a t tha t bus y time of ye a r a nd the n no t th inking a hundre d pe rce n t a bou t ind ividua l kids du ring the s umme r whe n my re s pons ibilitie s cha nge d to building-wide a ctivitie s ." S e e id, p. 419:1-11. Mr. He ge n wa s the n asked whether he reca lled what he did in response to the e~mail and responded tha t he could not re ca ll. S e e id, p. 421:17-23. As s uch, P la intiffs cla im tha t Mr. I-Ie ge n te s tifie d tha t he did not inve s tiga te a re port from Doe be ca use he was | 1b u s y \I a nd "not think a hundre d pe rce nt a bout individua l kids " is a fa brica tion. Furthe rmore , P la intiff is we ll a wa re tha t a ction wa s ta ke n in response to this e -mail. See Defendant's S ta tement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for S umma ry J udgme nt (he re ina fte r, "De fs . S OUF"), Nos . 52 through 56 (outlin ing a ction ta ke n in re s pons e to this re port, including As s t. P rincipa l La bos ki me e ting with N.), Exhibit 141, a ttached he re to, PSD-DOE 001798 (scheduling mee ting with N. to inves tiga te Doe 's report). 14. Denied a s to the use of the word "repea tedly", Doe did not report tha t these te rms were used "repea tedly," By way of furthe r re sponse , Doe te s tified tha t N. ca lled he r a whore and a s lut when they were da ting, which ended seve ra l months prior to June 2015. See Defs . SOUP, No. 51. On September 4, 2015, Doe reported tha t she and N. "have been apart for some time , but s he is s till ups e t a bout this a nd is worrie d tha t it ma y continue ." Exhibit 10, Doe ~P S D 0042 (e mpha s is supplie d). S he did not re port, a t tha t time , tha t he wa s s till ca lling he r a whore a nd a s lut. 15. De nie d . This is a mis cha ra cte riza tion of Mr. He ge n 's te s timony. Mr. He ge n te s tifie d tha t he did a s k Doe que s tions a bout the re port, but whe n he wa s que s tione d a s to 3 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 21 whether he asked Doe about the breakup with N. itse lf, he te s tified tha t he did not (i.e ., he did not de lve into the na ture of the ir re la tionship beyond the issues perta ining to a lleged abuse). 16. Denied as s ta ted. No PSD employee other than Mr. Hegen made these s ta tements . Furthe rmore , Mr. He ge n s pe cifica lly e xclude d a tte nda nce is s ue s a s cons tituting dis ciplina ry trouble . S e e Exhibit 8 , p . 422:4~9. By wa y of fu ithe r re s pons e , the "s trong a ca de mic kid" comme nt wa s ma de in compa rison to s tude nts with "e motiona l dis turba nce s ." Se e ia f, p. 435:4- 13. Additiona lly, Mr. He ge n te s tifie d tha t this wa s a s ta nda rd re s pons e tha t he ga ve to Doe in re s pons e to he r re pe a te d re que s ts to be tra ns fe rre d out of P HS , be ca us e s he wa s trying to manipula te Mr. Hegen and Mr. Henrysen by rnis representing to each of them wha t the othe r was s a ying. S e e Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUF, pp. 43424 to 435113. S e e a ls o De fs . S OUP , No. 9 (discussing Doe 's grade point averages and a ttendance his tory). 17. De nie d tha t a lice nse d clinica l socia l worke r is a me dica l provide r. It is a dmitte d, howe ve r, tha t a lice nse d clinica l socia l worke r ma de this s ta te me nt. By wa y of furthe r re sponse , a s Mr. Hegen expla ined in his depos ition, a le tte r from a socia l worke r is not an acceptable bas is to move s tude nts from one s chool to a nothe r. Doe wa s ine ligible to a tte nd the Bucks County Inte rmedia te Unit because she was not labe led a s a s tudent with an emotiona l disability and did no t ha ve a n IEP (Ind ividua lize d Educa tion P rogra m). In re s pons e to re ce iving the P e nn Founda tion note , He ge n communica te d with La boski a nd a ske d him to work with N. to ma p out diffe re nt wa ys for N. a nd Doe to tra ve l through the building to a void one a nothe r. S e e De fs . S OUP , No. 80 (citing He ge n De p., pp. 457-465). See a lso De fs . S OUP , Nos . 