Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 2 and Jane Doe No. 3 sued Oologah-Talala Independent School District No. 4 of Rogers County, Oklahoma, also known as Oologah-Talala Public Schools, and others, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging sexual harassment by Defendant Trent Winters and failure to report by other Defendants including School Resource Officer Dewilton Rhoden.
Officer Rhoden moved to dismiss the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, civil conspiracy, and negligence per se. Mr. Winters also moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, along with assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence per se. In two seperate orders, the Court considered each motion.
Factual Overview
The plaintiffs, students and members of the high school basketball team, allege that Mr. Winters, a school district employee and assistant basketball coach, subjected them to sexual harassment, including inappropriate sexual and lewd comments. Jane Doe No. 2 also claims Mr. Winters touched her inappropriately. The complaint details the timeframe, location, and witnesses of the alleged conduct, seeking relief for the harm suffered as a result. They also allege that Officer Rhoden, aware of Winters’s inappropriate behavior, failed to properly report it or conduct an independent investigation into the allegations.
Legal Analysis
Rhoden — § 1983 Claims: The court granted Officer Rhoden’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims brought against him in his official capacity, agreeing that claims against an individual in their official capacity are effectively claims against the entity they represent. Yet the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims under § 1983 for violating their equal protection rights was denied. The court found that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded Officer Rhoden knew of the harassment and failed to act, constituting deliberate indifference.
Winters — § 1983 Claims: Mr. Winters argued that the claims against him, both in his official capacity and individually under § 1983, failed to state a claim for violating constitutional rights. The court dismissed the official capacity claims as duplicative of the claims against the school district but denied the motion to dismiss the individual capacity claims, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded claims under § 1983 for violating their equal protection and substantive due process rights.
Rhoden – Due Process and Equal Protection: The court dismissed the substantive due process claim, determining plaintiffs did not establish a special relationship with Rhoden or that he affirmatively created the danger leading to harm. On the other hand, for the equal protection claim, the court denied Rhoden’s motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Rhoden’s deliberate indifference to the harassment, which could violate their equal protection rights.
Rhoden – Qualified Immunity: Officer Rhoden’s argument for qualified immunity was denied at this stage. The court determined that plaintiffs met the burden of showing Rhoden violated a clearly established federal constitutional right.
Rhoden and Winters – Oklahoma Constitutional Claims: The motion to dismiss claims brought under the Oklahoma Constitution was granted with prejudice, as Oklahoma law does not afford a private right of action for state constitutional violations in this context.
Rhoden and Winters—Civil Conspiracy and Negligence Per Se: The court granted the motion to dismiss the civil conspiracy claim, finding plaintiffs did not allege specific facts showing a concerted action among defendants. Similarly, the negligence per se claim was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that Officer Rhoden violated the relevant statute.
Rhoden and Winters – Negligence Per Se: The court dismissed the negligence per se claim, concluding that the statute cited by Jane Doe No. 2 does not provide a positive objective standard that would apply in all circumstances.
Winters – Assault and Battery: Mr. Winters’s motion to dismiss the assault and battery claims based on the statute of limitations was denied, with the court finding that Jane Doe No. 2 had asserted enough information to suggest that her claims were timely filed.
Winters: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Jane Doe No. 2’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was found to be sufficiently pleaded, with allegations of Mr. Winters’s extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. The court held these claims raise the plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level.
Conclusion
The court’s conclusion was that Officer Rhoden’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, specifically denying the dismissal of the equal protection claim under § 1983 while granting the dismissal of the due process claim, claims under the Oklahoma Constitution, the civil conspiracy claim, and the negligence per se claim. The court’s conclusion was that Mr. Winters’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted regarding the claims against him in his official capacity, the Oklahoma Constitutional claims, and the negligence per se claim. It was denied with respect to the § 1983 claims against him individually, the assault and battery claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Schrag on Law 