Cleveland Middle School Complaint 7.8.21

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
A.T., A MINOR STUDENT, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NEXT

FRIENDS, B.G. AND J.G., AND B.G. AND J.G. IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL; MS.

LENEDA LAING, IN BOTH HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS PRINCIPAL OF
CLEVELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL; MS. STEPHANIE PIRKLE, IN BOTH HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY AS VICE-PRINCIPAL OF CLEVELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL; MR. RAUL CRUZ, IN BOTH HIS
OFFICIAL AND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER OF CLEVELAND
MIDDLE SCHOOL; MS. LAUREN LASTORIA, IN BOTH HER OFFICIAL AND HER INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY AS THE 6TH GRADE COUNSELOR AT CLEVELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL; MS. TERRY
ESQUIANCE, IN BOTH HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS A.T.’S HOMEROOM TEACHER;
MS. ASHLEY KEITH, IN BOTH HER OFFICIAL AND HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS A.T.’S MATH
TEACHER, AND MICHAEL INGRAM, IN BOTH HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE
SEVENTH GRADE VICE PRINCIPAL,
Defendants.
No. 1:20-CV-347
Honorable Travis R. McDonough
JURY IS DEMANDED
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
COME THE PLAINTIFFS, A.T.1, a minor student, by and through her parents and
next friends, B.G. and J.G., who also bring this cause of action in their individual capacities.
1
The placeholder “A.T.” is being used so as to protect the identity of a minor child. Likewise, placeholders
are used for said minor’s parents so as to ensure the same.
1
Case 1:20-cv-00347-TRM-SKL Document 28 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 178
They show for their Complaint:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This lawsuit arises from the Defendants’ deliberate indifference to extreme
student-on-student sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual battery, and bullying.
Defendants’ history of failure to take appropriate preventive measures, failure to adequately
respond to the events described herein, failure to adequately investigate said events, failure to
observe Title IX requirements, and failure to offer appropriate assistance to the victim, all
implicate civil rights violations, as well as the denial of educational opportunities. This action
alleges violations of Title IX, denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violation of State tort laws.
II. PARTIES
2. A.T. is a minor child and a citizen of Bradley County, Tennessee, where she
resides with her mother and next friend, B.G., and stepfather, J.G.
3. The Cleveland City Schools Board of Education (hereinafter, “CCSBE”) is a
governmental entity charged with managing public schools in Cleveland, Tennessee. It is a
recipient of federal funds.
4. Cleveland Middle School (hereinafter, “CMS”) is governed, regulated, and
controlled by CCSBE.
5. Defendants Terry Esquinance, Ashley Keith, Lauren Lastoria, Raul Cruz,
Leneda Laing, and Michael Ingram are all employed by CMS. Defendant Stephanie Pirkle
was employed by CMS at the time of the incidents complained of herein.
6. Defendant Esquinance, in both her official and individual capacity, acted as
the homeroom teacher for A.T.
2
7. Defendant Laing, in both her individual and official capacity, acted as Principal
for CMS.
8. Defendant Pirkle, in both her official and individual capacity, acted as Vice-
Principal of CMS.
9. Defendant Lastoria, in both her official and individual capacity, acted as the
6th grade counselor.
10. Defendant Cruz, in both his official and his individual capacity, acted as the
School Resource Officer for CMS.
11. Defendant Keith, in both her official and individual capacity, acted as A.T.’s
math teacher.
12. Defendant Ingram, in both his individual and official capacity, acted at A.T.’s
7th grade vice-principal.
13. All individual Defendants named herein are, to the best of your Plaintiffs’
understanding and belief, citizens and residents of the State of Tennessee, but whose
residential addresses are presently unknown.
III. JURISDICTION
14. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Title IX (the
Education Amendments Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1681), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367 because the State law claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ claims under Title IX,
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution of the
3
United States.
15. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as all of the Defendants
reside or may be found in Bradley County and the acts or omissions complained of herein
occurred in Bradley County, located in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
IV. FACTS
16. On or about Monday, September 23, 2019, B.G. received a call from the
Department of Children’s Services (hereinafter, “DCS”) while at work.
17. Once B.G. was able to return the call, she was advised to go to the DCS office
so as to discuss the safety of A.T.
18. B.G. was completely unaware as to the matter the DCS representative wished
to discuss, as no concerns as to the safety of A.T. had been raised previously, by DCS or
otherwise.
19. Upon receiving this call, B.G., contacted her husband J.G., A.T.’s stepfather,
as well as A.T.’s biological father, requesting they both attend the meeting as well.
