JANE DOE v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT et alRESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary JudgmentE.D. Pa.February 4, 2019IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE Civil Action No: 17-cv-03570~TR PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ORDER , 2019, upon consideration of Pla int iffs Motion for Par t ia l Summary Judgment as to Counts III and IV, and Defendants AND now, this day of Pennridge School District, Jacqueline A. Rattigan, and Gina DeBona Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT: v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. RICE U.S. Magistrate Judge i i Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE Civil Action No: 17-cv~03570-TR PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUELINE A. RATTIGAN AND GINA DEBONA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants, Pennridge School District ("PSD"), Jacqueline A. Rattigan ("Rattigan") and Gina DeBona ("DeBona"), by and through their counsel, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, respectfully oppose Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In support of their Opposition, PSD, Rattigan and DeBona submit the attached Memorandum of Law, and Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts, which are incorporated herein and are being filed contemporaneously with the instant Response. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: / JOSEPH J. SANTARONE, ESQUIRE JANE E. KANE, ESQUIRE KYLE M. HEISNER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Pennridge School District, Jacqueline A. Rattigan and Gina DeBona <5 4-» DATE: 2/4/19 v. Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 2 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA J ANE DOE Civil Action No: 17-cv-03570-TR v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ME MO R ANDUM O F LAW IN S UP P O R T O F DE F E NDANTS P E NNR IDG E S C HO O L DIS TRICT, J ACQ UE LINE A. RATTIG AN AND G INA DE BO NA' S RE S P O NS E IN O P P O S ITIO N TO P LAINTIF F ' S MO TIO N F O R P AR TIAL S UMMAR Y J UDG ME NT De fe nda nts , P e nnridge S chool Dis trict ("P S D"), J a cque line A. Ra ttiga n ("Ra ttiga n") a nd Gina De Bona ("De Bona "), by a nd through the ir a ttome ys , Ma rsha ll De nne he y Wa rne r Cole ma n & Goggin , s ubmit th is Me mora ndum of La w in Oppos ition to P la in tiff J a ne Doe 's ("Doe ") Motion for P a rtia l S umma ry Judgme nt. 1. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Lies and embe llis hments in P la in tiffs a llega tions . Te llingly, Doe 's Motion for P a rtia l S umma ry Judgme nt a sks tha t this Court not look into the ve ra city of he r re ports to P S D whe n cons ide ring the me rits of he r a rgume nt. (See Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p.3, fn.l). This is be ca us e Doe 's Motion for P a rtia l S umma ry J udgme nt e ith e r ig n o re s o r a tte mp ts to g lo s s o ve r th e fa c t th a t Do e 's Co mp la in t is re p le te with misrepresenta tions , which were exposed through discovery in this matte r. 1 Doe cla ims in he r Compla int tha t a fte r s he "re porte d the re la tions hip a bus e [by N.] to PSD officia ls , [N.] and his friends embarked on a nea rly two-yea r-long campa ign of phys ica l and ve rba l s e x-ba se d ha ra s sme nt a ga ins t he r, ca lling he r a 'bitch' a nd a 'whore ' a nd thre a te ning to Dr. Barbara Ziv diagnoses Doe as a pathological liar and outlines a history of manipulation by Doe dating back to when she was as young as l 1-years-old. See Defs. Exhibit 139, attached hereto, pp. 29-34. I 2 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 3 of 57 phys ica lly a s s a ult he r. [N.'s ] viole nce a ga ins t Ms . Doe a ls o e s ca la te d, including phys ica lly a ssaulting he r on PHS school grounds ." (Ex. 16 to De fs . SOUF, Compla int 1l3).2 Howeve r, Doe te s tifie d tha t N. ne ve r se xua lly a s sa ulte d he r and tha t the text messages she rece ived3 never threa tened hann to Doe . (Ex. 1, Doe Dep., pp. 37:7-39:22 and 72:24-73:9). Doe sa id she has not seen N. or rece ived any messages from N. or his friends s ince he r junior yea r in high school. (Ex. 1 to Defs . SOUP, pp. 84:25-87:7). Doe claims that, a s a re s ult of P S D's la ck of re s pons e to s e x-ba s e d ha ra s s me nt, s he droppe d out of e xtra curricula r a ctivitie s . The Compla int a lle ge s tha t Doe pa rticipa te d in color gua rd, che e rle a ding a nd he r loca l Girl S cout group. (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUF, W6 & 16). Doe te s tifie d tha t, during fre s hma n ye a r, the only e xtra curricula r a ctivity in which s he pa rticipa te d was color gua rd. She did not panicipa te in color gua rd sophomore yea r because "she wasn't into it." S he trie d out for che e rle a ding he r s ophomore a nd junior ye a rs , but injurie s to he r kne e pre ve nte d he r from ma king the te a m. Doe pa rticipa te d in "priva te " a ll-s ta r che e rle a ding up until she wa s 15 ye a rs old, but le ft the progra m due to he r kne e is sue s -not be ca use of ha ra s sme nt. (Ex. 1 to De fs . S OUF, pp , 62 :8 -65 :8 ). As s uch , Doe 's te s timony d ire c tly con tra d ic ts the a lle ga tions in he r Compla int. The Compla int a s s e rts tha t, "ne a rly e ve ry da y," N'.s frie nds ha ra s s e d Doe on a nd off s chool prope rty in re tribution for bre a king up with N., ca lle d he r ge nde r-ba s e d e pithe ts , a nd thre a te ne d to phys ica lly a s s a ult pla intiff. (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUF, 'H24-25). Contra ry to the a lle ga tions in the Compla int, Doe te s tifie d tha t she did not se e N. a t Te ch during he r junior ye a r To a void burde ning the re cord with duplica te ma te ria ls , De fe nda nts will re fe r to the e xhibits re lie d upon in support of De fe nda nts ' own Motion for S umma ry Judgme nt, file d on the same day as P la intiffs motion, ra the r than reproducing the exhibits he re . 2 Furthe rmore , Doe te s tifie d tha t s he ha d a bs olute ly no knowle dge a s to the ide ntity of anyone who sent he r text messages othe r than N. (Ex. l to Defs . SOUP, p. 55-56, 71-72). 3 3 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 4 of 57 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 01 ' a t s chool tha t ma de he r fe e l uncomforta ble . (Ex. to De fs . SOUF, pp. 67:14-68:l6). Doe could not ide ntify e ve n one pe rson1 who ma de he r uncomfoma ble . (4) S he ha d s witche d out of la w e nforce me nt by S e pte mbe r 2015. (4, p, 59:11-20). The Compla int a lle ge s tha t, "[i]n or a round Fe brua ry 2016, [N.] trie d to s trike Ms . Doe in he r fa ce on s chool grounds while s he wa s wa lking on P HS ' third floor on he r wa y to he r Hrs t pe riod cla s s , le s s tha n 100 fe e t from P HS ' Adminis tra tive Office . Ms . Doe s houte d for he lp. None a rrive d." (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUP , 1[33). The de pos ition te s timony of Doe a nd othe rs , a nd the docume nts of re cord de mons tra te tha t the re wa s a n incide nt tha t Doe a lle ge d occurre d on De ce mbe r 22 , 2015-no t Fe brua ry 2016 . The Compla in t a lle ge s tha t P S D conducte d 4 inve s tiga tion and tha t it did not ca ll N. to the office for any discuss ion of the a lleged events . (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUF, 1134). Both Doe 's s worn de pos ition te s timony a nd the docume nts cre a te d conte mpora ne ous ly with the s e a lle ge d e ve nts s upport a n e ntire ly diffe re nt ve rs ion of fa cts . In re sponse to the incident, PSD immedia te ly conducted an inves tiga tion, which was spea rheaded by He ge n. Doe 's pe rsona lly writte n Incide nt Re port conce rning the De ce mbe r 22, 2015 e ve nts a dmits she a pproa che d N. by the a uditorium. (Ex. 42 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0227-0228). N. was a lso ca lled into the office and comple ted an incident repolt, a s did two witnesse s . (Ex. 43 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0231-0232); (Ex. 44 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0229-0230); (Ex. 45 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0233-0234). Doe 's a lle ga tion tha t N. "trie d to s trike " he r is a comple te fa brica tion. (Ex. to De fs , S OUF, Doe De p., pp. 93:13-96:20), (Ex. 46 to De fs . S OUP , vide o1 reenactment of incident by Doe ). 4 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 5 of 57 The Compla in t a lle ge s , "Doe d id no t wa nt to le a ve P HS ." (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUF, Compla int, 11 42). Once a ga in, this a lle ga tion is tota lly fa ls e . Doe 's mothe r s a id tha t, from da y one , Doe did not want to go to school. (Ex. 82 to Defs . SOUP, Doe-PSD 0287). Doe compla ined tha t she "ha te s Pennridge" and tha t the re was "a cons tant vibe tha t s tudents don't like he r." (Ex. 62 to Defs. SOUF, Doe-PSD 0067). During a J une 2015 pa re nt me e ting to a ddre s s Doe 's a lle ga tions of prior a buse by N., mos t of the time wa s spe nt by Doe a tte mpting "to convince he r fa the r to a llow he r to a tte nd Qua ke rtown S chool Dis trict," whe re he r the n-boyfrie nd a tte nde d. Doe 's fa the r be lie ve d Doe wa nte d to a tte nd Qua ke rtown to be with he r ne w boyfrie nd. (Ex. 2 to De fs . S OUF, D'Ange l0 De p., pp. 114:23-l21:2), (Ex. 17 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D0040) ("Doe is trying to ge t he r dad to transfe r he r to Quake ltown and is cla iming to fee l unsa fe a t Pennridge . .. Doe 's da d a nd I be lie ve tha t Doe ha s a nothe r a ge nda for wa nting to tra ns fe r.") Doe ha d previous ly made a s imila r a ttempt to change he r tech school program when she began da ting N. in November 2014. (Ex. 2 to Defs . SOUP, pp. 158-159). While Doe would like the Court to ignore whe the r he r re ports we re a ctua lly truthful a nd, ins tead, focus sole ly on PSD's actions in re sponse to he r a llega tions , the two cannot be so eas ily sepa ra ted. PSD employees took s teps to ve rily the informa tion they were be ing told by Doe and ofte n found tha t s he wa s e mbe llis hing or outright lying to the m. (See, e .g., Ex. 64 to De fs . S OUF, Doe -P S D 0068) ("Doe does not wa nt to be a t P e nnridge . S he ofte n ma ke s e mpty accusations about situations. I am just covering all bases and asking teachers to keep an eye/ear out."), (Ex. 84 to De fs . S OUP , Doe -P S D 0151) ("Doe will te ll you a nything you wa nt to he a r a nd will be convinc ing with he r in fo rma tion , bu t mos t like ly will be fa ls e o r e mbe llis he d informa tion."), (S e e a lso De fs . E xh ib it 1 3 9 , p p . 3 5 -3 6 ) (s u mma riz in g Do e 's h is to ry o f ma nipula tion with school pe rsonne l). 5 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 6 of 57 B. Defendants d id not fa il to inves tiga te P la in tiffs a llega tions . P la intiffs e ntire motion s ta nds upon the pre mis e tha t, "[a ]t no point did P S D (or P HS ) conduct a de qua te inve s tiga tions of a ny of Mis s Doe 's re ports of N.'s ha ra s s me nt." (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p. 5). In fa ct, throughout Doe 's Compla int a nd in he r motion, Doe cla ims tha t De fe nda nts "re fus e d" to conduct a ny inve s tiga tion of he r re ports wha ts oe ve r. (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUF, 1H[7, 21, 22, 34, 46, 55, 56, 70, 79, 82). Doe ide ntifie s four re ports by Doe in he r motion: June 15, 2015; September 4, 2015; November 24, 2015; and December 22, 2015. (Doe 's SOUF, Nos . 12, 14, 22, 25). Doe the n cla ims tha t PSD did not inve s tiga te a s ingle one of the se reports . (Doe 's SOUF, Nos , 13, 15, 20, 23, 31). None of this is true . 1. PSD's response to June 15, 2015 report, At the be ginning of the s chool da y on Monda y, J une 15, 2015, S ta ci Kle mme r, Doe 's Ge ome try te a che r during he r sophomore ye a r, wa lke d into P HS to find Doe "be ra ting" N. in the ha llway and threa tening to report him to the police for abuse . (Defs . Exhibit 140, a ttached he re to, Doe -P S D 001795). La te r tha t morning, Doe a nd he r fa the r me t with D'Ange lo a nd, during the mee ting, Doe reques ted to transfe r to Quake11own High School, where he r new boyfriend was a s tude nt. (De fs . S OUF, No. 40) Doe wa s not a re s ide nt in the Qua ke rtown S chool Dis trict. Doe re porte d, for the firs t time , during the J une 2015 me e ting tha t N. ha ra s s e d he r, pus he d he r in school, a nd wa s a bus ive during the ir re la tionship. (4) Following the mee ting, a t 8:24 a .m., D'Ange lo sent an ema il to Doe 's Ass is tant P rincipa l, S co tt He g e n ; N. 's As s is ta n t P rin c ip a l, Da vid La b o s ki; a n d Bu ild in g P rin c ip a l De Bo n a s umma rizing the me e ting. D'Ange lo s a id tha t, a lthough Doe cla ime d to fe e l uns a fe , D'Ange lo and Doe 's fa the r be lieved Doe had "anothe r agenda for wanting to transfe r," i. e ., Doe wanted to tra ns fe r schools to a tte nd high school with he r ne w boyfrie nd. (De fs . SOUF, No. 53). D'Ange 1o 6 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 7 of 57 sa id tha t Doe and N. had been broken up for a while and tha t Doe neve r previous ly reported any proble ms be twe e n the m. (4) D'Ange lo s a id tha t "none the le s s ," P HS should follow-up on Doe 's a lle ga tion. (ld) D'Ange lo s pe cifica lly re que s te d La bos ki to ins twct N. to ha ve no conta ct with Doe in s chool. (4) La bos ki re s ponde d tha t he would provide tha t ins truction to N. a nd la te r confirme d he me t with N. re ga rding the re port a nd ins tructe d him to s ta y a wa y from Doe . (De fs . S OUF, Nos . 54 & 55); (De fs . Exhibit 141, a tta che d he re to, Doe -P S D 001798) (s che duling meeting with N. to investigate Doe's report). Additiona lly, Doe te s tifie d tha t s he broke up with N. in April 2015 a nd tha t, once s he broke up with N., the re we re a bsolute ly no ins ta nce s whe re N. touche d he r in or out of s chool. (Defs , SOUF, No. 56). She furthe r te s tified tha t N.'s ve rba l abuse of he r s topped once she broke- up with him in April 2015. (De fs . S OUF, No. 85). Thus , by the time P HS le a me d of the a lle ge d abuse of Doe , the conduct had a lready ended. (Defs . SOUF, Nos. 53, 56, 95). Doe repoited a t the June 2015 mee ting tha t, during the time tha t they were da ting, N. "would ca ll me names , such as bitch 01' ugly. He ca lled me a whore ." (Exhibit I to Defs . SOUP, pp. 48:13-49:1, 50:6-5113). Doe did not have any furthe r incidents over the summer and, on the one occas ion tha t she saw N. a t a carniva l, the re was no inte raction be tween the two of them. (4, pp. 51 : 18~52: 10). 