5-7 (re fe re ncing re poits of a bus e by fa mily me mbe rs in P e nn Founda tion re cords ). See a lso De fs . Exhibit 139, a tta che d he re to, pp. 21-25 (outlining tre a tme nt his tory a t P e nn Founda tion, including re ports of 4 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 4 of 21 conflict with pa re nts a nd pa re nts ' re port of "ma nipula tive , lying, rude , de fia nt be ha vior" by Doe da ting back to December 2010). 18. De nie d tha t a lice nse d clinica l socia l worke r is a me dica l provide r. It is a dmitte d tha t the socia l worke r ma de such re poNs , howe ve r. By wa y of furthe r re sponse , the re ports of abuse in the cited records a re firs t a ttributed to Doe 's mom and s tepfa ther and a lso s ta te tha t Doe re porte d tha t she wa s cha se d with a knife by one of he r frie nds , none of which a re the ba s is of he r cla ims in this ca s e . See a lso De fs . Exhibit 139, p. 29 (dis cus s ing Doe 's re polis of me nta l, emotional and physica l abuse by her mother and stepfa ther) . 19. Admitted. However, Doe te s tified tha t N. never touched he r aga in a fte r they broke up in or a round April 2015. (Ex. to Defs . SOUP, , pp. 89-90).l 20. Admitte d tha t Ms . De Bona d id not s e pa ra te ly inve s tiga te the a lle ge d b iting incide nt. It is de nie d tha t s he did not confirm tha t a nothe r P S D e mploye e wa s inve s tiga ting, however. See Exhibit 9 to Defs . SOUP, DeBona Dep., p. 172:2-17. See a lso Defs . SOUP, No. 80 (re fe rencing actions taken by Hegen). 21. De nie d. The e xhibits cite d by Doe a re he r own ha ndwritte n incide nt re port in which she says N. "is not supposed to be anywhere near me and I am not even supposed to be in this s chool be ca us e of him", while re fe re ncing the note from the s ocia l worke r. It is a gros s mischa ra cte riza tion to a ttribute Doe 's ha ndwritte n incide nt re polt a s a s ta te me nt by P S D. S e e a lso Response to TH7, above , expla ining why Doe could not transfer schools . 22. Admitte d tha t Doe s ubmitte d a n incide nt re port on Nove mbe r 24, 2015, tha t it was rece ived by Mr. Hegen, and tha t Doe 's quota tion is gene ra lly accura te (one word is omitted from the quota tion). It is de nie d tha t the conte nt of the incide nt re po1t wa s truthful, howe ve r, such a s he r s ta te me nt tha t, "I a m not e ve n suppose d to be in this school be ca use of him." S e e 5 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 5 of 21 Response to 1117, above , expla ining why Doe could not transfe r schools . See a lso De fs . S OUP , No. 63 (re fe re ncing Doe 's de pos ition te s timony, contra dicting the conte nt of he r incide nt re poit). Doe te s tifie d tha t N. ne ve r touche d he r a ga in a fte r the y broke up in or a round April 2015. (Ex. 1 to Defs . SOUP, pp. 89-90). 23. De nie d. At Mr. He ge n's de pos ition he s ta te d tha t the re wa s "not much" tha t he could re ca ll a bout the a lle ge d incide nt. Mr. He ge n te s tifie d tha t he wa s not s ure if he me t with Doe , but he wa s s ure tha t he re fe rre d the re port to Mr. La bos ki to a ddre s s dire ctly with N. See Exhibit 11 to De fs . SOUP, p. 453:13-17. Additiona lly, no pe r se incide nt occurre d, be ca use Doe only ma de ge ne ra l a lle ga tions without re fe re nce to a ny spe cific incide nt. S e e id, pp. 454:15 to 455:5. See also Defs . SOUP, Nos. 85-88 (discussing s teps taken by Hegen). 24. De nie d. Doe is compla ining a bout N. be ing in a n a re a whe re the y we re 100 fe e t a wa y from e a ch othe r S e e Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUF, p. 455:15-22. N. wa s not ba rre d from the building. S e e Exhibit 8, 452:2-11. See a lso Response to 1123, above. See a lso De fs . SOUP, Nos . 