20. At said meeting, the DCS representative began referring to an assault which
occurred the week prior on September 18, 2019.
21. B.G. and J.G. represented to the DCS representative that they were unaware of
any such event, and at no point had they been advised of such.
22. The DCS representative advised the three (3) that DCS had been alerted that
A.T. was the victim of a sexual assault and sexual battery committed by another student, which
occurred on school premises.
23. They were further advised the assailant had been taken to juvenile court and
separated from the general student populace and placed in “Raider Academy,” the functional
4
equivalent of what one might refer to as “alternative school.”
24. Further, the DCS representative advised that not only had the assailant sexually
assaulted and sexually battered A.T., but he then proceeded to threaten the other children who
had witnessed said assault with physical violence should they disclose what they had
observed.
25. The DCS representative then scheduled wellness checks to examine all three
(3) parents’ homes, to which Plaintiff parents had no objection, willfully allowing the DCS
representative to conduct her investigation to the extent she felt necessary.
26. The DCS representative scheduled appointments with B.G.’s other children to
ensure their safety, as well.
27. Additionally, the DCS representative advised B.G. and J.G. that CMS required
A.T. to write out and execute a statement as to the events that transpired in the absence of a
parent or guardian.
28. The very next day, on September 24, 2019, B.G. and J.G. were served with a
Mutual No Contact Order, the reason for which they were unaware.
29. Said Order was issued and entered on the 19th day of September, a week prior
to the meeting with the representative of DCS.
30. The parents allowed A.T. to divulge the details of the sexual assault in her own
time, and eventually it was discovered that this assault was not mere horseplay, despite
Defendants’ continued assertions.
31. Instead, it was discovered that not only was the assault of a sexual nature, but
such was also done forcibly, with A.T. being shoved up against a locker, molested and
brutalized, resulting not only in physical injuries, but psychological trauma which continues
5
to this day and will last for the foreseeable future.
32. The Friday of the same week, A.T. called her mother, B.G., requesting that she
be picked up from school for fear of being sexually brutalized yet again by the very same
assailant.
33. B.G. attempted to reassure her daughter that she was safe due to the Mutual
No Contact Order; however, this did little to quell A.T.’s deep-seated fear and trepidation as
represented to her mother.
34. On October 2, 2020, J.G. was served with a subpoena dated the 27th day of
September 2019, requiring their presence at a hearing scheduled for December 12, 2019 to
take place at Bradley County Juvenile Court, Case No. 19-00834.
35. On or about November 2, 2019, B.G. received an email from a teacher of A.T.,
requesting a meeting, stating A.T. was failing all of her classes.
36. The teachers at said meeting advised that A.T. was smart and capable, yet was
failing to submit her homework and was “not trying” in class.
37. After discussing A.T.’s poor academic performance, the matter of A.T.’s
sexual assault arose.
38. During the conference, one (1) of the three (3) teachers present advised that
she was the individual who took A.T. to the CMS office following said sexual assault.
39. However, said teacher informed A.T.’s parents that A.T. was not the one to
report the assault. Instead, the assault was reported by one of A.T.’s friends.
40. Additionally, said teacher advised that not only was A.T. in fear for her safety,
but all of the students were afraid of the assailant.
41. This revelation demonstrates that Defendants had actual knowledge of A.T.’s
6
assault, and yet none of them, or any other representative of CMS, saw fit to alert A.T.’s
parents.
42. B.G. advised these three (3) teachers that all three (3) of the parents were
unaware of the assault until they were confronted by DCS five (5) days after the event in
question, and several days after the Mutual No Contact Order had been issued.
43. At the court date on December 12, 2019, A.T. displayed signs of fear,
trepidation, overwhelming anxiety, embarrassment, and did not desire to even participate in
the proceedings despite being the actual victim.
44. At said hearing, the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the matter, with the
assailant’s file in hand, advised B.G. and J.G. that their daughter’s assailant already had an
extensive record despite being a mere eleven (11) years of age at the time.
45. As of the date of the aforementioned Juvenile hearing, the assailant had failed
to comply with Court-Ordered counseling.
46. The Assistant District Attorney advised B.G. and J.G. that the Court would
issue an additional Order regarding the assailant’s counseling, especially considering this was
not the first time the assailant had sexually assaulted A.T.
47. This was the first time B.G. and J.G. were made aware that the sexual assault
of which they had only recently been made aware was not an isolated incident, but had
occurred several times in the past.
48. Subsequent to this, the Assistant District Attorney advised a representative
from CMS that B.G. and J.G. had not been contacted by CMS. He stated such would be
rectified; however, as of the date of this filing, B.G. and J.G. have still yet to be notified of