2. PSD 's response to September 4, 2015 report. Doe 's S e pte mbe r 4, 2015 re port to P S D wa s tha t N. ca lle d he r a whore a nd a s lut whe n the y we re da ting. (De fs . S OUF, No. 51). As discusse d a bove , Doe ha d a lre a dy re polte d this to PHS employees in June 2015, it had a lready been investiga ted and addressed, and there were no fulthe r incide nts tha t occune d be twe e n he r J une 2015 re pmt a nd he r S e pte mbe r 2015 re port. Ra the r, Doe reported tha t she and N. "have been apa lt for some time , but she is s till upse t about this a nd is worrie d tha t it ma y continue ." Exhibit 10, Doe -PSD 0042 (e mpha s is supplie d). Doe 's 7 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 8 of 57 prima ry re a s on for the re port, howe ve r, wa s he r re que s t to be tra ns fe rre d to the a ll-da y te ch program (a lso re fened to a s the IU ol* Inte rmedia te Unit). (Defs . SOUF, No. 70). During the morning of S e pte mbe r 4, 2015-the s a me da y a s Doe 's re port-Ha ge n he ld a me e ting with Doe a nd he r fa the r a nd a ske d Doe wha t he could do to support he r. (De fs . SOUP, No. 67). He r re sponse wa s , "I jus t don't wa nt to be a t P e nnridge High S chool." (4) The conte xt of Doe 's reques ts to be trans fe rred in Fa ll 2015 is important, a s he r cla imed anxie ty about be ing in the same building a s N. was not an isola ted is sue . Ra the r, the re were a litany of reques ts tha t we re be ing ma de by Doe a round this s a me time pe riod for va rious a ccommoda tions , mos t of which ha d nothing to do with N. or his frie nds . During the fa ll s e me s te r of he r s ophomore ye a r, Doe wa s e nrolle d in the cos me tology Tech program, until she began da ting N. in November 2614 and made a request to transfe r to the la w e nforce me nt progra m, whe re he wa s e nrolle d. (Ex. 2 to De fs . S OUF, pp. 158:24-159:15). Eve ntua lly Doe wa s pe rmitte d to tra ns fe r to the la w e nforce me nt Te ch progra m but, a fte r he r bre a kup with N., she re que s te d to be tra ns fe rre d ba ck to the cosme tology progra m on April 29, 2015. (De fs . Exhibit 142, a tta che d he re to , Doe -P S D 00384) (re que s ting tra ns fe r ba ck to cos me to logy p rogra m fo llowing b re a kup with N.) Doe wa s pe rmitte d to tra ns fe r in to the cos me tology progra m a nd be ga n on Ma y 6, 2015. ( , Doe -PSD 001787). The ne xt se me s te r, be fore he r Se pte mbe r 4, 2015 re port conce rning N., Doe me t with He nryse n to re que s t tha t he r' class schedule be changed because she was placed in a class with two other girls , with whom she did not ge t a long. ( , Doe -P S D 001802-03). The following da y, Doe me t with He nryse n a ga in to re que s t p la ce me nt in the full da y Te ch progra m, followe d by a re que s t to be s e nt to a n a lte rna tive school. (LQ, Doe-PSD 001805). She then appeared in Hegen's office and reported tha t 4 The e -mails in this exhibit a re assembled in chronologica l order, for ease of re fe rence . 8 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 9 of 57 she was not going to Tech tha t day. ( , Doe -PSD 001806). As of this point, Doe had not ra ised any issues concerning N. during the new school yea r but was reques ting cla ss changes for othe r, unrelated reasons . On the next day, September 4, 2015 a t 12:30 p.m., Hegen sent an email to David Laboski, Erik He nrys e n a nd Lori D'Ange lo (a nd othe rs ) me moria lizing a me e ting tha t took pla ce e a rlie r tha t day with Doe and her fa the r. Hagen asked the group to be vigilant and wrote : Hello ... Doe, 117h grader was in my ojfice this am with her dad. She is a young lady who is full ofanxiety about coming to school as she feels that she is often bullied/harassed She only gave one name, N .- Grade 12 who is her ex-boyf"iend He was verbally and physically abusive when they dated last year. They have been apart for some time, but she is still upset about this and worried that it may continue. Please keep your ears open to any issues. Doe does not want to attend PHS anymore. She is asking to be sent to an Alf. School or to Tech all day ... she was trying to convince her dad that she needs an assessment to get an IEP ... Erik will be adding her to the girls anxiety group, along wirN ongoing monitoring. Tnis will be our/irst step. (Defs. SOUP, No. 68). When Henrysen rece ived Hegen's ema il, he expla ined tha t Doe was a regula r educa tion s tudent and a ll-day Tech was not ava ilable for regula r educa tion s tudents . (Defs . SOUP, No. 70). In re sponse to Hegen's reques t, Henrysen confirmed tha t he monitored Doe 's progress a t school, che cke d-in with He ge n re ga rding Doe , a nd che cke d-in with Doe 's te a che rs conce ming Doe 's gra de s . He nryse n ga ve Doe a pe rmiss ion s lip to a tte nd the gir1's a nxie ty group tha t wa s run by Penn Foundation. Doe and N.'s schedules were reviewed to ensure tha t they were not in the same cla sses . Henrysen sa id he "checked-in with he r {Doe] regula rly." (Defs . SOUP, No. 71). 9 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 10 of 57 Subsequent to the September 4, 2015 mee ting, Doe continued he r pa tte rn of regula r and routine requests for schedule changes and accommodations, unre la ted to N: • Around S e pte mbe r 10, 2015 she informe d he r ma th te a che r tha t she ca nnot do home work be ca us e s he works s e ve n da ys a we e k, until la te a t n ight. (De fs . Exhibit 142, Doe -P S D 001815-1816). Doe 's forme r ma th te a che r re po11e d tha t this was a lso a problem during Doe 's sophomore year and tha t "[s]he doesn't want to be here so she tries to ge t out of s tuff. She will be absent a lot." ( ) • On September 15, 2015, Doe appeared a t Hegen's office to s ta te tha t she does not wa n t to go to c la s s tha t da y, a nd ignore d a n ins truc tion from Mr. He ge n 's s e cre ta ry to re tum to cla s s . (4, Doe -P S D 001819) He nrys e n the n re porte d tha t she ha d be e n a ppe a ring a t his office e ve ry da y to te ll him tha t she "ha te s it he re and wants to go to Tech full day." ( ) • The ne xt da y, Doe continue d e -ma il dis cus s ions with he r ma th te a che r, now admitting tha t he r cla im tha t she works seven days a week was not true , but aga in re que s ting a ccommoda tions for he r home work for ma th a nd othe r cla s se s . ( , Doe -P S D 001821-22). On S e pte mbe r 18, 2015, Doe 's ma th te a che r spoke with her pa rents regarding the homework issue and repolied back to Doe 's former math te a che r, "I ta lke d to mom a nd da d la s t night. Oh boy. S he re a lly is trying to pla y a ll ofus ." (4 , Doe -P S D 001830). • On September 30, 2015, the tech school guidance counse lor reported tha t Doe has be e n in to se e he r a numbe r of time s to a sk a bout the IU progra m a nd "se e ms to be doing a nyth ing s he ca n to ge t ou t of P e nnridge . ( , Doe -P S D 001834). Henrysen advised the guidance counse lor tha t Doe had a lready been in to request 10 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 11 of 57 "a ll day tech" from he and Hegen "many times ," and had been repea tedly told tha t she cannot do it because her grades a re fine . (&> Doe-PSD 001833). On Nove mbe r 12, 2015, Doe me t with He nrys e n to compla in tha t s he "ha te s P e nmidge " a nd tha t a nothe r fe ma le s tude nt, unre la te d to this ca s e in a ny wa y, "continues to ha ra ss he r." ( , Doe -PSD 001886). He nryse n a lso note d tha t Doe had been regula rly coming to guidance and/or the ma in office to avoid cla ss time and "does not want to be a t Penm° idge ." (4, Doe-PSD 001886 & 001889). • On Nove mbe r 20, 2015, Doe a ga in a ppe a re d a t He ge n's office a nd wa s told she needed to re turn to class . ( , Doe -PSD 001894). • O n De c e mb e r 4 , 2 0 1 5 , Do e 's mo th e r wa s c o n ta c te d b e c a u s e Do e wa s continuous ly s howing up to he r ma th cla s s unpre pa re d ove r the prior couple of weeks, again bla ming he r work sche dule by cla iming tha t she doe s not ha ve the time to go to a s tore to buy a ca lcula tor, graph pape r, or othe r supplie s . ( , Doe - PSD 001912). • On December 8, 2015, Doe appeared a t Hegen's office demanding to see him, and informe d He ge n's se cre ta ry, "I'm not le a ving the office ," whe n she wa s told to go to see Henrysen. (4, Doe -PSD 001914). Hegen then se t up a mee ting with Doe 's pa re nts to a ddre s s the ongoing is s ue s the y we re fa cing with Doe . (4, Doe -P S D 001925-26 & 001936-38). The me e ting wa s e ve ntua lly s e t for De ce mbe r 22, 2015. (4, Doe-PSD 001936). • On February 4, 2016, Doe made a request to change her Tech program aga in, this time to a uto collis ion. ( , Doe -P S D 00198l). 11 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 12 of 57 • On Fe brua ry 11, 2016, Doe 's fa mily conta cte d one of he r te a che rs to compla in a bout a n a ccommoda tion g ive n to Doe to gra nt a n e xte ns ion to ta ke a quiz because she felt overwhelmed. ( » Doe-PSD 001990). • Als o on Fe brua ry ll, 2016, Doe wa s pe rmitte d to be gin the a uto Te ch progra m. (4, Doe-PSD 001991). When viewed in context, Doe 's September 4, 2015 report was not truly a concem with N. but, ra the r, a s ma ll pa rt of a n ongoing ca mpa ign to le a ve P HS . In fa ct, the is s ue s with N. tha t were reported on September 4th had a lready been reported on June 15, 2015 and investiga ted by PSD. The re we re no ne w is sue s tha t a rose be twe e n Doe a nd N, (or his frie nds ) during this time pe riod. Ra the r, she wa s citing he r prior is sue s with N. whe n the y we re da ting, a mong a lita ny of other excuses, for why she should be granted the school transfer tha t she repeatedly demanded. 3. PSD's response to November 24, 2015 report. On Nove mbe r 24 , 2015 , Doe comple te d a n Inc ide n t Re port whe re s he wro te the following na wa tive : N continuously shows up wherever I am. He is not supposed to be anywhere near me and I am not even supposed to be in the school because of him. Mr. Hegen refuses both doctor and therapist orders or treatment plans which states for me not to be here because ofmy anxiety, pre-PTSD, and because I do notfeel safe. I am personally tired of complaining over and over about this just for nothing to be done. Ifollowed the steps given to get help and Mr. Hegen refuses everything. N mentally, physically and emotionally abuses me. (De fs . S OUP , No. 85). Doe re poNe d tha t the loca tion of the incide nt occurre d by the ma in office a nd it wa s witne s s e d by "e ve ryone who s its with me in the morn ing ." ( ) On Nove mbe r 24 , 2015 , He nryse n e ma ile d the Incide nt Re pon to He ge n. (4) Tha t s a me da y, He ge n e ma ile d He nryse n 12 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 13 of 57 a nd Owe ns a dvis ing tha t He ge n a nd P rincipa l De Bona a gre e d tha t P HS will is s ue a P TE (pe rmiss ion to e va lua te ) for Doe to go through the proce ss to de te rmine if she re quire d a n IEP . (De fs . S OUF, No. 86). In he r sworn te s timony, Doe sa id tha t N. ne ve r touche d he r 01° ca lle d he r vulga r na me s a fte r she broke -up with him in April 2015. (Ex. 1 to De fs . S OUF, pp., 88:4~9():5). Doe 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 uncomfortable and she could not identify even one person who made her uncomfortable . (LQL, pp. 67:14-68: 16). Doe sa id she would sometimes see N. when she was dropped off a t school by the main office , would sometimes s it in tha t a rea and have breakfas t, N. would sometimes be present in the s a me vic in ity with h is frie nds ma king comme nts unde r h is bre a th, tha t the re we re "random" times when N. would "show up outs ide" Doe 's classrooms, and tha t she "assumed" tha t N. was not scheduled to have class near her classes. ( , pp. 67:21-71 :23). N.'s pre se nce within e ye -s ight of Doe in P HS 's building did not cons titute "ha ra s sme nt ll Hegen expla ined a t his depos ition tha t he unde rs tood Doe 's compla int to e ssentia lly be tha t she saw N. a t PHS on occasion, but tha t he was not going to take action aga inst N. mere ly because he wa s in the vicinity of Doe . (Exhibit 11 to De fs . S OUP , pp. 451:20-452:11). He be lie ve s he ma y ha ve re fe rre d the incide n t re port to La bos ki, who wa s N.'s a s s is ta n t p rincipa l, to ha ve a conve rs a tion with N., bu t u ltima te ly the re wa s no re s tric tion tha t would re s u lt in N. be ing discipline d if Doe spotte d him in P HS . ( , pp. 452:14-453:22). (Although Laboski was deposed in th is ma tte r, P la in tiffs co u n s e l d id n o t q u e s tio n h im a s to th is in c id e n t re p o rt o r h is conve rsa tions with N.) He ge n did not be lie ve he e le va te d the re polt to Dr. P rice , Dr. Ra ttiga n or P rincipa l De Bona , howe ve r, be ca us e it wa s me re ly a compla int a bout proximity-Doe wa s not 1 3 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 14 of 57 reporting tha t N. actua lly sa id or did anything to her. (l_d.,, p. 454:3-14). There was not actua lly an "incident" tha t could be investiga ted. (151, p. 455: 1-14). 4. PSD 's response to December 22, 2015 report. Doe 's Compla int a lleges tha t: In or around February 2016, [N,] Irieal to strike Ms. Doe in her face on school grounds while she was walking on PHS' rNirdjloor on ner way to Ner frst period class, less tnan I00feez'from PHS' Administrative Ojice. Ms. Doe sNoufedfor Nelp. None arrived (De fs . S OUP , No. 89). The de pos ition te s timony of Doe a nd othe rs , a nd the docume nts of re cord de mons tra te tha t the re wa s not a Fe brua ry 2016 incide nt-the a lle ge d incide nt took pla ce on De ce mbe r 22, 2015. Doe 's a lle ga tion tha t tha t P S D conducte d "no inve s tiga tion" a nd did not ca ll N. to the office for a ny dis cus s ion of the a lle ge d incide nt is a bs olute ly fa ls e (pe rha ps be ca us e Doe 's counse l wa s re vie wing the wrong time pe riod). Both Doe 's sworn de pos ition te s timony a nd the docume nts cre a te d conte mpora ne ous ly with the a lle ge d incide nt cle a rly de mons tra te tha t the re was an inves tiga tion conducted. (Defs . SOUP, No. 90). In re sponse to the incide nt, He ge n spe a rhe a de d a n inve s tiga tion on be ha lf of P S D a nd took incide nt re ports from the s tude nts involve d. In he r Incide nt Re port, Doe a dmits tha t s he approached N. by the auditorium, adding tha t N. desewed eve rything tha t she sa id to him. (Defs . SOUP, No. 91).5 Doe wrote: I was walking with S5 and J and he mumbled something under his breath about me. So I went up and said Tm listening say it to my face I'rn right here.' N [Wed his hands to me like he was going to hit me and I/lippea' out then walked away. In which (sic) he still kept going on fo the group ofpeople he was standing with. 5 Incidenta lly, the June 2015 incident a lso involved Doe "be ra ting" he r ex-boyfriend on school grounds . (Defs . Exhibit 140, a ttached he re to, Doe-PSD 001795). 