85-88 (discuss ing s teps taken by I-Iegen). Lega lly, N. could not be removed from PHS. 25. Admitte d tha t Doe file d a n Inc ide n t Re port on De ce mbe r 22 , 2015 . Doe 's quota tion conta ins a n e rror a s to use of the word "continuous ly," which should be "cons ta ntly," but is otherwise accura te . See a lso Ex. I to De fs . SOUP, pp. 89-90. 26. Admitte d tha t Mr. I-le ge n could not de te rmine who wa s te lling the truth a bout the incide nt, be ca us e Doe a nd he r frie nd we re contra dicte d by N. a nd his frie nd. Based upon s imila ritie s in the ir re spective accounts of the a lleged incident, howeve r, it seemed to Mr. Hegen tha t the re was equa l fault. See Exhibit 8, 469:17 to 470:4. Mr. I-legen a lso me t with both familie s . See Exhibit 11 to Defs . SOUP, p. 47123-7. 6 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 6 of 21 27. Admitte d tha t Mr. He ge n te s tifie d a s such, whe n a ske d a s to wha t he conclude s when he cannot te ll who is speaking the truth and the re is no objective evidence ava ilable to him. Omitte d from P la in tiffs pa ra gra ph , howe ve r, is Mr. I-Ie ge n 's p rio r te s timony, in which he expla ined scena rios where he is able to make a de te rmina tion even without video evidence . See Exhibit 11 to De fs . SOUF, pp. 391:14 to 393:5. 28. Denied as s ta ted. Mr. Hegen's te s timony was tha t he ins tructed both individua ls to go to the ir firs t pe riod cla s se s , a nd tha t he would be conta cting the ir fa milie s . S e e Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUP , p. 375. Additiona lly, Mr. He ge n a dvis e d Doe to s ta nd within ca me ra ra nge whe n possible in the future so tha t he could be tte r investiga te any future occurrences . See id., p . 387:8- 24. 29. Admitte d tha t Mr. He ge n a dvis e d N. tha t he wa s not in trouble a t tha t time . By wa y of furthe r re sponse , howe ve r, N.'s pa re nts we re wa rne d tha t future e ve nts could cons titute harassment and warrant an out of school suspension. See Exhibit 17, Doe-PSD 2488. 30. Admitte d tha t Mr. He ge n me t with N.'s pa re nts a nd tha t the y sa id tha t the y we re a wa re o f a n in c id e n t o ve r th e s u mme r wh e re Do e a ccu s e d N. o f s o me th in g . P la in tiffs cha ra cte riza tion of this te s timony is de nie d a s s ta te d, a s Mr. I-Ie ge n's te s timony wa s tha t the pa re nts sa id Doe a ccuse d N. of "some thing," Doe te s tifie d tha t N. ne ve r touche d he r a fte r the y broke up in or a round April 2015. (Ex. 1 to De fs . SOUF, pp, 89-90). 31. De nie d. Mr. He ge n a lre a dy me t with Doe , a nd fa mily me mbe rs . The re we re no witne s s e s to the a lle ge d incide nt othe r tha n Doe a nd N., a nd s o the re wa s nothing furthe r to inve s tiga te re ga rding the a lle ge d incide nt from se ve ra l months prior. Additiona lly, Mr. He nryse n followed up with Doe rega rding this report. See Exhibit 11 to Defs . SOUP, pp. 395:10 to 396: 13. 7 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 7 of 21 32. Admitte d tha t Mr. He ge n inte rvie we d N. a nd N.'s pa re nts in De ce mbe r 2015 a nd tha t N. de n ie d Doe 's a ccus a tion . Admitte d tha t He ge n d id no t inve s tiga te fu rthe r a fte r inte rvie wing a ll witne s s e s . By wa y of furthe r re s pons e , Mr. He ge n ve rba lly re polie d this to Mr. La boski a nd re que s te d tha t he a ddre s s it with N. S e e Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUF, pp. 425:23 to 426:16. 