the events complained of herein.
7
49. A.T. began exhibiting signs of severe depression, anxiety, and became
withdrawn. This caused B.G. and J.G. to become fearful A.T. may wish to harm herself.
50. This entire ordeal resulted in not only mental anguish for A.T., but also for her
parents, who felt they were unable to protect their own child.
51. Stated plainly, CMS denied B.G. and J.G. an opportunity to protect their child.
52. At no point did CMS attempt to separate A.T. from her assailant, resulting in
additional emotional distress for A.T.
53. At no point did CMS advise B.G. and J.G. of the repeated sexual assaults of
their daughter by another student.
54. The actions and inactions of CMS resulted in physical and emotional trauma
suffered by not only A.T., but also by her parents.
55. Subsequently, A.T. began counseling at Hiwassee Mental Health, at which she
was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Accordingly, A.T. was prescribed
medications so as to alleviate at least some of the symptoms which are the byproduct of the
repeated sexual assaults.
56. Likewise, both B.G. and J.G. have begun counseling, and both have been
prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications.
57. On October 19, 2020, A.T. placed a call to J.G., stating Defendants had placed
her assailant in the very same class as A.T., resulting in further emotional trauma, forcing her
to relive the events of the past while fearing another sexual assault, in spite of the No Contact
Order previously issued by the Juvenile Court of Bradley County.
58. This further exemplifies callous and intentional indifference to Plaintiffs’
rights and wellbeing, both physical and emotional.
8
59. These Defendants had actual knowledge of the multiple sexual assaults, actual
knowledge that A.T.’s parents had not been notified of the same, yet nonetheless deliberately
turned an indifferent eye to pervasive, repeated, egregious, and foreseeable sexual assaults
upon the person of this child.
60. Presently, Plaintiff A.T. is in the seventh (7th) grade.
61. On the 19th of April 2021, Defendant Ingram held a grade-wide assembly via Zoom
for the seventh (7th) grade.
62. The subject of the assembly was sexual assault and harassment.
63. The seventh (7th) grade was the only grade to have such an assembly.
64. During said assembly, Defendant Ingram stated that sexual assault and harassment
occurs when students “horseplay,” explaining how “kids [their] age are starting to notice things,”
and “[e]ven if you look at somebody the wrong way, you’d probably get sued.”
65. Defendant Ingram further trivialized sexual assault and harassment by referring to
such conduct as merely “bottom slaps” or “pats,” a direct reference to the account of the assault of
A.T. given by Defendants.
66. Seemingly attempting to dissuade students from reporting similar instances of
sexual assault and harassment experienced by Plaintiff A.T., Defendant Ingram stated that if a
student reported such conduct to him, he would “have to report it to Officer Cruz.”
67. After Defendant Ingram concluded his remarks, he then invited any of the teachers
to add any additional comments.
68. At this point, Plaintiff A.T.’s teacher expounded upon the subject of individuals
who were subject to sexual assault and harassment subsequently filing suit.
9
69. In response to this, a peer of Plaintiff A.T. shouted, “[it is because] [t]hey’re
probably poor!”
70. Once the assembly concluded, the children then began to play a modified game of
tag in which they would touch each other, then scream “sexual harassment!”
71. Plaintiff A.T. was subjected to the above-referenced conduct by Defendants, her
teacher, and her peers.
72. Yet again, Defendants demonstrated intentional indifference to the care and
wellbeing of this child.
73. Additionally, this latest incident demonstrates that Defendants CCSBE and CMS
failed to adequately address the underlying objectionable conduct of their employees,
administration, and all other parties acting on their behalf, despite this very cause of action putting
them on notice that they need do so.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION
74. Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action in the counts below.
COUNT I. TITLE IX – CCSBE AND CMS
75. The foregoing factual averments are incorporated herein as though rewritten
verbatim.
76. The sex-based harassment of the Plaintiff A.T. was severe, pervasive, and
objectively offensive, and deprived A.T. of access to educational opportunities or benefits.
77. CCSBE and CMS created, tolerated, and subjected A.T. to a hostile
educational environment under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
§ 681(a), because Plaintiff A.T. was treated disparately; suffered sexual assault, sexual
battery, and other harassment; and CCSBE and CMS had a lack of adequate policies, training,
10
and procedures, and deliberately failed to take appropriate preventive or remedial measures.
78. Moreover, CCSBE, CMS, their officials, and employees had actual knowledge
of the harassment and chose not to seriously investigate or discipline the perpetrator.
79. CCSBE, CMS, its officials, and employees engaged in a pattern of behavior, a
cover-up, to discourage students from reporting the sexual assaults, which is illustrated not
only by Defendants’ inaction following the multiple assaults of Plaintiff A.T., but also by their
callous and tone-deaf response to this cause of action, e.g., the above-referenced assembly.
COUNT II. TITLE IX RETALIATION BY WITHHOLDING