14 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 15 of 57 (De fs . S OUF, No. 91). N. comple ted an Incident Report, which s ta ted: I was standing [outside the auditorium] next to my tend B. this morning when I was approached by Doe who said 'ifyou have shit fo say, say it now while I'm here' and 'I don't know what circle of hell you crawled out of, but you need to go back before I bring you with me.' While I kept responding with 'get the fjcck (sic) away from me' and she then lef'. (De fs . S OUP , No. 92). S .5 (Doe 's friend) provided an Incident Report, which s ta ted: As Doe and I were leaving the Guidance Ofice, we happened to walkpast N unknowingly. We born heard him say 'bitch' under his breath and looked over. She walked over to kim and confronted him on if, saying 'can't you just say it to my face' and 'leave me alone and stop talking skit behind my back' He just yelled at her 'fuck you' uck o' He raised his hands in fists and she got scared because he has hit her before. She jumped and said 'don't raise your hands at me, again/ He got quiet and I put my arm around her shoulder and directed her away. (De fs . s ouF, No. 93). B. (N.'s frie nd) provide d a n Incide nt Re port, which s ta te d: I was talking to N and Doe came out ofnowhere and interrupted us. She then started yelling at N about 'starting Shit' and N told her to leave. (De fs . s ouF, No. 94). Doe recounted the incident a t he r depos ition and te s tified tha t, in December of he r junior yea r a fte r she was dropped off a t school, she ente red the school and turned the comer to wa lk to he r cla s s . N. s a id some thing unde r his bre a th. Doe a pproa che d N. a nd told him to "sa y it to my fa ce ." As Doe wa s moving towa rds N., he s hifte d his ha nds from his s ide to his che s t while ma king a fis t. As s oon a s Doe to ld N. not to ra is e h is ha nds , N. gra bbe d the s tra ps of h is ba ckpa ck with both ha nds s a id "fuck off, fuck you" a nd Doe wa lke d a wa y. N. did not pull his 1 5 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 16 of 57 a rms ba ck or ra is e his ha nds ove r his he a d in a ny type of s triking motion. (Exhibit 1 to De fs . SOUP, pp. 93: 13-9627). Doe demonstra ted N.'s actions during the videotaped deposition (Exhibit 46 to Defs . SOUP). Clea rly, Doe 's demons tra tion of N.'s a ctions a re not threa tening ges ture s . N. did not touch Doe or a tte mpt to s trike he r fa ce a t a ny time during the a lle ge d incide nt. In fa ct, a t no time did N. e ve r touch P la intiff in or out of s chool a fte r she broke up with him in April 2015, which was two months be fore anything was reported to the school. (Defs . SOUP, No. 95). Afte r the De ce mbe r 22, 2015 incide nt, Doe imme dia te ly re porte d to Guida nce to s e e He nrys e n. He nrys e n wa lke d Doe a nd he r frie nd to s e e He ge n. (De fs . S OUP , No. 96). I-le ge n te s tifie d tha t, imme dia te ly a fte r the incide nt, he me t with Doe a nd the y "proce s s e d" wha t occurred be tween Doe and N. Hegen conducted a forma l inves tiga tion tha t included speaking to the individua ls who we re pre s e nt during the occurre nce a nd dire cte d the m to write incide nt re ports o f wha t the y obs e rve d . He ge n conclude d tha t the inc ide n t be twe e n Doe a nd N. cons tituted pee r conflict and was "unfounded" because they both pre sented comple te ly diffe rent ve rs ions of the incide nt, e a ch of which wa s s upporte d by the ir re s pe ctive frie nds . He ge n the n spoke with He nryse n to e nsure Doe wa s "doing oka y a nd wa s ba ck in cla ss ." (De fs . SOUP, No. 97). Tha t same day, Hegen promptly reported to the school security office to review the video of the incide nt, but it wa s not ca pture d on vide o be ca use it took pla ce "a round a corne r." He ge n communica ted to Doe and N. tha t they should not hang a round toge the r in the front lobby of the school. He ge n ins tructe d "N. to go towa rds his firs t pe riod cla s s a nd Doe to go towa rds he rs a t the s ta lt of each day." In othe r words , N. and Doe should avoid each othe r eve ry morning. Hegen a dmonis he d N. to ce a s e s itting or ha nging out in the front lobby be fore s chool be ca us e Doe congre ga te d a t tha t loca tion. He ge n ins tructe d Doe tha t, if s he wa s going to ha ng out in the 1 6 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 17 of 57 ha llway, she should ensure tha t she remained in the "camera range ." Hegen next contacted Doe 's parents and grandparents . (Defs . SOUF, No. 98). By 10:41 a .m., Hegen sent an ema il to N.'s family: Good morning Mr. and Mrs. N I am contacting you today to keep you in the loop with N and a situation at school today. N and his ex-girlfriend got into a verbal exchange before school. Doe went to ner* counselor as sne was upset with ine situation. After investigating, it was determined ina! ine two parties nad dwzrenz' accounts oftne excnange. I believe that somewhere in ine middle is ine frurn. I met with N to ask him to refrain from sitting/hanging out in the f*ont lobby of the school before period I. This is where Doe congregates and we do not want further conflict. 1 also let both parties know that if these events were to continue it could be considered harassment which could warrant out-otsehool suspensions. N is not in trouble, but I am trying to be proactive to make sure that all parties are safe in this environment. Ifyou have questions, please do not hesitate to call. Scott C. Hegen (De fs . SOUP, No. 99) N.'s pa re nts a rrive d a t P HS to me e t with He ge n tha t s a me da y be ca use the y kne w of a prior incide nt whe re Doe ma de a n a ccus a tion involving N. (De fs . S OUP , No. 98). He ge n inquire d whe the r the police ha d be e n ca lle d a bout the e a rlie r e ve nt. N.'s fa mily s a id tha t the police ha d not be e n ca lle d, but the y e ithe r me t a s fa milie s or ha d a phone conve rsa tion "to de a l with it a t the fa mily le ve l." (4) While I-le ge n did not conduct a n inve s tiga tion into the prior incident reponed by N.'s pa rents a t tha t time , he did inform Henrysen about his discuss ions with N.'s fa mily a nd He nrys e n s a id he would s pe a k with Doe a bout the incide nt. (De fs . S OUP , No. 17 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 18 of 57 100). He ge n doe s not re ca ll s pe cifica lly infonning La bos ki of his inve s tiga tion of the ha llwa y incide nt, but be lie ve s tha t he would ha ve communica te d with Mr. La bos ki a nd provide d him with copie s of the incide nt re ports , a s tha t is He ge n's cus tom, pra ctice a nd protocol. (De fs . SOUF, No. 101). In s um, He ge n's inve s tiga tion involve d s pe a king with He nrys e n, Doe , N., the frie nds of Doe a nd N., conta cting Doe 's pa re nts a nd gra ndpa re nts , pe rs ona lly me e ting with N.'s fa mily, a ttempting to view the video of the event a s we ll a s obta ining and reviewing the incident repoits . (De fs . S OUP , No. 102). Ultima te ly, he 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. Ba s e d upon s imila ritie s in the ir re spective accounts of the a lleged incident, howeve r, it seemed to Mr. I-legen tha t the re was equa l fault. (Exhibit 11 to Defs . SOUF, pp. 469: 17-470:4). Hegen advised Doe to s ta nd within ca me ra ra nge whe n pos s ible in the future s o tha t he could be tte r inve s tiga te a ny future occurrences. ( , p. 387:8-24). Conspicuous ly a bse nt from Doe 's motion is a ny sugge s tion a s to wha t a dditiona l s te ps PSD e mploye e s could ha ve or should ha ve ta ke n in re sponse to a ny of the a bove re ports . PSD inte rvie we d a ll witne s s e s to the incide nts tha t Doe a lle ge d took pla ce , but the re wa s no ba s is upon which the y could dis cipline N. (Exhibit to De fs . S OUF, pp, 88:23-89:1) (Doe te s tifying1 tha t she doe s not know of a ny othe r witne s se s to the a lle ge d incide nts with N.) P S D would be e xp o s e d to le g a l a c tio n b y N. 's fa mily if th e y we re to imp o s e d is c ip lin e b a s e d u p o n uncone bora te d a nd re fute d a lle ga tions ., pa rticula rly s ince the uncorrobora te d a lle ga tions we re coming from a s tude n t who wou ld rou tine ly p rovide ina ccura te , d is to rte d o r comple te ly dis hone s t informa tion. (De fs . Exhibit 139, Dr. Ziv Re poit, p. 34) (" [I]t is importa nt to note tha t 1 8 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 19 of 57 none of [Doe 's ] a lle ga tions ca n be a ddre s s e d in the a bs e nce o f inde pe nde nt, ve rifia b le informa tion," due to he r pa thologica l lying pe rsona lity disorde r). c. Doe was not "pressured" into enrolling in Twilight Academy. Doe 's motion ne xt re lie s upon the notion tha t P S D "pre s sure d Miss Doe into e nrolling in he r 'only option) Twilight Aca de my." (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p . 5). This is a n a bs urd a ccus a tion. Doe ha d ma de a lmos t da ily de ma nds to le a ve P HS . It wa s only be ca us e Doe 's demands became so incessant tha t PSD eventua lly acquie sced and agreed to eva lua te Doe for other placement options during the spring semeste r of he r junior year. The record re flects tha t Doe consis tently and frequently made s ta tements tha t she "ha ted" P HS a nd wa n te d to le a ve the s choo l. S he to ld He ge n , He nrys e n , D'Ange lo a nd s choo l ps ychologis t, Ros s Owe ns , tha t s he ha te d P HS be ca us e s he did not ge t a long with the othe r s tude nts . (De fs . S OUF, Nos . 13, 69, 72, 1 15, 118, 124, 134, 142, 145). A11 te a che rs who provide d informa tion a bout Doe in conne ction with he r Multi-Dis ciplina ry Eva lua tion brought up Doe 's re pe a te d compla ints tha t s he ha te d P HS . (De fs . S OUP , No. 145). Doe e nga ge d in re pe a te d conflict with s tude nts othe r tha n N., ma ny of whom we re fe ma le a nd involving non- ge nde r-ba s e d pe e r conflict. Additiona lly, Doe ha d s e ve ra l run-ins with te a che rs a nd re ce ive d nume rous de te ntions due to he r insubordina te a nd ina ppropria te be ha vior. (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 120, 134, 139, 156). According to he r mothe r, Doe wa s unha ppy a t P HS a nd "from da y one " never wanted to a ttend PHS. (Defs . SOUF, No. 153). In a ddition to Doe 's re pe a te d re que s ts to le a ve PHS , Doe fre que ntly re que s te d tha t she re ce ive a n IEP a nd a tte nd the Bucks County IU. In re sponse to the se re que s ts , P HS pe rsonne l note d tha t Doe wa s a good s tude nt, ha d fe w a bse nce s , a nd wa s not qua lifie d to a tte nd the IU. (De fs . SOUP, Nos . 76, 132, 140). On Se pte mbe r 4, 2015, Doe initia lly re que s te d "a li da y te ch," 19 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 20 of 57 01' the IU. The re cord re fle cts Doe a ga in re que s te d to a tte nd the IU on S e pte mbe r 16, 2015, Octobe r 1, 2015, Nove mbe r 9, 2015, a nd Nove mbe r 13, 2015. (De fs . SOUP, Nos . 76, 78, 115- 116, 122). By Nove mbe r 24, 2015, He ge n a nd De Bona a pprove d Owe ns ' is sua nce of a Pe rmiss ion to Eva lua te ("PTE") Doe to begin the process to de te rmine whe the r Doe needed an IEP . Owens pe rforme d a Multi-Dis ciplina ry Eva lua tion a nd a Functiona l Be ha viora l As s e s s me nt of Doe , which include d inte rvie ws of Doe , te s ting of Doe , obse rva tions of Doe in cla s s a nd re vie w a nd ana lys is of informa tion rece ived from Doe 's te ache rs . (SOUF, Nos . 86, 130-131, 133, 145, 148). Be fore this process even comple ted, Doe began te lling he r te ache rs in Janua ry 2016 tha t she is le a ving P HS s oon a nd "ha te [s ] th is s choo l." (De fs . Exh ib it 143 , a tta che d he re to , Doe - PSD001965). On or a round February 9, 2016, Doe was reported by a guidance counse lor to have been spreading rumors about another female s tudent and her boyfriend, which had been ongoing s ince November 2015. (Defs . Exhibit 144, a ttached he re to, Doe-PSD00l984). Hegen noted in his re sponse to the re poii tha t Doe ha d be e n looking for va rious opportunitie s to ge t "kicke d out" of PHS. (4) On Ma rch 14 , 2016 , Owe ns p rovide d Doe 's Eva lua tion Re po11 to Ha ge n , wh ich conclude d tha t Doe did not qua lify for s pe cia l e duca tion s e rvice s . (De fs . S OUF, No. 140). Owe ns informe d the te a m tha t Doe ha d re ce ntly e xpre sse d a n inte re s t in a tte nding the Twilight P rogra m. ( ) Owe ns be lie ve d tha t Twilight wa s a le gitima te option for Doe give n tha t s he did not qua lify for s pe cia l e duca tion a nd s he ha te d P HS . (4) He re que s te d the te a m's input, a nd Hegen re sponded tha t he agreed to Doe 's reques t to be placed in Twilight. (4) Doe 's pa re nts we re provide d with a brochure outlining the Twilight P rogra m, a nd a fte r ta lking through pa rticipa tion in Twilight with he r fa the r, Doe be ga n the progra m on April 12, 20 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 21 of 57 2016. (Defs . SOUF, Nos . 13 & 160). At the same time , Doe continued to a ttend Tech during pa rt of the da y. Doe ma tricula te d through the Twilight P rogra m a t a brisk pa ce a nd obta ine d e nough high school credits to gradua te by the end of he r junior yea r. (De fs . SOUF, Nos . 15 & 171). Doe the n re que s te d pe rmis s ion to pa rticipa te in the Ca re e r Inte rns hip P rogra m for the 2016-2017 school year, and I-legen approved her request. (Defs . SOUF, Nos. 15 & 165). D. PSD thoroughly trained its employees on sexual harassment. During the 2013-2014 s chool ye a r, forme r P S D Title IX Coordina tor, Ra y S ca rpa ntonio vis ite d e a ch P S D school, including P HS , a nd provide d ha ra s sme nt tra ining a t fa culty me e tings he ld in S e pte mbe r a nd/or Octobe r 2013. (De fs . S OUF, No. 186). On Augus t 27, 2014, a n in- s e rvice da y wa s he ld for P S D s ta ff during which ha ra s s me nt a nd dis crimina tion tra ining wa s presented to the s ta ff, (Defs . SOUP, No. 187). PSD has adminis te red ha rassment, discrimina tion, bullying a nd cybe r-bullying tra ining to its e mploye e s through va rious Powe rPoint P re se nta tions , (De fs . SOUP, No. 188). Bullying/Cybe r-Bullying P re ve ntion P rogra ms we re he ld throughout the Dis trict during the 2014-2015 s chool ye a r a nd the 2015-2016 s chool ye a r. (De fs . S OUP , No. 189). P rior to GCN tra inings , dis cus s e d be low, P S D s ta ff we re pre s e nte d with a nd tra ine d via annua l PowerPoint P resenta tions about ha ra ssment, sexua l ha ra ssment, workplace ha rassment and s tudent ha ra ssment. (De fs . SOUF, No. 204). PSD a lso conducts a summer two-day tra ining semina r for adminis tra tors during which a ttomeys pre sent and discuss diffe rent topics , including harassment and sexual harassment. (Defs. SOUP, No. 243). Be ginning with the 2015-2016 s chool ye a r, a nd curre ntly, P S D e mploye e s we re /a re re quire d to comple te online tra ining for ma tte rs tha t include bullying, cybe rbullying, s e xua l harassment, genera l harassment a nd othe r re la te d topics , through the Dis trict provide r, Globa l Complia nce Ne twork ("GCN"). G CN provides employees with ACT 126 ma nda te d re porting 21 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 22 of 57 tra ining e ve ry five ye a rs a nd ha ra s s me nt tra ining e ve ry othe r ye a r. A11 ne w P S D e mploye e s comple te both tra ining progra ms a t or ne a r the time the y a re initia lly hire d. (De fs . S OUF, No. 190). ACT 126 ma nda te d re porte r tra ining include s tra ining re ga rding: An Introduction to ACT 126-P A; Ch ild Abus e Awa re ne s s -P A-Re vis e d 7 /1 /14 , Ch ild Abus e P o lic ie s -P e nnridge , Confide ntia lity; Cybe rbullying, Ethics & Bounda rie s for S chool Employe e s , Inte me t S a fe ty; P rofe ss iona l Educa tor Dis cipline Act-Re vise d 7/1/14, Student-to-Student Ha zing and Harassment, and Teen Da ting Violence . (De fs , SOUP, No. 191). The GCN Hara ssment Tra ining include d tra in ing re ga rd ing Ge ne ra l Ha ra s s me nt, S e xua l Harassment, AB~l825 S e xua l Harassment, Abuse of Conduct Employee /Supervisor. (Defs . SOUF, No. 192). Throughout the 2015-2016 school ye a r, a t le a s t s ix S e conda ry P rincipa l Me e tings we re he ld whe re in P S D policie s we re re vie we d a nd dis cus se d. (De fs . S OUF, No. 197). Additiona lly, during the 2015-2016 s chool ye a r, P S D conducte d bullying a nd ha ra s sme nt tra inings , re vis e d bullying re poit forms a nd cre a te d a ne w bullying inve