Court says student can sue over impact of teacher assault on education

A lawsuit can move forward against the Alamance-Burlington school board over the way it handled a teacher’s alleged assault of a student in 2022. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled Friday that the student could try to prove that the board’s actions violated her state constitutional education rights.

The 5-2 decision in a case titled KH v. Dixon reverses a ruling from the state Appeals Court. Appellate judges had affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The student plaintiff identified as KH or Katherine alleges that “her teacher violently attacked her in her classroom in front of other students, and that the Alamance-Burlington Board of Education (the Board) responded by first suspending Katherine, then revoking that suspension after news outlets covered the attack, and then transferring Katherine to an alternative school without her input,” Justice Anita Earls wrote for the court’s majority.

Katherine sued the teacher, Danielle Dixon, and also “sued the Board for its allegedly inadequate hiring and supervision of Ms. Dixon and its response to Ms. Dixon’s actions,” Earls explained. “In particular, Katherine brought a Corum claim directly under the North Carolina Constitution, asserting that the Board’s conduct infringed on her constitutional right to the opportunity to access a sound basic education and that she lacked another adequate state law remedy.”

“We agree with Katherine that her complaint against the Board states a colorable constitutional claim and that she lacks an adequate other state remedy for the Board’s actions,” Earls wrote. “Although the ‘fundamental right’ to ‘equal access to participation in our public school system,’ does not generally hold school districts liable for the intentional torts of their teachers, it does make local authorities responsible for responding reasonably to such incidents once they occur. Failing to do so may constitute ‘deliberate indifferen[ce] to conduct that prevent[s schoolchildren] from accessing their constitutionally guaranteed right to a sound basic education.’”

“Katherine’s allegations, if proved, would support the conclusion that the Board responded unreasonably to Ms. Dixon’s assault when it suspended Katherine and then transferred her to a new school, and that its deliberate indifference to the situation impaired Katherine’s academic performance and caused her to suffer negative educational consequences,” Earls continued.

“Because Katherine’s complaint did state a Corum claim, the trial court erred by granting the Board’s motion to dismiss this claim,” Earls added.

The case generated a concurring opinion supported by four justices: three members of the majority and one dissenter.

“The complaint alleges that a teacher brutally — and unjustifiably — assaulted plaintiff K.H. at school and that school officials in the Alamance-Burlington School System responded by suspending plaintiff and then moving her to an alternative school against her will,” Justice Trey Allen wrote. “I agree with the majority that, if these allegations are true, the school district’s reaction to the attack violated plaintiff’s educational rights under the North Carolina Constitution.”

“In Sneed v. Greensboro City Board of Education, this Court recognized that Article I, Section 15 and Article IX, Section 2(1) of the state constitution combine to make ‘equal access to participation in our public school system … a fundamental right,” Allen added, citing a 1980 precedent case. “If a student’s right to access the public school system on equal terms with other students means anything, surely it means that a school district may not suspend and then involuntarily reassign an innocent student for being severely beaten by an out-of-control teacher.”

“I write separately to emphasize the narrowness of today’s decision,” Allen explained. He labeled the allegations in the case “extreme.”

“[O]ne would expect that school officials in general are highly unlikely to respond to a teacher’s brutal and unprovoked assault on a student by punishing the student,” the concurrence continued. “Given that this case involves such an improbable set of alleged facts, the majority’s opinion should not be interpreted to expose ordinary student discipline decisions to Deminski-style challenges.”

The 2021 case Deminski v. State Board of Education involved the impact of bullying and sexual harassment on students’ constitutional education rights.

“So long as school officials act in good faith and in accordance with procedural safeguards, they are not prohibited from disciplining students for misconduct merely because the students deny wrongdoing,” Allen wrote. “To hold otherwise would deprive school officials of the disciplinary tools necessary to preserve a safe and orderly school environment. Because I do not understand today’s decision to hamstring school officials in this way, I join the majority’s opinion.”

Chief Justice Paul Newby and Justice Tamara Barringer joined Allen’s opinion. Justice Richard Dietz supported Allen’s opinion without joining the majority.

Dietz also joined part of Justice Phil Berger Jr.’s dissent.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a colorable constitutional violation, and with minimal analysis and no support from precedent, the majority’s far-reaching opinion creates grounds for constitutional claims out of routine disciplinary actions taken by schools,” Berger wrote. “The narrow ‘deliberate indifference’ standard articulated in Deminski, which required a pattern of misconduct, is no more because the majority has abandoned restraint to reach an isolated incident of misconduct at the hands of a teacher.”

“Court says student can sue over impact of teacher assault on education” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.