On September 6, the Third Circuit determined that the parent of a child may bring claims to hold a classroom teacher personally liable for the child’s injuries. This case discussed the “state-created danger” exception to the immunity usually granted to government employees while acting in the course of their official duties.
The Facts
In January, 2013, a woman came to a kindergarten classroom in the Philadelphia School District and asked to have one of the students leave with her. The classroom teacher asked the woman for identification to verify that the child was authorized to leave school with her. The woman failed to provide any of the requested information. The teacher, nonetheless, allowed the girl to leave. The girl was later sexually assaulted and suffered physical and emotional injuries.
The Claim
The child’s parent filed a civil rights lawsuit against the teacher, the school district, and the School Reform Commission. The parent claimed that the teacher violated the child’s rights by failing to protect her from harm.
Generally, there is no obligation by a government actor to protect an individual from harm committed by other, private actors. Here, however, the parent claimed that the teacher created the dangerous situation.
The Decision
Ordinarily, the teacher (as a public employee) may have claimed qualified immunity and been dismissed from the case. However, qualified immunity will not apply where the public official/employee violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have been aware. The Court found that the child had a well established constitutional right to not be placed into danger by the actions of a state actor.
Further, the Court had no trouble finding that the release of a child of tender age to a complete stranger without identification or verification “shocked the conscience” of the Court. Accordingly, qualified immunity could not apply.
The Court reviewed the parent’s claim by first identifying the nature of the child’s environment before the teacher’s action. Specifically, the child was in a kindergarten classroom, subject to close staff supervision and with limited ability to leave the classroom without permission. The teacher’s action exposed the child to a danger that would not otherwise have existed.
In addition, by allowing the woman to leave with the child after she failed to identify herself, the teacher failed to exercise his responsibility to keep the child safe. The risk of harm to the child by allowing her to leave with a stranger was obvious, and the injuries that occurred were foreseeable at the time that the teacher allowed her to leave.
Finally, the Court determined that the teacher acted with deliberate indifference to the child’s welfare by allowing her to leave. In short, the teacher exposed the child to an obvious danger and therefore can be held personally responsible for her injuries.
Without qualified immunity, the teacher could be liable individually without the possibility of indemnity or insurance.
Bottom Line for Schools
The case law regarding qualified immunity does not always lead to an obvious result. However, school employees must use common sense when addressing student matters to ensure that their actions do not increase or create a risk of harm to the student.
If you should have any questions, please contact your legal counsel or an attorney at KingSpry.
This article refers to LR v School District of Philadelphia 2016 WL 4608133; (3rd Circ Sept 6 2016)
School Law Bullets are a publication of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. It is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice. John E. Freund, III, is our editor.