s tiga tion form, imple me nte d bullying a nd cybe r-bullying pre ve ntion progra ms , a nd re vie we d bullying a nd ha ra s s me nt polic ie s with principa ls . (De fs . S OUF, No. 198). P rior to the GCN tra inings , P S D s ta ff we re pre s e nte d with a nd tra ine d via a nnua l P owe rP oin t P re s e n ta tions a bout harassment, s exua l harassment, workpla ce ha ra s sme nt a nd s tude nt ha ra s sme nt. (De fs . S OUF, No. 204). P S D a lso conducts a summe r two-da y tra ining se mina r for a dminis tra tors during which a ttorne ys pre se nt a nd discuss diffe re nt topics , including ha ra s s me nt a nd s e xua l ha ra s s me nt, (De fs . S OUF, No. 243). GCN cre a te s a lis t of P HS s ta ff who comple te d GCN tra ining s o tha t P rice a nd McHa le ca n ide ntify those s ta ff me mbe rs who will ne e d to comple te the tra ining. De Bona follows-up a nd e nsure s a ll 22 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 23 of 57 s ta ff me mbe rs a re tra ine d. (De fs . S OUF, No. 283). (S e e a lso De fs . S OUP , No. 282) (lis ting courses taken by PSD employees identified be low). All P S D a dminis tra tors a tte nde d a P e a ce Ce nte r tra ining on J a nua ry 30, 2017. The agenda for this tra ining identifie s discuss ion topics such a s : (1) bullying and how things such a s ra ce , e thnicity, re ligion, ge nde r a nd se xua l orie nta tion a re conce rns a s s tude nts fa ce incre a se d ha ra s s me nt; (2) bullying vs . pe e r conflict; (3) cybe rbullying a nd the s chool's re s pons ibilitie s in de a ling with it. (De fs . S OUF, No. 194). The P e a ce Ce nte r provide d bullying tra ining to P S D s ta ff through a P owe rP oint P re s e nta tion title d, "Cre a ting a Culture of P e a ce , Acce pta nce a nd Community." (De fs . SOUF, No. 195). PSD holds a nnua l Summe r Workshops for a dminis tra tors during which PSD provides upda tes in educa tion law and ha rassment tra ining. (Defs . SOUP, No. 196). In Ma rch 2017, a bulle tin title d "Bullying FAQ's " wa s cre a te d a nd pos te d on the Dis trict's website for review by employees , pa rents and s tudents . (Defs . SOUP, No. 193). On February 13, 2018, Ne twork of Victim Ass is ta nce ("NOVA"), pre se nte d a progra m to P e nnridge High S chool rega rding pee r conflict, bullying and ha rassment. (Defs . SOUP, No. 200). Assis tant Principa l Scott Hegen a ttended dozens of tra inings a t PHS throughout the 2015- 2016 s choo l ye a r re ga rd ing ha ra s s me nt a nd s e xua l ha ra s s me nt, inc lud ing Child Abus e Awareness , Sexual Harassment, Suicide Prevention, Student-to~Student Hazing and Harassment, a nd Te e n Da ting Viole nce . (De fs . S OUP , No. 201). He ge n a ls o a tte nde d Child Abus e tra ining s pe cific to P S D P olicy 806 re ga rding Child Abus e . (De fs . S OUF, No. 202). He ge n is fa milia l' with the S chool Dis trict's Bullying a nd Cybe rbullying policy a nd the S chool Dis trict's S tude nt Dis cipline policy. (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 206 & 207). P olicy Re vie w Me e tings a re he ld e ve 1 'y Monday moming and Thursday a fte rnoon, which Hegen a ttends . (Defs . SOUP, No. 208). 23 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 24 of 57 He ge n a tte nde d s imila r online tra inings through GCN throughout the 2016~2017 school ye a r, which include d S e xua l Ha ra s s me nt: a bus ive conduct, e mploye e /s upe rvis or a nd s e xua l harassment overa ll. (Defs . SOUF, No. 203). S ince 2015, I-Iegen rece ived tra ining on peer-to-peer sexua l ha rassment, which focused on pee r conflict, bullying, ha rassment and sexua l ha rassment (De fs . S OUF, No. 210). Additiona lly during the 2016-2017 s chool ye a r a nd s ince Dire ctor of Adminis tra tion, Dr. Troy P rice , wa s hire d in J uly 2015, He ge n a tte nde d Qua rte rly As s is ta nt P rincipa l Me e tings run by Dr. P rice . During the s e Qua rte rly Me e tings , Dis trict policie s we re re vie we d, including the Unla wful Ha ra s sme nt P olicy a nd the Bullying a nd Cybe rbullying P olicy. Dis cus s ions during the s e me e tings conce rne d the po lic ie s a nd p roce dure s s e t fo rth fo r inve s tiga ting a lle ga tions of pe e r-to-pe e r s e xua l ha ra s s me nt (De fs . S OUP , No. 205). He ge n rece ived Title IX tra ining in the context of sexua l ha ra ssment a s recently a s Augus t 2017. (De fs . SOUP, No. 209). Building P rincipa l Gina De Bona re ce ive d a nnua l ha ra s s me nt tra ining provide d by the Complia nce Office r/Title IX Coordina tor. (De fs . S OUF, No. 211). De Bona is a wa re of the re poliing proce s s outline d in the S chool Dis trict's policy re ga rding Unla wful Ha ra s sme nt (De fs . S OUP , No. 212). De Bona re ce ive s tra ining a t the be ginning of e a ch ye a r through online GCN videos for topics tha t include sexua l ha ra ssment, ha ra ssment, child manda ted reporting, bullying a nd child a bus e . (De fs . S OUP , No. 213). The GCN tra ining e xe rcis e s include "links " to P S D policie s . (De fs . S OUP , No. 214). De Bona comple te d online GCN ha ra s sme nt tra inings s ince it was implemented. P rior to tha t, she rece ived ha ra ssment tra ining via PowerPoint P re senta tions by the HR Dire c to r (De fs . S OUP , No . 215). Ea ch s umme r, De Bona a tte nds the S pe cia l Educa tion Aca de my whe re she re ce ive s tra ining in P S D policie s a nd upda te s in e duca tion la w. (De fs . S OUP , No. 216). De Bona re ce ive d Title IX tra ining through GCN a nd the P owe rP oint 24 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 25 of 57 P re s e nta tion tra inings . (De fs . S OUP , No. 217). De Bona is a wa re of the P S D policy re ga rding Title IX a nd ha ra s s me nt of P S D proce dure s for re s ponding to cybe rbullying, which a re /we re discussed during summer workshop tra inings . (Defs . SOUF, Nos . 218 & 219). S upe rin te nde nt Dr. J a cque line Ra ttiga n obta ine d a C e m ific a te in Tra in in g a n d Deve lopment and was educa ted in how to des ign and pre sent workshops for s ta ff (De fs . SOUP, No. 220). Ra ttiga n's s ta ff wa s tra ine d to e nsure prope r ha ndling of a nd re sponse s to re ports of bullying a nd ha ra s s me nt (De fs . S OUF, No. 221). S he re ce ive d tra ining fiom P S D re ga rding ha rassment in 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and twice s ince the 2014-2015 school yea r. (Defs . SOUP, No. 222). Ra ttiga n pre s e nte d to the P S D s ta ff a t the be ginning of the 2014-2015 s chool ye a r. (Defs . SOUF, No. 230) The presenta tion discussed the importance of crea ting an environment of sa fe ty and trus t for s tude nts . (4) This pre s e nta tion wa s s hown to a ll ne w hire s a t P S D via a P owe rP oint P re s e nta tion. (4) Ra ttiga n a lso re ce ive d tra ining re ga rding bullying whe n the P e a ce Ce nte r pre se nte d to adminis tra tors . (De fs . SOUF, No. 223). The GCN tra inings Ra ttigan comple ted a lso cove red the P S D policy on Unla wful Ha ra s s me nt. (De fs . S OUP , No. 224). Through the GCN tra inings , Ra ttiga n le a rne d a bout ge ne ra l ha ra s s me nt, s e xua l ha ra s s me nt, cybe rbullying, P S D policie s re ga rding ha ra ssme nt, the ma nne r in which a school should ha ndle re ports of ha ra ssme nt, a nd P S D policy re ga rding cybe rbullying . (De fs . S OUF, No. 225). Adminis tra tors a nd Ra ttiga n a ttended summer workshops rega rding ha rassment and changes in the law and rece ived tra ining on spe cia l e duca tion is sue s . (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 226 & 227). Ra ttiga n a lso re ce ive d tra ining in June 2017 011 PSD Policy 248, Unlawful Harassment (Defs . SOUP, No. 231). Huma n Re s ource s Dire ctor, J a cque line McHa 1e , a ls o re ce ive d Title IX tra ining. (De fs . S O UF, No . 2 2 8 ). S h e h o ld s a Ce rtific a te in S e n io r P ro fe s s io n a l in Hu ma n Re s o u rc e 25 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 26 of 57 Ma na ge me nt, which re quire d tra ining re la te d to Title IX. (De fs . S OUP , No. 232). S he is a me mbe r of se ve ra l profe ss iona l orga niza tions which provide a nnua l confe re nce s , se mina rs a nd tra ining on ha ra s s me nt a nd Title IX. (4) McHa le re vie ws the tra ining tha t is provide d to P S D e mploye e s re ga rding se xua l ha ra s sme nt, including s tude nt-to~s tude nt s e xua l ha ra s sme nt a nd Title IX. (De fs . S OUP , No. 233). P rior to he r e mployme nt a t P S D, McI-Ia le wa s the Title IX coordina tor a t La ke Le hma n School Dis trict a nd wa s re spons ible for monitoring re gula tions a nd tra ining employees . (De fs . SOUP, No. 234). McI-Ia le is familia r with and unde rs tands the School Dis t1° ict's policy re ga rding Unla wiill Ha ra s s me nt, a nd he r role a s Title IX coordina tor is to ensure this policy is monitored and implemented as needed. (Defs . SOUF, No. 235). McHa le a nd Dr. P rice e ns ure tha t a ll e mploye e s , including ne w hire s , comple te online GCN tra ining on harassment, including sexual harassment, every two years or as soon as they a re hire d. (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 236 & 237). The online GCN tra inings incorpora te P S D's s pe cific ha ra ssment policy, and it is de s igned such tha t the use r cannot bypass review of PSD's specific policy because the use r mus t review the policy be fore moving to the next module . (De fs . SOUF, No. 238). S e xua l a s s a ult, viole nt s e xua l a s s a ult a nd the re porting of viole nt s e xua l a s s a ult to a uthoritie s a re a ll topics cove re d in the tra ining. (De fs . SOUF, No. 239) PHS a dminis tra tors a re provided with online ha ra ssment tra ining in orde r to inves tiga te compla ints of s tudent-to~s tudent sexua l ha rassment. (Defs . SOUF, No. 240). Dr. P rice re ce ive d ha ra s sme nt a nd se xua l ha ra s sme nt tra ining from P S D within his firs t month of employment and a s recently a s Augus t 2017. The tra inings a re provided through GCN on a b i-ye a rly ba s is . All ne w-hire s a re tra ine d a t the time of h ire a nd the n a re cycle d in to re gula rly s che dule d tra ining. Dr. P rice conducts monthly principa l me e tings during which he dis cus s e s Dis trict-wide policie s tha t include ha ra s s me nt, bullying a nd cybe rbullying. During 26 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 27 of 57 P rice 's me e tings with P rincipa ls a nd As s is ta nt P rincipa ls he re vie ws P S D e xpe cta tions for s tude n t s a fe ty a nd inve s tiga tions , a nd the a dmin is tra to rs a re in s truc te d to "inve s tiga te eve rything." (De fs . SOUP, No. 242). On Janua ry 11, 2017, Dr. P rice he ld a Seconda ry P rincipa l Me e ting whe re he dis cus s e d bullying a nd the diffe re nce be twe e n bullying a nd pe e r conflict. (Defs . SOUF, No. 199). PSD policie s , including Policie s 248 and 249 rega rding Harassment and Bullying, a re introduce d, summa rize d a nd discusse d by Dr. P rice a t Monthly P rincipa l Me e tings . (De fs . S OUP , No. 244). Dr. P rice holds Qua ne rly As s is ta nt P rincipa l Me e tings during which PSD policie s a re reviewed, including School Dis trict Policie s 248 and 249 rega rding Harassment a nd Bullying. (De fs . S OUF, Nos . 245 & 246). Dr. P rice unde rs ta nds P olicy 248 re ga rding Unla wful Ha ra s s me nt a nd P olicy 249 conce rning Bullying a nd the proce dure s outline d in the policie s a nd is fa milia r with P S D P olicy 218 re ga rding s tude nt dis cipline . (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 247 & 251). In 2018, Ra ttigan, Dr. P rice and McHa1e a ttended a NOVA semina r, which provided tra ining on bullying a nd the diffe re nce be twe e n bullying a nd s tude nt-t0~s tude nt conflict. (De fs . SOUP, No. 229). Ass is ta nt P rincipa l, Da vid La boski, re ce ive d a nnua l online tra ining from P S D re ga rding ha rassment and sexua l ha ra ssment. He most recently rece ived this tra ining in Augus t 2017. The online pla tform provide d tra ining on diffe re nt topics s uch a s ha ra s s me nt, s e xua l ha ra s s me nt, bullying a nd cybe rbullying a nd prompts use rs to ta ke a te s t a t the e nd of e a ch se gme nt. (De fs . SOUP, No. 253). Laboski a ttended The Peace Cente r tra ining conceming harassment and sexua l ha ra s s me nt. (De fs . S OUP , No. 254). As s is ta nt principa ls a tte nd four me e tings a ye a r with Dr. P rice to discuss Dis trict policie s on ha ra ssment and sexua l ha ra ssment. (De fs . SOUP, No. 255). The Qua rte rly Ass is ta nt P rincipa l Me e tings provide a forum a nd opportunity for a dminis tra tors to a sk que s tions conce rning the ha ra ssme nt policie s . (De fs . SOUP, No. 256). La boski re ce ive d 27 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 28 of 57 online Title IX tra ining. (De fs . S OUP , No. 257). La bos ki is fa milia r with P S D's policy on bullying and cyberbuilying. (Defs . SOUF, No. 258). Laboski rece ived haras sment tra inings when he worked for his previous employer, Saucon Valley School Dis trict, when a ttorneys came to the Dis trict and held meetings throughout the year. (Defs . SOUF, No. 259). Guidance Couns e lor, Lori D'Ange lo, rece ived tra ining from PSD rega rding s tudent-om student harassment, s tudent-on-s tudent sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination (Exhibit 2 to Defs . SOUF, pp. 33:18-35:l9). P rior to the 2015-2016 s chool yea r, a t the begimling of each s chool ye a r, Ra y S ca rpa ntonio provide d ha ra s s me nt tra ining to a ll P HS s ta ff, including Lori D'Ange 1o. (De fs . S OUF, No. 261). D'Ange 1o comple te d continuing e duca tion cre dits on bullying a nd ha ra s s me nt, including Me a n Boys a nd Girls , A Look Into Bullying P re ve ntion in the School, a nd How to P rote ct S tude nts from Online Victimiza tion. (De fs . SOUP, No. 262). D'Ange1o received online harassment and sexual harassment during the 2016-2017 school year. (Defs . SOUP, No. 263). The online GCN modules a re comple ted each school year and provide videos and s lides regarding examples of harassment, bullying and discrimination and a quiz mus t be comple te d a t the e nd of e a ch s e ction. (4) P S D e na cte d a policy conce ming Title IX a nd D'Ange lo unde rs tands Title IX. (De fs . SOUP, No. 264). D'Ange lo confirmed tha t the Dis trict's policie s a re linked within the online tra inings in a way tha t the policie s mus t be read be fore the tra ining re c ipie nt ca n c lick on the ne xt ite m a nd more forwa rd. (De fs . S OUF, No. 265). D'Ange 1o is a wa re of the Dis tric t's policy conce rning Title IX. (De fs . S OUP , No. 266). D'Ange1o received GCN training regarding sexua1 harassment. (Defs . SOUP, No. 267). Guidance Counselor, Erik Henrysen, received online tra ining on harassment, appropria te conduct amongs t colleagues and suicide prevention. The online tra inings concluded with a tes t on e a ch topic . (De fs . S OUF, No. 268). He mfys e n pa rtic ipa te d in group tra ining with Ra y 28 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 29 of 57 S ca rpa ntonio, forme r Huma n Re s ource s Dire ctor. (De fs . S OUF, No. 269). The online tra ining s e gme nts va ry in time from 20 minute s to ove r a n hour. Comple ting the te s t is pa rt of the tra in ing . (De fs . S OUF, No . 