PROTECTIONS — CCSBE AND CMS
verbatim.
81. CCSBE and CMS officials discouraged those with actual information of the
sexual assaults from reporting to appropriate authorities and failed to report the sexual assaults
to A.T.’s parents.
82. Once law enforcement became involved, CCSBE, CMS, and its officials
ignored the matter altogether, feigning as though the assault never happened, and refused to
investigate the matter or otherwise comply with responsibilities of Title IX.
83. Even when CCSBE and CMS’s deception had been revealed, they nonetheless
still refused to acknowledge the assault or contact the parents of A.T., much less take steps to
remedy the situation.
COUNT III. VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

AND SECTION 1983 — ALL DEFENDANTS
verbatim.
11
85. Plaintiff A.T. enjoys the right as an American public-school student to
personal security, bodily integrity, and Equal Protection of the Laws.
86. Defendants Esquinance, Keith, Pirkle, Lastoria, Cruz, Laing, and Ingram were all
State actors acting under color of State law.
87. All defendants subjected Plaintiff A.T. to violations of her right to bodily
integrity and Equal Protection of the Laws by failing to take appropriate preventive measures;
failing to adequately supervise and train (or engage in supervision); and by acting with
manifest indifference to the sexual assault, sexual battery, bullying, and harassment of A.T.
88. The actions of CCSBE and CMS were taken pursuant to customs, policies, or
practices of failing to investigate, failing to adequately train and supervise, and a historical
indifference to the bodily integrity of students.
89. Defendants Esquinance, Keith, Pirkle, Lastoria, Cruz, Laing, and Ingram were
considered policymakers for the purpose of implementing and carrying on the aforesaid
policies, customs, or practices.
COUNT IV. MONELL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN AND

SUPERVISE (42 U.S.C. § 1983) — ALL DEFENDANTS
verbatim.
91. Defendants Esquinance, Keith, Pirkle, Lastoria, Cruz, Laing, and Ingram were
State actors working for CCSBE, CME, and the City of Cleveland, Tennessee, respectively.
They worked under color of state law in failing to appropriately prevent or remedy the sexual
assaults.
92. Each defendant named herein violated A.T.’s right to equal access to an
environment free from harassment and sexual assault, due to a policy or custom of failing to
12
investigate, failing to take prompt remedial measures, failing to protect A.T., failing to provide
a grievance procedure widely disseminated and capable of being understood, and failing to
notify A.T.’s parents of the harassment and sexual assault, and acting with deliberate
indifference to violence against A.T.. These failures proximately caused the injuries sustained
by A.T.
93. Additionally, CCSBE and SME violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteen Amendment right
to equal protection by failing to properly train and supervise its employees in mandated
investigative requirements.
94. The need to train its principal, vice-principal, teachers, counselors, SROs, and
Title IX Coordinator is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in violation of
constitutional rights, that CCSBE and CMS were deliberately indifferent and acted pursuant
to a policy or custom of indifference to violence against its students. These failures
proximately caused the injuries to A.T.
COUNT V. NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS — (ALL DEFENDANTS)
verbatim.
96. Defendants acted with intentional indifference to the multiple sexual assaults
of A.T., failing to report the same to A.T.’s parents, and failure to employ appropriate remedial
and preventative measures.
97. Defendants’ failure to protect a minor child from sexual assault, with full
knowledge of said assault, and failure to notify the parents of the minor victim as to the same
is so outrageous that such is not tolerated by society.
98. The negligent and intentional actions of the defendants resulted in severe,
13
pervasive, and extensive emotional trauma in A.T., B.G., and J.G.
99. The negligent and intentional actions of the defendants is both the actual and
proximate cause of the emotional distress sustained by Plaintiffs.
COUNT VI. NEGLIGENCE PER SE — (ALL DEFENDANTS)
100. Defendants’ failure to notify B.G. and J.G. of the multiple sexual assaults of
their daughter is a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-605.
101. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-605 was intended to ensure parents are advised of any
sexual assault of their child in a timely manner, so as to afford the parents to take appropriate
action.
102. Defendants’ failure to uphold this statutory obligation is the actual and
proximate cause of the mental distress and anguish incurred by Plaintiffs. The failure of
Defendants to advise B.G. and J.G. of their daughter’s assault resulted their inability to take
measures to ensure their daughter’s safety, ultimately resulting in additional sexual assaults
of A.T.
COUNT VII. VIOLATION OF THE TENNESSEE GOVERNMENTAL