33. De nie d. Doe te s tifie d tha t s he d id not s e e N. a t Te ch during he r junior ye a r because N. dropped out of Tech School. Doe sa id tha t when she was present in law enforcement in the be ginning of junior ye a r, N.'s frie nds ma de he r fe e l uncomforta ble but she a dmitte d tha t none of N.'s frie nds s a id a nything to he r in the cla s s room or a t s chool tha t ma de he r fe e l uncomfoltable . See Exhibit 1 to Defs . SOUF, p 59. By way of fLu"the1. re sponse , Mr. Hegen only te s tifie d tha t Doe would a lle ge tha t "comme nts" we re be ing ma de , not ha ra ssme nt. Se e Exhibit I 1 to Defs . SOUF, p. 403. 34. De nie d. Mr. He ge n te s tifie d tha t he would inve s tiga te but could not find e vide nce corrobora ting Doe 's reports , ye t he did discove r tha t she had a tendency to embe llish or lie , See Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUP , pp. 402:11 to 403:20. See a lso id., pp. 404:10 to 40518 (inves tiga ting report pe rta ining to N. ) 35. De nie d. Se e De fe nda nts ' re sponse to pa ra gra ph 34. By wa y of furthe r re sponse , see Defs . Exhibit 139, pp. 29-34 (outlining Doe 's his tory of embe llishments and lie s ). 36. De nie d. By Doe 's own a dmis s ion, s he wa s not s e xua lly ha ra s s e d. By wa y of funhe r re sponse , it is denied tha t Ms. Mol-Ia le has not been informed of Doe 's compla ints . Doe 's cita tion to a de cla ra tion 80m he r a ttome y doe s not s upport this a ve rme nt, a s the de cla ra tion mere ly identifie s a discove ry dispute which was ra ised and then abandoned by P la intiff, and one which was never the subject of a motion. See Defs . Exhibit 146. 8 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 8 of 21 37. De nie d. It wa s re porte d by the s chool bus drive r tha t N. wa s "ta lking" a bout s uch te xt me s s a ge s . It is a dmitte d, howe ve r, tha t a confe re nce wa s he ld with N. a nd his mothe r ba s e d u p o n th is re p o rte d in c id e n t. It is u n c le a r wh a t Do e is re fe rrin g to a s th e "d is c ip lin e " in th is a ve rme nt a nd, a s s uch, this a ve rme nt is de nie d a s s ta te d. 38. De nie d a s s ta te d, ins ofa r a s the e llips e s ins e rte d by Doe s ugge s ts tha t the re ports of s e xua l comme nts a nd a s tude nt le a ving the cla s s we re inte rre la te d, whe n the s e re cords do not s ugge s t a ny s uch conne ction. In fa ct, Doe omits the de pos ition te s timony of Na ncy Ove rton, who s pe cifica lly te s tifie d tha t s he did not know whe die r N. dire cte d a ny of the s e xua l comme nts to othe r s tude nts . S e e Exhibit 148, p. 60:14-18, By wa y of fudhe r re s pons e , it is uncle a r wha t Doe is re fe rring to a s the "discipline" re fe renced in this ave iment, and the re fore such a cla im is denied as stated. 39. It is de nie d tha t Doe 's re ports of a lle ge d a c tions by N. cons titu te d ha ra s s me nt. Although it is not c le a r wha t Doe conte nds cons titute s dis cipline , in light of he r a ve rme nts in the pre vious two pa ra gra phs , nume rous a c tions a nd confe re nce s took pla ce to a ddre s s the is s ue s ra is ed in Doe 's 1'epoMs . 40. Admitte d . By wa y of fu rthe r re s pons e , Doe ha d be e n a tte mpting to "ge t ou t" o f PHS for ne a rly a ye a r prior to Ma rch 2016. See, e . g., Exhibit 17 to Defs . SOUP, Doe - PSD 0040 ("Doe 's dad and I be lieve tha t Doe has anothe r agenda for wanting to transfe r. Doe and N. have been broken up for a while and she has never reported any proble1ns"), Exhibit 2 to Defs . SOUF, pp, 114-121 (D'Ange lo te s tifying tha t mos t of the J une 2015 me e ting with Doe a nd he r fa the r conce rne d Doe 's a tte mpt "to convince he r fa the r to a llow he r to a tte nd Qua ke zfown S chool Dis tric t," whe re he r the n-boyfrie nd a tte nde d.) See a lso Exhibit 27 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0022 (Nove mbe r 24, 2014 e -ma il Hom Couns e lor D'Ange lo to Uppe r Bucks Te chnica l S