270). He nrys e n re ce ive d on line tra in ing th rough h is fon tne r e mploye r, Ce ntra l Bucks S chool Dis trict. (De fs . S OUF, No. 271). The Ce ntra l Bucks tra ining include d module s re ga rding se xua l ha ra ssme nt a nd bullying. (De fs . SOUP, No. 272). He nryse n unde rs ta nds P S D's dis cipline policy a nd is a wa re of P S D's policie s re ga rding ha ra s s me nt, bullying a nd discrimina tion. (De fs . S OUF, No. 273). S chool P sychologis t, Dr. Ross Owens , rece ived tra ining from PSD regarding ha rassment, bullying a nd s e xua l ha ra s s me nt. Whe n he wa s in itia lly h ire d , he re ce ive d tra in ing via live pre se nta tions a t in-se rvice me e tings . Curre ntly, the a nnua l tra ining is conducte d through online module s . (De fs . SOUP, No. 274). Dr. Owe ns a tte nde d bullying a nd se xua l ha ra ssme nt tra ining. (De fs . S OUP , No. 275). GCN provide s online a nnua l tra ining, a nd Dr. Owe ns pa tticipa te s in a full in-s e rvice days to comple te the module s . (De fs . S OUP , No. 276), Dr. Owe ns re ce ive d tra ining on Title IX through GCN. (De fs . S OUF, No. 277). Dr. Owe ns re ce ive s a nnua l tra ining on bullying a nd cybe rbullying a t P HS a nd ha s a tte nde d outs ide confe re nce s a nd tra ining on bullying. (De fs . S OUF, No. 278). Owe ns re ce ive d dis crimina tion tra ining through the GCN module s . (De fs . S OUF, No. 280). Owe ns is a wa re of a P S D policy tha t pe rta ins to Title IX. (De fs . S OUF, No. 281). A forme r P HS s tude nt, H., a lso provide d te s timony a s to the progra ms tha t P HS ha d in pla ce to e duca te a nd a ss is t s tude nts with ha ra ssme nt a nd bullying. (De fs . Exhibit 145, a tta che d he re to , H. De po., pp . 13 :16-16:l3). De fe nda nts ' lia b ility e xpe rt, Ma rtin 3 . Huda cs , Ed .D., re vie we d the e vide nce of re cord a nd conclude d tha t the a dminis tra tion a nd s ta ff a t P S D we re 29 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 30 of 57 a ppropria te ly tra ine d to re spond to a nd inve s tiga te cla ims of s e xua l a nd unla wlia l ha ra s sme nt. (De fs . S OUF, No. 284). E. PSD did not have a policy or custom of failing to investigate complaints of harassment.6 PSD e mploye e s typica lly took a ction imme dia te ly upon re ce iving a re poit from a s tude nt by inte rvie wing thos e involve d a nd holding confe re nce s with pa re nts , if wa rra nte d. This is re fle cte d a bove , with re ga rd to Doe 's re ports . None the le s s , Doe cla ims tha t P S D ha d a n "unwritte n policy" of not notifying P S D's complia nce office r of ha ra s sme nt compla ints be ca use PSD employees unde rtook to immedia te ly inves tiga te reports ra the r than wa it to inves tiga te until a fte r the compliance office r could become involved. (Doe 's Memorandum of Law, p. 7). Initia lly, Doe is mis cons truing the e vide nce cite d a nd re lie d upon in he r S ta te me nt of Undisputed Facts . Ms . McHa le s ta ted tha t PSD employees have authority to inves tiga te reports , not tha t the y ha d "sole " a uthority. (Compare Doe 's S OUF, No. 63 with Defs . Response to Doe 's S OUP , No. 63). S imila rly, Ms . De Bona ne ve r te s tifie d tha t Ms . McHa 1e would not be notifie d "unle s s " it wa s de te rmine d a t the conclus ion of a n inve s tiga tion tha t the re wa s cle a r a nd pervasive harassment. (Compa re Doe 's SOUP, No. 64 with Defs . Response to Doe 's SOUF, No. 64). Doe 's s tra te gic inse rtion of the se words tha t we re ne ve r use d by the witne sse s comple te ly changes the meaning of the ir te s timony, a s it sugges ts tha t Ms . McHa le was intentiona lly kept in the da rk about inves tiga tions tha t took place . As Ms . De Bo n a e xp la in e d , P S D wo u ld n o tify th e Tit le IX C o o rd in a to r if th e a dminis tra tors ' inve s tiga tion found tha t the re porte d incide nt ros e a bove pe e r conflic t to ha ra ssment. (Exhibit 9 to De fs . SOUF, p. 226:15-24). Ye t, Doe repre sents tha t DeBona te s tified Contra ry to Doe 's characte riza tion of he r Compla int, she never brought an Equa l Protection cla im aga ins t PSD based upon an a lleged policy or cus tom, Count Ill cons is ts entire ly of a fa ilure to tra in cla im. As such, this entire section may be moot. 6 30 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 31 of 57 tha t P S D e mploye e s would not no tify McHa le of a ha ra s s me nt compla in t "unle s s " it wa s de tennined a t the conclus ion of the inves tiga tion tha t the re was clea r and pe rvas ive ha rassment. (Doe 's S OUF, No. 64). Once a ga in, Doe is a ttributing a word us e d by he r couns e l to De Bona whe n, in fa ct, De Bona ne ve r us e d the word "unle s s ," The a ddition of this s ingle word by Doe comple te ly dis torts De Bona 's a ctua l te s timony. Ms . De Bona te s tifie d tha t the y would notify the Title IX coordina tor if the ir inve s tiga tion found tha t the 1 'e po1"te d incide nt ros e a bove pe e r conflict to ha ra s s me nt. (Exhibit 9 to De fs . S OUP , p. 226:15-24). S he a ls o e xpla ine d, in the portion of he r te s timony imme dia te ly pre ce d ing tha t which is c ite d by Doe , tha t the y will some time s notify McHa le imme dia te ly if the y be lie ve he r involve me nt is ne ce ssa ry ba se d upon the na tu re o f the re port. (81 p.226:7-10). S ince Doe 's couns e l wa s only us ing the te rm "ha ra s s me nt" a nd not "s e xua l ha ra s s me nt," De Bona cla ritie d tha t s he a ns we re d a s s he did be ca use McHa le would be come involve d "whe n it is ha ra s sme nt a s it would pe rta in to s e x a nd ge nde r unde r Title IX." (L, p. 226:15-22). Ne xt, Doe imprope rly re lie s upon procla ma tions tha t ce rta in e ve nts ne ve r took pla ce mere ly because Does ' counse l did not obta in discove ry re la ting to them. For ins tance , Doe cite s to Ms . MoHa le 's na me not a ppe a ring in a s e t of dis cipline re cords produce d in re s pons e to a Cou1"L Orde r compe lling re cords pe la ining to "pe e r conflict" a s proba tive tha t inve s tiga tion of ha ra s s me nt did not ta ke pla ce . (Doe 's S OUF, No. 68). The s e re cords prima rily cons is te d of s tudent-dra fted incident reports and form discipline re fe rra ls and, moreove r, re la ted to incidents of pe e r conflict, not ha ra ssme nt. (De fs . Exhibit 146, a tta che d he re to, De cla ra tion of K. He isne r) De fendants inte rpre ted the Court's use of the te rm "involving" in its Orde r ve ry broadly. Records were produced even where the use of a de roga tory word was mere ly ancilla ry to the incident. For e xa mple , the re cords produce d include d a lte rca tions s uch a s two fe ma le s tude nts fighting, in 3 1 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 32 of 57 which one ca lle d the othe r a bitch, a ma le s tude nt ca lling a nothe r ma le s tude nt a bitch, fe ma le s tude nts ca lling a nothe r fe ma le s tude nt a bitch, a ma le s tude nt ca lling a nothe r ma le s tude nt a bitch a nd thre a te ning to fight, a fe ma le s tude nt thre a te ning to punch a nothe r s tude nt in the "fucking face ," a Hght be tween female s tudents because one suggested the other does not have a butt, and va rious othe r incidents tha t a re not examples of "sex-based ha rassment," despite Doe 's re pre s e nta tions to the contra ry. (See, e .g., De fs . Exhibit 147, Doe -P S D 003124, 3130, 3139, 3155,3169> Additiona lly, Doe re fe re nce s 46 pa ge s of ha ra s s me nt~re 1a te d re cords , but fa ils to a cknowle dge tha t the se a re only log e ntrie s for unre la te d incide nts . Qi) De fe nda nts obje cte d to producing any and a ll re cords re la ting to the se incidents a s ove rly broad and not proportiona l to the needs of this case , and P la intiff neve r pursued this discovery. ( ) It is e xtre me ly mis le a ding to suggest to the Court tha t othe r ha rassment compla ints were not inves tiga ted (which they were ) mere ly because Doe does not have the records for those other incidents . Doe a lso cla ims tha t PSD ha s a pa tte rn a nd pra ctice of not inve s tiga ting incide nts which occur outs ide of s chool. (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p. 7). S he cite s to te s timony of De Bona pe rta ining to Goodwin's ra pe a lle ga tion, but doe s so by pie cing toge the r poftions of De Bona 's te s timony in such a wa y a s to pla ce it out of conte xt a nd cha nge its me a ning. (Compare Doe 's S OUF, No. 70 with De fs . Re s pons e to Doe 's S OUF, No. 70). Ms . De Bona 's te s timony wa s , " [w]e don't have the resources outs ide in the community. We can investiga te in-house and speak to the s tudents in-house , but we don't have the re sources , nor, I be lieve , the jurisdiction to go out a nd inte wie w community me mbe rs ." (Exhibit 9 to De fs . S OUP , p. 187:12-l7). (See alsQ ig , p . l88:2-21) (de s cribing how P HS works with police , but tha t police ta ke the le a d for ins ta nce s such as Goodwin's rape a llega tion). 32 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 33 of 57 Fina lly, Doe cla ims tha t P S D ha s a pra ctice of not s ubmitting writte n re ports of ha ra s s me nt inve s tiga tions to McHa le . (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p. 7). To s upport this a llegation, Doe cla ims tha t McHale testified tha t high school administra tors have "sole authority" to inve s tiga te a compla int of ha ra s s me nt without notifying the Title IX coordina tor. (Doe 's S OUP , No. 63). Ms . McHa le never made such a s ta tement. Those were Pla intiffs counse1's words, which were never agreed to 01' adopted by Ms. McHale. (Defs. Response to Doe's SOUP, No. 63). Authority to inve s tiga te , which wa s the subje ct of Ms . McHa le 's te s timony, is not the same as "sole" authority to investigate , and it is extremely misleading for Doe and her counsel to make such a representation to the Court even going so far as to put the words in quotations and attribute them to McI-Ia le . Doe a rgues tha t her equa l protection cla im is supported by the fact tha t DeBona did not submit a written repoit of harassment to McHale during the time period from June 2015 to April 2016. (Doe 's S OUF, No. 77). While it is true tha t Ms . De Bona did not pe rs ona lly s ubmit a written report of a harassment compla int to the Title IX Coordina tor during this time period, Doe neglects to acknowledge tha t a ss is tant principa ls did submit such repoits on DeBona 's beha lf. (De fs . Re s pons e to Doe 's S OUF, No. 77). Doe a ls o ma ke s no e ffort dra w a ny conne ction between the identity of who submitted these reports and the alleged harm to Doe. II. S TANDARD OF_REVIEW S umma ry judgme nt is a ppropria te whe n the ple a dings , de pos itions , a ns we rs to inte rroga tories and admiss ions on file , toge ther with the a ffidavits , if any, "show tha t the re is no genuine issue as to any materia l facts and a moving party is entitled to judgment as a matte r of law." F.R.C.P . 56(0), The court mus t view the facts and a ll infe rences drawn the re from in the light mos t favorable to the non-moving pa rty. Gonnan v. Twp. of Mana lapan, 47 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 1995). The role of the court is not to we igh the e vide nce a nd de te rmine the truth of the 33 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 34 of 57 matte r, but to de te rmine whe the r, cons truing the facts and infe rences the re from in the light mos t favorable to the moving pa rty, the re is a genuine is sue for re solution a t tria l. Ande rson v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). A pa rty moving for s umma ry judgme nt be a rs the initia l re s pons ibility of informing the court of the ba s is for its motion, a nd ide ntifying thos e portions of the re cord which it be lie ve s demonstra te the absence of a genuine issue of materia l fact. Ca lte x Corp. v. Ca tle tt, 477 U.S . 317 (1986). If the moving pa rty ma ke s a s howing , the burde n is on the non-moving pa ny to de mons tra te tha t the re is a ge nuine is s ue of ma te ria l fa ct by coming forwa rd with s ufficie nt e vide nce from which a re a sona ble jury could re turn a ve rdict for the non-moving pa rty. Unite d Sta te s v. 107.9 Acre Pa rce l of Land in Warren Twp., 898 F.2d 396 (3d. Cir. 1990), III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Doe's heaw reliance upon highlv distinguishable case law from another circuit fails to support her "failure to train" claim. 1. The Doe v. Forest Hills Sch. Dist. decision is an unpublished district court decision from Michigan, involving afauliy legal defense not raised here. Throughout he r motion, Doe re lie s upon the We s te rn Dis trict of Michiga n's unpublishe d opinion in Doe v. Fore s t Hills S chool Dis trict, No. l:13~cv-428, 2015 WL 9906260 (W.D. Mich. Ma rch 31, 2015) ("Foie s t Hilis") to s upport he r cla ims for viola tion of Equa l P rote ction Rights , a long with va rious othe r ca ses from othe r jurisdictions . (See Doe 's Memorandum of Law, pp. 13, 15, 16, l'7 , 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 & 27) (citing to a nd re lying upon Fore s t Hills ). Doe 's motion is noticeably be re ft of Third Circuit precedent on the contes ted issues in this case . The Fore s t Hills de cis ion is not binding pre ce de nt. In fa ct, due to the na ture in which it was decided, it is not even pe rsuas ive authority. The re is no indica tion in the tria l court's opinion tha t the de fendants a rgued tha t the ir tra ining on Title IX issues was adequa te . Ins tead, it appears tha t the de fendants in Fore s t Hills . oppose d the pla intiffs motion "on the ba s is tha t she ha [d] not 34 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 35 of 57 ide ntifie d a ny cus tom or policy of the Dis trict tha t ca us e d its e mploye e s to viola te he r rights .11 Ii, a t *49. The tria l court found tha t the "[d]e fe nda nts pla inly 1nis s ta te [d] the la w by a s s e rting tha t a school dis trict may be he ld liable only if an uncons titutiona l act was committed pursuant to a n officia l s chool policy or cus tom." 4, a t *50. The s chool dis trict in tha t ca s e a dmitte d tha t it did not provide a ny tra ining wha ts oe ve r to its e mploye e s on how to re s pond to s e xua l a s s a ult compla ints , unlike P S D he re . 4, a t *53. In fa ct, the re we re nume rous fa ctors in the Fore s t Hills case tha t dis tinguish it from the present matte r. 2. The Forest_Hills decision is distinguishable from the present matter in several critical respects. The Fore s t Hills ca se involve d a ma le high school s tude nt who, on Nove mbe r 3, 2010, a lle ge dly se xua lly a s sa ulte d a nd a tte mpte d to ra pe a fe ma le s tude nt in the school's ba nd room a fte r the s chool da y e nde d. 4 , a t *3-4. The pla intiff to ld two frie nds a bout the a s s a ult a nd re porte d the incide nt to a te a che r, who re la ye d it to the s chool principa l. 4, a t *4-5. The school principa l ne ve r inte rvie we d the s tude nts who re ce ive d the pla intiffs re port of the incide nt a nd ne ve r a s ke d the police for a copy of the ra pe kit re port. , a t *7. Approxima te ly two we e ks la te r, the a s sa ila nt wa s re porte d to ha ve se xua lly a s sa ulte d a nothe r fe ma le s tude nt. 4, a t *7-8. Ove r one month a fte r the origina l a s s a ult took pla ce , the building principa l told the pla intiffs fa the r tha t he could not dis cipline the a s s a ila nt without proof a nd tha t he wa s wa iting for the police inve s tiga tion to conclude . 