In DJ v. School Board of Henrico County, a middle school student—DJ—sued the School Board of Henrico County and his football coach and alleged that his coach violated his Constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from violation of bodily integrity, which entitled him to relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
In support of his claim, DJ presented evidence that in early October of 2017 at Short Pump Middle School, while changing his clothes and preparing for football practice, DJ and two other African-American males on the team were grabbed, forced down, and held against their wills by non-African-American players and subjected to demeaning and traumatizing simulated sex acts, bullying, harassment, racial slurs, ridiculing, and taunting. DJ’s football coach and the school adminstrators became aware of this incident, and at a meeting involving Short Pump Middle School administration, a decision was made that “football players were no longer allowed to be in the locker room without adult supervision.” DJ’s parents were told that that an administrator or a coach would be supervising the locker room at all times. Eight days later, on October 13, 2017, the football players were once again left unsupervised after school in the boys’ locker room for a significant period of time.
On this date, while unsupervised, the football players again battered and assaulted DJ and his other Black teammates in the locker room, videotaped the incident, and posted it on social media. His football coach became aware of this incident. After this second incident, students who committed the acts against DJ and other students who had seen the video “taunted, teased, and humiliated [DJ] about being ‘raped’ in the locker room.” DJ alleged that the football coach sought to minimize and/or dismiss the attacks as “foolishness” and a “joke.” Administrators at Short Pump Middle School spoke to the football team and told the boys not to tell anyone about the assault that had taken place.
After a lawsuit was filed, the football coach filed a motion to dismiss, and argued, among other things, that he is not liable for DJ’s injuries because he did not owe DJ any duty. The Court rejected this argument, and held that because of the particular relationship the football coach and the school has to DJ, and because the football coach “may have increased the risk of the students in the locker room,” DJ asserts a proper 1983 claim.
Major takeaway: as a plaintiff or a parent of a child who is the victim of illegal acts, you may think your claims are limited to the specific person or people who committed the acts. However, the law is not so narrow. There may be individuals who are potentially liable given the special relationship they have to the victim—such as that of a teacher or school—or are liable because of specific actions they took that resulted in harm from others.