chool 9 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 9 of 21 e mploye e , e xpla ining tha t Doe would not be pe rmitte d to tra ns fe r from cosme tology progra m to la w e nforce me nt s imply to be with he r ne w boyfrie nd, N.), De fs , Exhibit 142, a tta che d he re to, Doe -P S D 0038 (re que s ting tra ns fe r ba ck to cos me tology progra m following bre a kup with N.) Additiona lly, Doe ha d a his tory of pe e r conflict with s tude nts a nd fa mily is sue s , unre la te d to the a lle ge d ha ra s s me nt by N. a nd his frie nds , which s he cite d in ma king re pe a te d re que s ts for a ltemative placement. See Defs . SOUF, Nos. 105 to 139. 41, It is a dmitte d tha t P S D e mploye e s me t with Doe on April 8 , 2016 to re vie w proce dure s for e nrolling in Twilight Aca de my a nd tha t Doe s ta rte d a t Twilight on April 12, 2016. It is de nie d tha t De fe nda nt s ta te d tha t Twilight wa s the "only option" for Doe . To the contra ry, Doe could ha ve re ma ine d a t P HS but ha d be e n a tte mpting for ne a rly a ye a r, pe rha ps longe r, to tra ns fe r to a nothe r s chool. The P S D e mploye e s e xpla ine d to Doe tha t s he did not qua lify for s pe cia l e duca tion , nor d id s he qua lify for a s chool tra ns fe r. By wa y of furthe r re sponse , MDE te s ting was done and the re sults indica ted tha t Doe had no disability, but jus t did not like PHS. Se e Exhibit 21, Doe - PSD 0086; Exhibit 22, Doe -PSD 00203-04. See also Exhibit l to Defs . SOUP, p. 130 (Doe te s tifying tha t she did not want to a ttend cyber school because she wa s "e a s ily dis tra cte d" a nd would pe rform be tte r in a cla s s room s e tting s uch a s Twilight), Exhibit 23 to De fs . S OUP , pp. 112-14, 125 (He nrys on te s timony re ga rding Doe 's e xpre s s e d de s ire to le a ve P HS a nd a tte nd the a ll-da y Te ch progra m, a ls o re fe rre d to a s the "IU"), Defs . SOUF, Nos . 140-59 (outlining the steps taken to assess Doe for a lte rna tive schooling options). 42. Admitte d tha t Mr. He ge n te s tifie d a s to the na ture of the Twilight P rogra m a s of Spring 2016. Eur see Exhibit 8, p. 479:16-23 ("It's changed, it's evolved ove r the e ight yea rs I've been a t Pennridge . Now we use the online lea rning tool. And if a kid tha t is in the ir senior yea r is s truggling towards ge tting towards gradua tion, so we build this in a s a support for them to ge t to 1 0 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 10 of 21 gra dua tion with the ir c1a s s .") S e e a ls o Exhibit to De fs . S OUP , p . 480 :13~l8 (He ge n11 e xpla ining why Twilight wa s a n option for Doe ); Exhibit 9 to De fs . S OUF, pp. 506-13 (De Bona e xpla ining tha t a n "e xce ption" wa s ma de for Doe , be ca use she ha d a lot of cre dits fiom be ing a Te ch s tude nt, but could not be pla ce d into IU be ca use she did not qua lify for spe cia l e duca tion, could not be pla ce d a t Qua ke rtown High S chool, a nd the cybe r progra m ha d not ye t be e n developed) . 43. Admitte d. 44. It is a dmitte d tha t s tude nts comple te d pa cke ts a t the ir de s ks . It is a ls o a dmitte d tha t s tude nts did not re ce ive le cture s . It is de nie d tha t s tude nts did not re ce ive othe r forms of tra ditiona l cla s s room ins truction, a s Ms . De Bona te s tifie d tha t s tude nts would re ce ive one -on- one a tte ntion from ins tructors during Twilight. S e e Exhibit 6, 503:20-21. Doe a lso continue d to a ttend Tech. 45. Admitte d. By wa y of furthe r re sponse , the P S D e mploye e e xpla ine d to Doe tha t "Twilight credit can't be granted unle ss you comple te a ll of the required coursework a t Twilight.H See Exhibit 23, Doe-PSD 0097. 