4, a t *8. Around tha t s a me time , the a s s a ila nt wa s forma lly c h a rg e d with C rim in a l S e xu a l C o n d u c t-F o u 1 1 h De g re e . 4 , a t *1 2 . He p le d g u ilty to misde me a nor a s sa ult on June 27, 2011. 4, a t *17-18. On Octobe r 5, 2011, the pla intiffs fa the r was advised by the school tha t the investigation was closed. LcL, a t * 18. During the a pproxima te ly s e ve n-month pe riod following the a s s a ult, the a s s a ila nt a nd other s tudents were reported to have engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment aga inst the 35 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 36 of 57 pla intiff a s re ta lia tion for re porting the s e xua l a s s a ult. 4 , a t *8~l7. Although s chool officia ls re pe a te dly told the a s sa ila nt to s ta y a wa y from the pla intiff, he would follow he r a round school, block he r exits from bad1rooms and cla ss rooms, ca ll he r ugly and a lia r, his s a t he r, key he r ca r, a nd pus h pe ople into he r in the ha llwa ys . L, a t *9-10. The pla intiff wa s a ls o os tra cize d a nd cybe rbullie d, wa s involve d in a confronta tion with a nothe r s tude nt who wa s de fe nding the assa ilant, and was chanted a t until she le ft a baske tba ll game (the assa ilant played for the team). , a t *10. The a s s a ila nt followe d the pla intiff a t a tra ck e ve nt, "whis pe ring things " to he r from be hind. M, a t *15. One of his frie nds a dmitte d tha t the a s s a ila nt pus he d s ome body into the p la in tiff o n p u rp o s e . 4 , a t *1 6 -1 7 . Th e p la in tiffs fa th e r re p o lte d th a t "s m a ll a c ts o f intimida tion" we re continuing to ta ke pla ce a s la te a s Ma y 2011. , a t *l7. The s chool dis trict cla ime d tha t the s e ins ta nce s we re ne ve r re porte d to the m, but the y we re contra dicte d by the evidence showing tha t the pla intiffs pa rents repea tedly repoited ins tances of ha ra ssment. 4 The p la in tiff in Fore s t Hills a rgue d tha t the s chool dis trict wa s de libe ra te ly indiffe re nt be ca us e it me re ly ta lke d to the a s s a ila nt while he a nd othe rs ha ra s s e d the pla intiff for the re ma inde r of the s chool ye a r, put the onus on the pla intiff to re port incide nts , a nd conducte d a ve ry limite d inve s tiga tion of the a lle ge d incide nt while it wa ite d for the police to conclude its own inve s tiga tion. , a t *3l-33. Although the tria l court found tha t it wa s pos s ible tha t a jury could find the s chool dis trict to ha ve be e n de libe ra te ly indiffe re nt, it a lso note d tha t the s chool dis trict did a ct by conta cting the police , tha t a s chool's fa ilure to follow Title IX guida nce doe s not a utoma tica lly me a n dia t it wa s de libe ra te ly indiffe re nt a nd tha t, the re fore , it could not be de te rmined as a matte r of law tha t the school dis trict was de libera te ly indiffe rent. LQL, a t *35-36. The Fore s t Hills ca s e is dis tinguis ha ble from the pre s e nt ma tte r in s e ve ra l importa nt respects . Unlike the present matte r, the case involved a sexua l assault. Here , Doe admits she was 36 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 37 of 57 ne ve r s e xua lly a s s a ulte d by N. In Fore s t Hills, the pe rpe tra tol' wa s re porte d to ha ve s e xua lly a ssa ulte d a se cond s tude nt two we e ks a fte r the firs t re poI't-a ga in, some thing tha t did not occur he re . In fa ct, Doe a dmits tha t N. ne ve r touche d he r a ga in a fie r the y broke up in April 2015. (De fs . S OUP , No. 56). P S D inve s tiga te d Doe 's re ports imme dia te ly a nd did not wa it for a se pa ra te police inve s tiga tion to conclude . PSD inte wie we d a ll known witne sse s to the incide nts re poNe d by Doe , unlike the school dis trict in Fore s t Hills. Unlike the sexua l a ssault a llega tion in Fore s t Hills, the re wa s ne ve r a n a dmis s ion of guilt or corrobora ting e vide nce to e s ta blis h tha t Doe 's a lle ga tions a ga ins t N. we re tnle . S e e Fore s t Hills, supra, a t *28 (a cknowle dging the "te ns ion" whe n cons ide ring dis ciplina ry a ction a ga ins t a s tude nt for unprove n a lle ga tions , a nd the lega l exposure it crea te s ). S e e a lsq C.R. v. Novi Cmty. S ch. Dis t., No. 14-14531, 2017 U.S . Dis t. LEXIS 18394, a t *47 n.23 (ED. Mich. Fe b. 9 , 2017) (dis tinguis hing a nd finding Fore s t Hills "ina ppos ite " be ca use the pe rpe tra tor ple d guilty to the pla intiffs a lle ga tions in the re la te d crimina l ca se ). In Fore s t Hills, th e s ch o o l d is tric t me re ly "ta lke d to " the a s sa ila nt, which prove d ine ffe ctive in s topping or re ducing subse que nt ha ra s sme nt of the pla intiff by the a s sa ila nt a nd othe r s tude nts . , a t *31. He re , N. did not e nga ge in a ny ha ra s s me nt a fie r the J une 2015 me e ting. Fina lly, the na ture of the ha ra s s me nt in Fore s t Hills wa s much more s e ve re tha n a nything re porte d by Doe in the pre s e nt ma tte r. Doe wa s not s ta lke d by N.-s he initia te d the only re porte d confronta tion with him during he r junior ye a r. Although the re is a n a lle ga tion tha t he ca lled he r a "bitch" unde r his brea th, he did not follow he r a round school, block he r exits from ba throoms a nd cla ss rooms , his s a t he r, ke y he r ca r, or push pe ople into he r in the ha llwa ys like the a ssa ilant in Fore s t Hills was reported to have done to the pla intiff in tha t case . Doe was never chanted a t by othe r s tudents until she had to leave school events . Ra the r, he r primary compla int 37 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 38 of 57 had to do with the mere pre sence of N. a t he r high school, or pe rhaps more accura te ly, tha t she did not want to a ttend PHS . 3. The other non-binding case lawfrom otherjurisdiciions cited by Doe is similarly distinguishable. Doe c ite s to s ix c ircu it coun ca s e s -bu t none from the Third Circu it-to s upport he r cla im tha t a public s chooI's fa ilure to a ddre s s s tude nt-on-s tude nt ha ra s s me nt cons titu te s discrimina tion tha t wa s cle a rly e s ta blishe d a s a ma tte r of la w during the re le va nt time pe riod to this ca se . (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p. 9). In de ciding whe the r qua lifie d immunity a pplie s , a cou1"t mus t decide whe the r the facts the pla intiff ha s shown make out a cons titutiona l viola tion. Spady v. Be thlehem Areg Sch. Dis t., 800 F.3d 633 (3d Cir. 2015). The court must a lso de tmmine whe the r the right a t is sue was clea rly e s tablished a t the time of de fendant's a lleged misconduct. Spady, 800 F.3d at 637. Here , none of Doe 's cons titutiona l rights have been viola ted and she was not ha rmed by any of De fendants ' a ctions . Consequently, qua lified immunity is applicable and appropria te , and the individua l de fe nda nts a re e ntitle d to s umma ry judgme nt in the ir fa vor. More ove r, Doe ha s not s hown tha t a cle a rly e s ta blis he d right e xis te d a t the time of a ny a lle ge d viola tion of a cons titutiona l right. The re le va nt, dis pos itive inquiry in de te rmining whe the r a right is cle a rly es tablished is whe the r it would be clea r to a rea sonable school dis trict employee tha t his 01° he r conduct was unlawful in a s itua tion confronted. The cases cited by Doe do not demonstra te a clea rly e s tablished right in the Third Circuit, nor a re the y fa ctua lly a na logous to the pre se nt ca se . As outline d be low, the ca se s upon which Doe re lie s involve much more e gre gious a ctions by both the s tude nt ha ra s se rs a nd the s chool e mploye e s . As such, the re is nothing in the se cases tha t would pla ce De fe nda nts on notice tha t 38 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 39 of 57 the ir conduct wa s unla wful. In fa ct, whe n compa re d to the fa cts of the ca s e s cite d by Doe , Defendants ' actions appear entire ly reasonable and appropria te . In Hill v. Cund iff, 797 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2015), the Ele ve nth Circuit a ffirme d the gra nt of s umma ry judgme nt to a s chool boa rd a nd a ll individua l de fe nda nts e xce pt for the s chool pres ident. lg.L, a t 985-86. The case involved a middle school s tudent who was ana lly raped when a te a che r's a ide convince d he r to a rtici a te in a "ra pe ba it" s ting ope ra tion b a re e in to me e t ap p y g 8 male s tudent in the schoo1's ba throom to have sex. The male s tudent had been propositioning her for sex for two weeks le ading up to the rape , had been involved in sexua l ha ra ssment incidents with other girls , and was se rving a 20-day in-school suspension for sexua l ha rassment a t the time of the ra pe . , a t 971-72. Despite medica l evidence and photographs showing ana l lace ra tions , re cta l ble e ding, re dne ss a nd swe lling, a ll of which corrobora te d the pla intiffs cla im tha t she wa s ana lly raped, the school principa l and a ss is tant principa ls te s titied tha t they could not de te rmine whe the r a ra pe occurre d be ca use the a ssa ila nt only a dmitte d to kis s ing a nd the y did not think a ra pe could occur unle s s prose cutors bring crimina l cha rge s . , a t 965. The building principa l did not change any school policie s a s a re sult of the incident because he thought tha t they did a good job in ha ndling the incide nt. The Ele ve nth Circuit de scribe d the ca se a s ha ving "highly unique and extreme facts ," given tha t the "adminis tra tors e ffective ly pa rticipa ted in CJC's sexua l ha ra s sme nt by se tting Doe up in a ra pe ba it s che me involving CJC in orde r to 'ca tch him in the a ct.'" Id., at 972-73 O In S hive ly v. Gre e n Loca l S ch. Dis t. Bd. of Educ., 579 Fe d. Appx. 348 (6th Cir. 2014), a s tudent brought equal protection and other cla ims re la ting to a llega tions tha t she was subj ected to "constant name-ca lling, ha rassment based on her re ligion, teas ing and verba l intimida tion, and on seve ra l occas ions , phys ica l violence" ove r the course of seve ra l yea rs because she identified a s 39 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 40 of 57 Jewish. , a t 350-51. De fe nda nts file d a n inte rlocutory a ppe a l of the de nia l of the ir motion for judgme nt on the p le a dings a nd, the re fore , the S ixth Circuit me re ly looke d to whe the r the a lle ga tions s e t forth a pla us ible cla im whe n vie wing the compla int in a light mos t fa vora ble to the pla intiff. , a t 352. Whe n vie wing the a lle ga tions in the light mos t fa vora ble to the pla intiff, including a lle ga tions tha t s he wa s put on a "kill lis t" by a s tude nt who wa s e xpe lle d but the n a llowe d on s choo l g round jus t th re e we e ks la te r, tha t the s choo l wa s a wa re o f ongo ing ha ra ssme nt ove r se ve ra l ye a rs a nd "did nothing to a ddre ss the s itua tion," a nd othe r a lle ga tions , the S ixth Circuit found tha t the compla int a de qua te ly ple d a viola tion of e qua l prote ction cla im. LLL, a t 358. Not only is an entire ly diffe rent s tanda rd applicable to the pre sent motion, but Doe 's a llega tions of conduct by PSD students , including N., is nowhere near as severe and pervasive as the a llega tions in S hive ly. The ne xt ca s e re lie d upon by Doe is DiS tis o v, Cook, 691 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2011), in which the pla intiff a lle ge d tha t e le me nta ry school a dminis tra tors we re de libe ra te ly indiffe re nt to racia l ha ra ssment of a s tudent while in kinde rga lten and firs t grade . The s tudent te s tified tha t, on a n a lmos t da ily ba s is , he ha d be e n ca lle d ra cia l s lurs by othe r s tude nts , wa s pinche d, punche d a nd hit by othe r s tude nts , told he ha d to us e a brown cra yon to dra w a picture of hims e lf by a te a che r, a nd dra gge d a cros s a floor by a te a che r. > a t 230-32 . The S e cond Circu it, in cons ide ring the a ppe a l by the de fe nda nts from de nia l of the ir motion for s umma ry judgme nt, found it pos s ible tha t a jury could End the cla s s ma te s ' comme nts , pa rticula rly the us e of "the re vile d e pithe t 'n igge 1"" dire cte d towa rd the kinde rga rte n s tude nt a pproxima te ly e ight a nd pos s ible a s ma ny a s fifte e n time s , a long with othe r ra cia lly motiva te d comme nts , to cons titute se ve re ha ra s sme nt. 4, a t 242-43. Although the school cla ime d tha t its e mploye e s ta te d tha t he would ta lk to the childre n who we re na me -ca lling a nd tha t this wa s a re a sona ble re sponse , the 40 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 41 of 57 S e cond Circuit note d tha t the re wa s e vide nce sufficie nt to pe rmit a re a sona ble jury to find tha t the s chool did "nothing " in re sponse to seve ra l of the compla int of ra cia l name-ca lling. LQL, a t 244 (e mpha s is in origina l). Thus , cons truing the fa cts in fa vor of the pla intiff, the Se cond Circuit found tha t the re we re is s ue s of cre dibility tha t re quire d a jury de te rmina tion a s to whe the r the school dis trict a cte d a ppropria te ly. 4, a t 245 . The next case cited by Doe , Flore s v. Morga n Hill Unifie d S ch. Dis t., 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003), involve d a nti-homos e xua l ha ra s s me nt of s e ve ra l s tude nts by othe r s tude nts in the form of homophobic s lurs , pornogra phy pla ce d in the ir locke rs , a de a th thre a t, a nd ha ving food thrown a t them, be ing bea ten to the point of needing hospita liza tion while be ing ca lled a faggot, and having rumors spread by a campus monitor about engaging in inte rcourse on school grounds. , a t 1132-33. The school employees were a lleged to have told one of the pla intiffs , "don't bring me this tra sh a nymore . This is disgus ting." in re sponse to one of the pla intiffs compla ints of the note s be ing le ft in the ir locke rs . 4 , a t 1133. Anothe r te a che r re s ponde d to a compla int by ins tructing the pla intiff to cha nge clothe s a wa y from the locke r room so tha t the othe r s tude nts would not fe e l uncomforta ble by he r pre s e nce . The Ninth Circuit found tha t the re wa s s ufficie nt e vide nce for a jury to pote ntia lly find de libe ra te indiffe re nce whe n a n a s s a ult victim wa s me re ly told to re port the on-ca mpus incide nt to police , only one of s e ve ra l s tude nts who dis tribute d the pornogra phic ima ge s wa s dis cipline d a nd who subse que ntly bra gge d a bout his light punishme nt, fa ilure to ta ke a ny disciplina ry a ction a ga ins t live of the s ix s tude nts involve d in hos pita liz ing one of the p la in tiffs , a nd o the r a lle ga tions s upporte d by the re cord we re cons ide re d. 4, a t 1135-36. In Mure ll v. S chool Dis t. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 1999), the next case re lied upon by Doe , the p la in tiff mo the r b rough t a n a c tion on he r own be ha lf a nd on be ha lf o f ho r 4 1 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 42 of 57 de ve lopme nta lly dis a ble d da ughte r a ris ing out of the ha ra s s me nt, a s s a ult a nd ba tte ry of he r daughte r. , a t 1242. The s chool wa s a dvise d tha t a nothe r de ve lopme nta lly dis a ble d s tude nt wa s ma king ha ra s s ing phone ca lls to the pla intiffs da ughte r a t he r home a nd ha d a his tory of se xua lly ina ppropria te conduct. 