You are currently viewing Richmond, Virginia Court:  “Unreasonable” for Special Education Teacher to Find Constant Groping by Student Abusive and Hostile in Title VII Discrimination Case

Richmond, Virginia Court: “Unreasonable” for Special Education Teacher to Find Constant Groping by Student Abusive and Hostile in Title VII Discrimination Case

In Webster v. Chesterfield County School Board, a special education teacher, Regina Webster, sued the Virginia County Public School Board and alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of her sex. Ms. Webster sought damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) as a result of the repetitive physical assault she experienced from one of her students, an intellectually disabled 8 year old male child.

In support of her claim, Ms. Webster presented evidence that the student was “inappropriately touching her by putting his hands up her dress and touching her private parts,” and “that such inappropriate conduct occurred on almost a daily basis.” Ms. Webster also provided evidence that “she continuously recounted her experiences with [the child]” to the principal, but “nothing was done.” Ms. Webster explained that the student’s assaultive behavior “culminated in an event on March 13, 2019, in a general education computer class” when the student “grabbed Plaintiff’s crotch area repeatedly and attempted to twist his fingers in her vagina.”

After a lawsuit was filed, the Chesterfield County Public School Board filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, making three arguments: (1) Ms. Webster had not established that the hostile work environment was based on her sex; (2) even if she did, the harassment was not sufficiently severe or consistent to create an abusive work environment; and (3) even if these first two elements were met, the school board was not liable because it responded appropriately to Ms. Webster’s complaints of harassment.

Unites States District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, in the Eastern District of Virginia—Richmond Division—granted the Chesterfield County Public School Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the Complaint filed by Ms. Webster.  The court entered judgment in favor of the school board for three reasons. First, the court agreed with the school board that Ms. Webster had not established that the hostile work environment was based on her sex. The court reached this conclusion because there was overwhelming evidence in the record that “not only was [the child] incapable of distinguishing based upon sex, but that his conduct was typical of children with his disabilities.” The “overwhelming evidence” the court referred to was the expert testimony from two doctors which stated this as fact. Crucially, Plaintiff has not presented any expert testimony of her own to dispute this fact.

While this finding alone would have disposed of the case, the court went on to explain that even if Ms. Webster had expert testimony, the case would still be dismissed because she did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the harassment, which included the student grabbing Plaintiff’s crotch area repeatedly and attempting to twist his fingers in her vagina, was not sufficiently severe or consistent to create an abusive work environment. The court explained that while there is sufficient evidence that Ms. Webster found the environment abusive and felt humiliated, because special education students are prone to disruptive behavior by virtue of their disabilities, Ms. Webster failed to produce evidence that the child’s conduct exceeded behavior “reasonably expected from special education students.”

Finally, the Court held that even if Ms. Webster had proven all of the above, the school board was not liable because it responded appropriately to Ms. Webster’s complaints of harassment by addressing Ms. Webster’s “situation on two separate occasions.”

Despite Ms. Webster’s lack of success in this case, a special education teacher can still survive a motion for summary judgement with facts similar to these. Based on the court’s analysis, it appears that Ms. Webster’s case would have survived summary judgement if she had been able to produce the following evidence: (1) expert testimony that that an 8 year old child with an intellectual disability was capable of distinguishing between the sexes; (2) further evidence supporting her statements that the events she described occurred on more than just a few occasions; and (3) evidence that the school board’s actions were not reasonably expected to stop the harassment.

Leave a Reply