46. De nie d tha t s uch a quota tion is pre s e nt in Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14 re fle cts Doe 's a llega tions of ongoing abuse by her mother and s tepfa ther, a s we ll a s a lleged prior abuse by N. It is de nie d tha t a n a lle ge d a bus ive re la tions hip is wha t le d to Doe e nrolling in Twilight. As e xpla ine d e a rlie r, Doe ha d broke n up with N. a pproxima te ly a ye a r prior a nd the re we re no incidents of a lleged abuse s ince . 47. It is a dmitte d tha t Doe did not re turn to a cla s s room s e tting a t P HS during the 2016 to 2017 school yea r. This was because , a s of May 2016, Doe had a lready comple ted a ll of he r work for he r junior a nd s e nior ye a r while a t Twilight. S e e Exhibit 90 to De fs . S OUP , Doe - 11 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 11 of 21 P S D 0155~56). At tha t time , Doe e xpre s s e d a n inte re s t in pa rticipa ting in the Te ch Ca re e r Inte rnship Program during her senior year, and she was approved to participa te . See Exhibit 12 to De fs . S OUP , Doe -P S D 0098-0099, Exhibit 12 to De fs . S OUP , Doe -P S D 0099 (a pprova l to pa rtic ipa te ), De fs . S OUF, Nos . 166-73 (outlin ing Doe 's pa rtic ipa tion in Ca re e r In te rns hip Program). Doe rece ived he r PHS diploma in June 2017. See Exhibit 1 to Defs . SOUF, p. 112:18- 21. 48. Admitte d. P S D a ls o provide d its e mploye e s with nume rous othe r tra ining on harassment. Defendants incorpora te by re fe rence paragraphs 186 through 284 of the ir S ta tement of Undisputed Facts in support of Defendants ' Motion for Summary Judgment. 49. De nie d. S e e , e .g., Exhibit 26, Doe ~P S D 2611, 2626-31. S e e a lso Defendants ' response to 1148, above. 50. Denied a s s ta ted. The PowerPoint s lide s re fe renced in this pa ragraph a re written documents tha t speak for themse lves and the re fore P la intiffs cha racte riza tion of them is denied. By way of furthe r re sponse , these s lides were used in live , in-pe rson presenta tions , and the re fore we re not the s ole s ource of informa tion a t the s e pre s e nta tions . S e e Exhibit 25, No. 14. The pre se nte r wa s the forme r Title IX Coordina tor for PSD, Ra ymond Sca rpa ntonio, who wa s ma de ava ilable for a depos ition but P la intiff chose not to proceed with it. See Exhibit 2 to De fs . SOUF, pp, 33:l8~35:l9 (te s timony dis cus s ing the live pre s e nta tions by S ca rpa ntonio). Additiona lly, P S D produce d the P owe rP oint file s tha t the y we re a ble to loca te , but Mr. S ca rpa ntionio us e d othe r ma te ria ls a s we ll tha t PSD could not loca te . 51. Admitte d tha t the re a re two spe cific re fe re nce s to "Title IX." It is de nie d tha t the subse que nt s lide s do not a lso dis cus s the re quire me nts of Title IX or tha t it wa s not dis cus se d 12 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 86 Filed 02/04/19 Page 12 of 21 during the presenta tion. By way of furthe r re sponse , it is denied tha t a presenta tion e ffectiveness is gove rned by the number of times tha t "Title IX" appea rs within the s lide s . 52. Admitte d . By wa y o f fu rthe r re s pons e , a lita ny o f o the r tra in ing re la ting to harassment was a lso provided to PSD employees. See Defs . SOUF, Nos. 186 through 284. 53. It is a dmitte d tha t P S D e mploye e s a re re quire d to comple te the re fe re nce d tra inings , and tha t these tra inings address workplace ha rassment. By way of fu11he1. re sponse , howe ve r, P la in tiff ha s omitte d from th is pa ra gra ph the va rious tra in ings a ddre s s ing the harassment of s tudents tha t a re a lso required by PSD. See Defs. SOUP, Nos. 186 through 284. 54. Admitte d. 55. De nie d, both fa ctua lly a nd a s a conclus ion of la w, ins ofa r a s this pa ra gra ph purports to s e t for1h ce rta in le ga l re quire me nts of P S D. The GCN tra ining e xe rcis e s include "Iid