4> a t 1243. The a s sa ila nt the n se xua lly a s sa ulte d the pla intiffs da ughte r on multiple occa s ions on school prope rty, including one which re sulte d in he r vomiting a nd ble e ding. 4 Ins te a d of re porting the incide nt to the mothe r, the s chool e mploye e s hid the e vide nce of the incide nt by tying othe r clothing a round he r wa is t, told he r not to te ll he r mothe r, and encouraged her to forge t tha t it happened a t a ll. , a t 1244. Afte r be ing re leased fiom a s tay a t a psychia tric hospita l, the s tudent was a ssaulted by the a ssa ilant aga in upon he r re tum to the s chool a nd rid icule d for the prior s e xua l a s s a ult. 4 , a t 1244. The Te nth Circuit uphe ld the dismissa l of the cla ims a ga ins t the school dis trict, but re ve rse d dismissa l of the e qua l prote ction cla ims aga ins t the individua ls on the ba s is tha t the ir fa ilure to eve r report the incidents to police , discipline the a ssa ilant, or even remove him from his a ss is tant janitoria l pos ition could cons titute de libe ra te indiffe rence . , a t 1245. Fina lly, Doe re lie s upon the S e ve nth Circuit's opinion in Na bozny v. Podle sny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996), in which a s tudent a lleged tha t he was ha rassed and abused over the course of both his middle school and high school yea rs by othe r s tudents because he was homosexua l. 4, a t 449. The incide nts include d us e of homophobic s lurs , s triking the pla intiff, s pitting on him, pinning him down for a "mock ra pe " while a pproxima te ly twe nty s tude nts wa tche d a nd la ughe d, a nd othe r a cts of ha ra s sme nt spa nning s e ve ra l ye a rs . 4 a t 451. The s chool principa l a lle ge dly promise d to ta ke a ction but "took no a ction," told the pla intiff tha t "boys will be boys ," a nd told him tha t if he wa s "going to be s o ope nly ga y," tha t he s hould e xpe ct s uch be ha vior from othe r s tude nts . Cons truing the fa cts in the light mos t fa vora ble to the pla intiff, the 42 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 43 of 57 Seventh Circuit found tha t a rea sonable fact-finde r could conclude tha t the school dis trict and its employees discrimina ted aga ins t the pla intiff due to his gende r or sexua l orienta tion, , a t 460- 61. B. D0e's failure to train claim against PSD, Rattigan and DeBona must be dismissed as a matter of Iaw.7 Doe 's motion c ite s the s ta nda rd fo r a fa ilu re to tra in c la im s e t fo rth in Thoma s v.. Cumbe rla nd Cntv., 749 F.3d 27 (3d Cir. 2014), which holds tha t a fa ilure to tra in cla im re quire s a s howing tha t the re wa s (1) a nd ide ntifie d de ficie ncy in the tra ining progra m, (2) the fa ilure a mounts to de libe ra te indiffe re nce , a nd (3) the ide ntifie d de ficie ncy wa s clos e ly re la te d to the ultima te injury. 4 Here , Doe does not mee t a s ingle one of the se e lements . 1. PSD 's training did not have identm'ed deficiencies. The tra in ing provide d by P S D to its e mploye e s is outline d in gre a t de ta il a bove , in S e ction I(D). Ye t, Doe pre mis e s he r e ntire a rgume nt tha t the tra ining provide d by P S D wa s ina de qua te on a re vie w of ce rta in s lide s a nd on counting the numbe r of time s tha t ce rta in te rms appear on those s lides (a lbe it e11° oneous1y). (Doe 's Memorandum of Law, pp. 10-11). Doe fa ils to acknowledge tha t the PowerPoint 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 . (Exhibit 2 to De fs . S OUF, pp. 33:18-35:19) (te s timony discuss ing the live pre se nta tions by Sca rpa ntonio). The pre se nte r wa s the fonne r Title IX Coordina tor for PSD, Ra ymond Sca rpa ntonio, who wa s ma de a va ila ble for a de pos ition but Doe chose not to proce e dwith it. With re ga rd to the GCN tra ining, which Doe cla ims only me ntion "Title IX" twice a nd "sexua l ha rassment" once (it actua lly appears five times in the document), Doe declines to advise 7 De fe nda nts move d for dismissa l of Count III to Doe 's Compla int in the ir own motion for summary judgment and incorpora te by re fe rence the ir a rguments se t forth in tha t motion to avoid unnecessary duplica tion, as it serves as a de fa cto opposition to the present motion. 43 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 44 of 57 the Couli tha t this nine -page tra ining document a lso conta ins over 40 re fe rences to the shortened form of the te rm, "ha ra s s me nt," which is s pe cifica lly e xpla ine d on pa ge one to include s e xua l ha ra ssment. (Exhibit 28, Doe -PSD 1358-66). It is extreme ly mis leading and imprope r to sugges t tha t this document does not address sexual harassment mere ly because it does not place the word "sexua l" be fore each and every use of the te rm "harassment," Ye t, this is wha t Doe re lie s upon to e s ta blish a n "ide ntifie d de ficie ncy" in PSD's tra ining progra m. Doe a ls o omits a ll of the othe r tra in ing provide d to P S D e mploye e s on Title IX and sexua l ha ra ssment, which a re outlined above , and bla tantly mis repre sents tha t the GCN tra ining provide s no guida nce on PSD boa rd policie s . In fa ct, the GCN tra ining e xe rcise s include "links" to P S D policie s , incorpora te P S D's spe cific ha ra s sme nt policy, a nd a re de s igne d such tha t the us e r ca nnot bypa s s re vie w of P S D's s pe cific policy be ca us e the us e r mus t re vie w the policy be fore moving to the next module . (Defs . SOUP, Nos . 214 & 238). The mere fact tha t Doe re lie s upon such a faulty unders tanding of PSD's tra ining program is , its e lf, sufficie nt to dismis s this cla im. S he is e ithe r mis ta ke n or inte ntiona lly mis le a ding a s to some of the tra ining provided and mere ly ignore s the va s t ma jority of the othe r tra ining tha t was provided to PSD employees . Without it be ing e s tablished tha t the re was an identified de ficiency in P S D's tra ining re gime n, the re is no ne e d for the Court to go a ny fulthe r in its a na lys is . This cla im should be dismissed. 2. Even gf an identyied dcyieiency in PSD 's training existed, Defendants were not deliberately indwerent. "Fa ilure to a de qua te ly scre e n or tra in municipa l e mploye e s ca n ordina rily be cons ide re d de libe ra te indiffe re nce only whe re the fa ilure ha s ca us e d a pa tte ln of viola tions ." Does v. Se .. Delco Sch. Dist., 272 F. Supp. 3d 656, 668 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (quoting Bergv. County of Alle ghe ny, 219 F.3d 261, 276 (3d Cir. 2000)), Howeve r, "[i}n a na rrow range of circumstances ," 44 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 45 of 57 a pla intiff ma y proce e d on a "s ingle -incide nt" the ory of lia bility. Doe does not proceed on a "s ingle -incide nt" the ory of lia bility-ra the r, s he cite s in he r Compla int to compa nion ca s e s file d by Modupe Willia ms a nd Da rbia lme Goodwin in s upport of he r a rgume nt tha t the re wa s a pa tte rn of fa ilures by PSD to re spond to compla ints of ha rassment. Doe now drops any re fe rence to Modupe Willia ms , a s s umma ry judgme nt wa s gra nte d to P S D in tha t ca s e ,8 A motion for s umma ry judgme nt is pe nding which s e e ks the dis mis s a l of the Goodwin ca se , a s we ll. Doe 's cha ra cte riza tion of the e vide nce a nd te s timony in the Goodwin ma tte r is ina ccura te a nd unre lia ble . (See Defs . Response to Doe 's SOUF, Nos . 59-60). Additiona lly, Doe re fe rences 601 pages (the actua l number of pages was 608) of records tha t we re produce d in re s pons e to a Court Orde r compe lling production of re cords re la ting to "peer conflict" and suggests tha t these records demonstra te a pa tte rn of "sex-based harassment.11 This is a de libe ra te ly mis leading and inappropria te , compounded by the fact tha t Doe re lie s upon a de cla ra tion from he r counse l purpolting to summa rize the se re cords ra the r tha n a tta ching the re cords the mse lve s . De fe nda nts inte rpre te d the Court's use of the te rm "involving" in its Orde r ve ry broadly, a s was expla ined to Doe 's counse l when the records were produced. (Defs . Exhibit 146), (See a lso De fs . Exhibit 147, Doe -P S D 003017 to 3624) (cons tituting re cords purporte dly s umma rize d in Gra ve s De cla ra tion). The re cords produce d include d a lte rca tions s uch a s two fe ma le s tude nts lighting, in which one ca lle d the othe r a bitch, a ma le s tude nt ca lling a nothe r Modupe Williams filed a race discrimina tion lawsuit aga ins t PSD in a ca se captioned, Willia ms v. Pe nnridge Sch, Dis t., Unite d S ta te s Dis trict Court for the Ea s te rn Dis trict of Pennsylvania , No. 15-4163, in which Doe 's present counse l represented Ms. Williams for a pe riod of time . In dismiss ing a ll cla ims aga ins t PSD and the individua l de fendants , the Court found tha t isola ted conduct tha t took place in school amounted to non-severe incidents tha t did not have a systemic e ffect of denying Williams equa l access to educa tion and such incidents were not pe rvas ive , and tha t Williams fa iled to se t forth any a llega tions tha t de fendants purpose ly trea ted he r le ss favorably than any othe r s imila rly s itua ted individua ls . (Defs . SOUP, Exhibit 138) (Orde r a nd Opinion of the Honora ble Mitche ll S . Goldbe rg). 8 45 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 46 of 57 ma le s tude nt a bitch, fe ma le s tude nts ca lling a nothe r fe ma le s tude nt a bitch, a ma le s tude nt ca lling a nothe r ma le s tude nt a bitch a nd thre a te ning to fight, a fe ma le s tude nt thre a te ning to punch a nothe r s tude nt in the "fucking fa ce ," a fight be twe e n fe ma le s tude nts be ca us e one sugge s te d the othe r doe s not ha ve a butt, a nd va rious othe r incide nts tha t a re not e xa mple s of "sex-based harassment," despite Doe 's repre senta tions to the contra ry. (See, e.g.~, L, Doe ~P S D 003124, 3130, 3139, 3155, 3169). S e e Bumba rge r v. Ne w Ente r. S tone & Lime Co., 170 F. S upp. 3d 801, 827 (W.D. P a . 2016) ("Ca se la w within the Third Circuit 'doe s not re fle ct uniform results with re spect to whe the r 'bitch' does or does not cons titute sexua l ha ra ssment.'") (quoting Da vis v. S EP TA, No. 13-CV-6864, 2016 U.S . Dis t. LEXIS 2106, a t *l8 n.9 (E.D. P a . J a n. 8, 2016)). Fina lly, Doe mus t de mons tra te tha t a PSD policyma ke r wa s a wa re of the cons titutiona lly viola tive conduct-i.e ,, the a lle ge dly ina de qua te tra ining a t a time whe n P S D could ha ve pre ve nte d Doe 's injurie s . See M.S . v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dis t.., 43 F. S upp. 3d 412 (2014) (citing Johnson v. Elk S ch. Dis t., 283 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002)). Doe mus t show tha t P S D kne w of the ris k to he r be fore he r injurie s occurre d. Be e rs -Ca pita l v. Whe tze l, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001). "Ordina rily, a pa tte rn of s imila r cons titu tiona l viola tions by untra ine d e mploye e s is necessa ry to demons tra te de libe ra te indiffe rence for the purposes of fa ilure to tra in." Thoma s v. Cumbe rla nd County, 7 4 9 F .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 3 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 4 ) (in te ma l c ita tio n s o mitte d ). By refe rencing events tha t occurred a round the same time as her own reports (i. e ., events pe rta ining to Da rb iAnne Goodwin), Doe fa ils to e s ta b lis h how P S D could ha ve a d jus te d its tra in ing programs in advance of he r a lleged injurie s ta ldng place . The events a t issue in this case and the Goodwin case occurred a t approximate ly the same time . 46 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 47 of 57 3. Even U" an identyied defciency in PSD's training existed and Defemlants were deliberately indifferent, both of which are denied, neither caused harm to Doe. As the fina l e le me nt for a fa ilure to tra in cla im, Doe is re quire d to dra w a conne ction be twe e n the a lle ge dly ina de qua te tra ining a nd the injurie s ca us e d to he r. S he ca nnot do this be ca us e , in fa ct, s he wa s not injure d. Doe a dmitte d tha t, a s of J une 2015, the conduct s he compla ine d of ha d a lre a dy ce a s e d a nd did not occurre d a ga in. (De fs . S OUP , Nos . 44 & 56). Further, Doe sa id tha t N. s topped sending her inappropria te text messages by the time they broke up in April 2015-be fore P S D wa s e ve r pla ce d on notice of the ir re la tionship is sue s . The school was not notified about any a lleged inappropria te conduct exhibited by N. until June 2015. (De fs . SOUP, No. 22). Doe 's cla ims in he r Compla int tha t N.'s frie nds se nt Doe thre a te ning me ssa ge s were outright contradicted by Doe 's sworn depos ition te s timony. (Defs . SOUF, No. 23). Doe ca nnot e s ta blis h tha t a ny de ficie ncy in tra ining ca us e d "s e x-ba s e d ha ra s s me nt in s choo1" or de nie d he r "right to bodily inte grity" a s a lle ge d in the Compla int (De fs . S OUF EX. 16, 1173). Doe wa s not s e xua lly ha ra s s e d in s chool a nd wa s not de nie d a ny right to pe rs ona l inte grity. The re e xis ts no ca us a l re la tions hip be twe e n a ny la ck of tra ining a nd a ny a lle ge d cons titutiona l ha rm suffe re d by Doe , a nd this cla im fa ils . Thoma s v. Cumbe rla nd Cty., 749 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2014). 47 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 48 of 57 c. Doe cannot support a § 1983 claim against Defendants for allegedlv maintaining policies and customs of failing to address reports of student-0n- student sex-based harassment. 1. Doe does not plead suelz a claim in her Complaint. Count III to Doe 's Compla int is entitled "Fa ilure to Tra in," and re la te s soie ly to an a lleged fa ilure to prope rly tra in PSD employees on reporting and address ing on-campus and off-campus sex-based ha rassment. (Exhibit 16 to Defs . SOUF, W68-74). The re a re no a llega tions re la ting to an a lleged policy or cus tom. (IQL) Doe now seeks summary judgment in he r favor on Count III to he r Compla int ba sed upon a § 1983 cla im tha t "PSD ma inta ined municipa l policie s and cus toms of: (i) fa iling to no tify the Title IX coord ina tor o f a ll ha ra s s me nt compla in ts ; (ii) fa iling to inve s tiga te a ll re ports of ha ra s s me nt, re ga rdle s s of whe re the y occurre d, a nd (iii) fa iling to s ubmit writte n re ports o f ha ra s s me n t inve s tiga tions to the Title IX coord ina to r." (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, pp. 19-20). Doe ca nnot be gra nte d s umma ry judgme nt on s uch a cla im because she never asse11ed the claim in the first place. It is a xioma tic tha t a pla intiff ca nnot be gra nte d judgme nt in the ir fa vor on a cla im tha t she never brought. Aldinge r v. S pe ctrum Control, Inc., 207 Fed. Appx. 177, 180 n.1, 181 (3d Cir. 2006) (a ffirming dis trict court's dis mis s a l of cla im tha t wa s not ple d in compla int a nd wa s firs t ra is e d in summa ly judgme nt oppos ition brie f), Cha va rria ga v. NJ . De p't of Coxr., 806 F.3d 210, 233 (3d Cir, 2015) ("But e ve n though a ppe lla nt ra ise d the Firs t Ame ndme nt in he r brie f, she did not ple a d a Firs t Ame ndme nt cla im in he r compla int. The re fore , the re is not a Firs t Ame ndme nt cla im prope rly be fore us .") He re , Count III to Doe 's Compla int is ba se d upon a n a lle ge d fa ilure to tra in, which is a ddre sse d a bove . Doe 's cla ims re la ting to a lle ge d "policie s a nd cus toms" is a n e ntire ly diffe re nt cla im, which wa s ne ve r ra is e d be fore he r motion for s umma ry judgme nt a nd should not be conside red. Moreover, a s discussed be low, these cla ims would fa il even if Doe had properly asse11ed them. 48 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 49 of 57 2. There was no policy or custom of "failing fo notyjf the Title IX coordinator of all harassment complaints," nor does Doe connect this allegation to any constitutional violation Doe 's firs t "policy a nd cus tom" cla im is tha t De fe nda nts Ra ttiga n a nd De Bona a lle ge dly "kne w of a nd a gre e d with the 'unwritte n policy' tha t s chool a dminis tra tors do not notify Ms . Me l-Ia le of a ny re ports of ha ra s s me nt unle s s the y be lie ve tha t the compla int is 'le gitima te ' or 'subs tantia ted."' (Doe 's Memorandum of Law, p. 21). The ve ry premise of this a llega tion is based upon a mischa racte riza tion of witne ss te s timony. Doe cla ims tha t Ms , McHa le te s tified tha t PSD a dminis tra tors ha ve "sole " a uthority to inve s tiga te a compla int of ha ra s sme nt without notifying he r. (Doe 's SOUP, No. 63). Those we re P la intiffs counse 1's words , howe ve r, which we re ne ve r a gre e d to or a dopte d by Ms . McHa le . S he only te s tifie d tha t P S D a dminis tra tors ha ve a uthority to inve s tiga te compla ints -not tha t the y ha ve "sole " a uthority to inve s tiga te . (De fs . Re sponse to Doe 's SOUP, No. 63). S imila rly, Doe cla ims tha t Ms . De Bona te s tifie d tha t P S D e mploye e s would not notify Ms . McHa le of a compla int of ha ra s sme nt "unle s s " it wa s de te rmine d "a t the conclus ion of the inves tiga tion" tha t "the1'e 's clea r and pe rvas ive ha rassment." (Doe 's SOUF, No. 64). Once aga in, Doe is twis ting the witne ss 's te s timony to suit he r agenda . Ms . DeBona neve r sa id "unle ss ," and the dis cre te inse ltion of tha t word by Doe is de ce ptive . De Bona te s tifie d tha t the y would notify the Title IX Coordina tor if the ir inve s tiga tion found tha t a re porte d incide nt ros e a bove pe e r conflict to ha ra ssme nt. (De fs . Re sponse to Doe 's SOUF, No. 64). He r te s timony. wa s in no wa y limiting, howe ve r. S he e xpla ine d, in the portion of he r te s timony imme dia te ly pre ce ding tha t which is cite d by Doe , tha t the y will s ome time s notify McHa le imme dia te ly if the y be lie ve he r involvement is necessa ry based upon the na ture of the report. (4) S ince Doe 's counse l was only us ing the te ml "ha ra s s me nt" a nd not "s e xua l ha ra s s me nt," De Bona a ls o cla rifie d tha t s he answered as she did because McHa1e would become involved "when it is ha rassment as it would 49 I Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 50 of 57 pe rta in to s e x a nd ge nde r unde r Title IX." (L) Adminis tra tors imme dia te ly inve s tiga te re ports by s tude nts in orde r to a s ce rta in th e n a tu re o f th e com pla in t a n d wh e th e r it c ons titu te s ha ra s s me nt, s ince a student's mere u s e o r n o n -u s e o f th e wo rd "ha ra s sme nt" is not s uffic ie nt to m a ke s uch a de te rm ina tion . De c lin ing to re fe r a com pla in t to the Com plia nce O ftic e r/Title IX Coordina tor me re ly be ca us e the s tude nt did not us e the te rm "ha ra s s me nt," 01° vice ve rs a , would e le va te form ove r s ubs ta nce . (De fs . Re s pons e to Doe 's S OUF, No. 65). Doe 's re lia nce upon re cords roduc e d in re s pons e to a Court O rde r pe rta in in to " e e r c onflic t" is im pro e r, fo r thep g p p reasons previous ly expla ined. (See a1sQ De fs . Exhibit 146). In s um , Doe ha s not pu t forth e v ide nce of re cord e s ta b lis h ing tha t P S D ha d a policy or c us tom o f no t re fe rring s e xua l ha ra s s m e n t c om pla in ts to P S D's Com plia nc e O fflc e r/Title IX Coord ina tor. He r conte n tion tha t s uch a po licy e xis te d is ba s e d upon a fa u lty in te rpre ta tion of witne s s te s tim ony. Howe ve r, e ve n if s uch a policy did e xis t, Doe 's c la im would s till fa il be ca us e s he ha s not s uffe re d a ny cons titutiona l viola tion. Doe argues tha t she like ly would not have been "subjected to sex-based harassment by N. a nd h is frie nds " bu t fo r the a lle ge d P S D policy or cus tom of no t no tifying Ms . McHa le of ha ra s s m e n t c om pla in ts . Although Doe c ha ra c te riz e s the a lle ge d a c tions by N, a nd o the rs a s "ha 1° a s s m e nt," the e v ide nc e o f re c ord be lie s he r c la im . As d is c us s e d in de ta il e a rlie r in th is Me mora ndum of La w, Doe 's compla in ts d id no t cons titu te a lle ga tions o f ongoing s e xua l h a ra s s m e n t . By h e r o wn a d m is s io n , N. d id n o t in te ra c t with h e r d u r in g th e s u m m e r a n d s ubs e que nt s chool ye a r a fte r s he m a de he r in itia l re port in J une 2015 o the r tha n in De ce m be r 2 0 1 5 , wh e n Do e in itia te d a c o n fro n ta tio n . Do e c o u ld n o t o ffe r a n y te s tim o n y o r e v id e n c e to s ubs ta ntia te a lle ga tions of ha ra s s me nt by a ny othe r individua ls , e ithe r. 50 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 51 of 57 3. There was no policy or custom of "failing to investigate all reports of harassment, regardless of where they occurred, " nor does Doe connect this allegation to any constitutional violation. Second, Doe a rgues tha t PSD ma inta ined a "cus tom" of fa iling to conduct inves tiga tions or discipline s tudents for ha ra ssment tha t occurs outs ide of school. (Doe 's Memorandum of Law, p. 21). In support, she a rgue s tha t P S D fa ile d to inve s tiga te he r re port tha t he r e x-boyfrie nd bit he r while the y we re toge the r in he r be droom, a s we ll a s o the r a lle ge d re la tions hip a bus e occurring off-ca mpus a nd months be fore he r firs t re port. (4) Aga in, Doe is mis cha ra cte rizing the tes timony upon which she bases her cla im. Doe cla ims tha t De Bona te s tifie d tha t P S D ta ke s no a ction in re sponse to a lle ga tions of off-ca mpus s e xua l a s sa ults othe r tha n re porting it to the police . (Doe s ' S OUF, No. 70). In fa ct, Ms . DeBona 's te s timony was , " [w]e don't have the re sources outs ide in the community. We erm investigate in-house and speak to the students in-house, but we don't have the resources, nor, I be lie ve , the juris d iction to go out a nd in te rvie w community me mbe rs ." (Exhib it 9 to De fs . S OUP , p. 187:12-_7) (e mpha s is s upplie d). (See a lso , p . l88 :2-21) (de s crib ing how P HS works with police , but tha t police take the lead for ins tances such a s Goodwin's rape a llega tion). "Re pe a te dly, Courts ha ve found tha t ha ra s sme nt tha t ta ke s pla ce off of school grounds a nd/or outs ide of s chool hours doe s not occur unde r circums ta nce s whe re the Dis trict e xe rcis e d s ubs ta ntia l control ove r e ithe r the ha ra s s e r or the conte xt in which the ha ra s s me nt occurre d. fl Modupe Willia ms v. P e nnridge S ch. Dis t., 2018 U.S . Dis t. LEXIS 205957 a t *20-21 (inte rna l cita tions omitted) (a ttached as Ex. 138 to Defs . SOUF). More ove r, P S D did, in fa ct, conduct a n inve s tiga tion of Doe 's a lle ga tions . The only known witnesses to Doe 's reports of re la tionship abuse a re Doe and he r ex-boyfriend, N., both of whom were immedia te ly inte rviewed a fte r she firs t reported these a llega tions to PSD on June 15, 5 1 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 52 of 57 2015. (Defs . SOUF, Nos . 52 to 55). Doe cla imed tha t N.'s friends were texting he r, but she could not identify who they were and did not save the text messages . (Defs . SOUF, Nos . 59 & 60). Fina lly, Doe mus t conne ct the a lle ge d cus tom to a cons titutiona l viola tion in orde r to be entitled to recove ry. Her cla im is based upon Principa l DeBona 's re sponse to the ques tion, "[i]s it Pennridge 's policy not to ge t involved in off-campus sexua l a ssaults? " (Doe 's SOUF, 70), (Doe 's Me mora ndum of La w, p. 22) (re lying upon Doe s ' S OUF, No. 70). Doe a dmits tha t she wa s not the victim of a n off-ca mpus s e xua l a s s a ult. (De fs . S OUF, No. 23). As s uch, the re is no logica l connection be tween an a lleged cus tom of not inves tiga ting off-campus sexua l a ssaults and Doe 's compla ints . 4. There was no policy or custom of "failing to submit written reports of harassment investigations to the Title IX coordinator," nor does Doe conneet this allegation to any constitutional violation. Third, Doe contends tha t DeBona ma inta ined a municipa l "policy" of fa iling to crea te and s ubmit writte n re ports of ha ra s s me nt inve s tiga tions to Ms . McHa le , a nd tha t Dr. Ra ttiga n a cquie s ce d to this policy. While it is true tha t Ms . De Bona did not pe rs ona lly s ubmit a writte n re port of a ha ra s s me nt compla int to Ms . McHa le during the time pe riod a t is s ue in this ca s e , a ss is ta nt principa ls did so on he r be ha lf (Exhibit 38, no. 24 to De fs . SOUF). Doe s imply ignore s this fa ct, sugge s ting tha t no re ports we re e ve r submitte d. Doe a lso, once a ga in, mis re pre se nts witne s s te s timony by re ca s ting Ms . IVIcHa le 's te s timony, re la ting s pe cifica lly to Goodwin, as re la ting to a ny a nd a ll ins ta nce s of ha ra s s me nt. (Compare Doe 's S OUP , No. 78 with De fs . Response to Doe 's SOUP, No. 78). Doe a lso once aga in fa ils to draw any connection wha tsoeve r be tween this a lleged fa ilure and a cons titutiona l viola tion. Doe has not suffe red a cons titutiona l viola tion, a s expla ined above . But even if she did, she mere ly re lie s upon conclusory s ta tements tha t an a lleged fa ilure to send written reports to McHa le somehow caused hann to he r. She does not even offe r a theory a s to 52 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 53 of 57 how McHa le re ce iving writte n re pous from a s s is ta nt principa ls a nd/or ve rba l re polts pe rta ining to othe r ins ta nce s of ha ra ssme nt, a s oppose d to writte n re ports from principa l De Bona dire ctly, had any influence on the handling of Doe 's compla ints . D. The record does not support valid supervisorv Iiabilitv claims against Rattigan or DeB0na, and Count IV to Doe's Complaint should be dismissed. For a ll of the re a sons se t forth a bove a s to why Doe 's cla im unde r Count III mus t fa il,so too mus t he r s upe rvis ory lia bility cla im a s s e rte d in Count IV. As Doe a cknowle dge s , s uch a cla im ca nnot be s us ta ine d if s he ca nnot me e t the e le me nts for municipa l lia bility. De fe nda nts incorpora te by re fe rence the a rguments se t forth above . Additiona lly, Doe 's s upe rvis o ry lia b ility c la ims s hou ld be d is mis s e d be ca us e it is a ppropria te to dis mis s the cla ims a ga ins t the s e de fe nda nts in the ir officia l ca pa city a nd re ta in the m a ga ins t the re a l pa rty in inte re s t. Gre gory v. Che hi, 843 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Ke ntucky v. Gra ha m, 473 U.S . 159 (1985)) (rea soning tha t cla ims ra ised aga ins t loca l officia ls in the ir o ffic ia l ca pa citie s a re on ly a duplica tion of the counts a ga ins t the Towns hip its e lf). De fe nda nts incorpora te by re fe re nce the a rgume nts s e t forth in the ir own Motion for S umma ry Judgment on this issue . For Doe to succeed on a supe rvisory liability cla im, it is a lso required tha t the re be "some a ffirma tive conduct by the s upe rvis or." Andre ws v. City of P hila de lphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S . 362, 377 (1976)) Doe 's Compla int a s se rts tha t Ra ttiga n a nd De Bona "ma inta ine d a policy, cus tom a nd pra ctice of (i) re fus ing to re s pond to reports of sex-based ha rassment, and (ii) forcing or encouraging victims to leave PHS, e specia lly for a n a lte rna tive or infe rior s chool." (Ex. 16 to De fs . S OUP , 1[83). As discus se d e a rlie r, Doe 's compla ints did not ra is e is s ue s cons tituting ongoing "ha ra s s me nt," but the y we re none the le s s 53 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 54 of 57 fully inve s tiga te d by P S D. Additiona lly, Doe wa s not force d out of P HS by P S D e mploye e s - she was the one who demanded to be transfened out of PHS because she "hated" it there . Even if Doe could e s tablish a cons titutiona l viola tion, DeBona and Ra ttigan would not be re s pons ible unde r a the ory of s upe rvis ory lia bility. S upe rvis ors who ma inta in ge ne ra lize d knowledge of a s itua tion cannot be liable for the conduct of subordina tes . Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (a ffirming gra nt of s umma ry judgme nt for s upe rvis or who wa s ke pt a bre a s t of a n inve s tiga tion, but did not dire ct his subordina te to ta ke or not ta ke a ny pa rticula r a c tio n ). W h ile s u p e rvis in g p u b lic o ffic ia ls ma y n o t a u th o riz e , e n c o u ra g e o r a p p ro ve cons titutiona l tolts , the y ha ve no a ffirma tive cons titutiona l duty to tra in, supe rvis e or dis cipline so a s to prevent such conduct. Chinche11o_v.Fenton, 805 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1986). Doe ha s not de mons tra te d a ny ma nne r in which De Bona 01° Ra ttiga n we re de libe ra te ly indiffe re nt to Doe 's rights . De fe nda nts incorpora te by re fe re nce the a rgume nts s e t forth in the ir own motion for summary judgment on this issue . 54 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 55 of 57 Iv. QQNCLUSIQN For the foregoing reasons , Defendants , Pennridge School Dis trict, Jacque line A. Ra ttigan a nd Gina De Bona , re s pe ctfully re que s t tha t this Honora ble Couit de ny P la intiffs Motion for P a rtia l S umma ry J udgme nt, gra nt De fe nda nts ' Motion for S umma ry J udgme nt, a nd dis mis s P la intiffs cla ims a ga ins t Moving De fe nda nts with pre judice purs ua nt to Fe de ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Re spe ctfully submitte d, BY: MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 7 JO H J . S A TARONE, ES QUIRE J ANE E. KANE, ES QUIRE KYLE M. HEIS NER, ES QUIRE Attomey for De fendants Pennridge School Dis trict, Jacque line A. Ra ttigan and Gina DeBona 9 9 DATE : 2/4/2019 55 Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 56 of 57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph J. Santarone, Jr., Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response of Defendants Pennridge School District, Jacqueline A. Rattigan and Gina DeBona to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, and Memorandum of Law in Support was electronically filed with the Count; this date and is available for viewing and downloading from the ECP System. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2 JO H J. SA ARONE, ESQUIRE JANE E. KANE, ESQUIRE KYLE M. HEISNER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Pennridge School District, Jacqueline A. Rattigan and Gina DeBona DATE: 2/4/2019 BY: Case 2:17-cv-03570-TR Document 87 Filed 02/04/19 Page 57 of 57