TORT LIABILITY ACT — (ALL DEFENDANTS)
verbatim.
104. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs bring claims against all Defendants for
their negligence, negligent supervision, negligent failure to train, and negligence per se, under
the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, as found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101, et
seq.
105. Defendants owed Plaintiffs common law and statutorily prescribed duties that
were breached and are therefore liable under the Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act,
14
Tenn. Code. Ann. § 29-20-205 for failure to exercise reasonable care to supervise and protect
A.T., including from the foreseeable intentional acts of third parties that involved sexual
assault and sexual battery of which the Defendants had actual knowledge, in addition to
Defendants’ failure to report A.T.’s multiple sexual assaults to B.G. and J.G.
VIII. DAMAGES
verbatim.
107. For the totality of their claims, Plaintiffs seek seven million, five hundred
thousand dollars ($7,500,000.00) in compensatory damages, and seven million, five hundred
thousand dollars ($7,500,000.00) in punitive damages.
108. In sum, Plaintiffs seek as damages payment appropriate for the mental
suffering and pain for A.T.; payment appropriate for the mental suffering and pain for B.G.;
payment appropriate for the mental suffering and pain for J.G.; payment of the costs of private
education; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; punitive damages against the individual
defendants; injunctive relief to include appropriate policies, training, supervision, reporting
requirements, observance of duties of Title IX officials, and monitoring; and any further relief
at law or equity which may be appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury be empaneled to try this Cause.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, A.T., by and through her next friend, B.G., B.G. in her individual
capacity, and J.G. in his individual capacity, pray that after all due proceedings are had that
there be judgment rendered herein in their favor awarding compensatory and punitive
15
damages befitting the severity of the injuries incurred by all three (3) Plaintiffs and the
intentional indifference and concealment by Defendants of the events complained of herein.
Respectfully submitted,
/s:/ Jonathan Taylor Thomas

Jonathan Taylor Thomas, BPR #036278
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Loveman’s Building
800 Market Street, Suite 215
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone: (423) 732-8005
Facsimile: (423) 723-8010
Email: [email protected]
/s:/ Russell Leonard

Russell L Leonard, BPR #01491
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1016 W. Main St., Suite 3,
Monteagle, TN 37356
(931) 924-0447
16

Cleveland Middle School Complaint 7.8.21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cleveland Middle School Complaint 7.8.21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cleveland Middle School Complaint 7.8.21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

A.T., A MINOR STUDENT, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NEXT

CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND MIDDLE SCHOOL; MS.

Honorable Travis R. McDonough

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1. This lawsuit arises from the Defendants’ deliberate indifference to extreme

student-on-student sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual battery, and bullying.

Defendants’ history of failure to take appropriate preventive measures, failure to adequately

3. The Cleveland City Schools Board of Education (hereinafter, “CCSBE”) is a

governmental entity charged with managing public schools in Cleveland, Tennessee. It is a

recipient of federal funds.

4. Cleveland Middle School (hereinafter, “CMS”) is governed, regulated, and

5. Defendants Terry Esquinance, Ashley Keith, Lauren Lastoria, Raul Cruz,

was employed by CMS at the time of the incidents complained of herein.

6. Defendant Esquinance, in both her official and individual capacity, acted as

the homeroom teacher for A.T.

6th grade counselor.

School Resource Officer for CMS.

7th grade vice-principal.

residential addresses are presently unknown.

15. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as all of the Defendants

occurred in Bradley County, located in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Department of Children’s Services (hereinafter, “DCS”) while at work.

so as to discuss the safety of A.T.

occurred the week prior on September 18, 2019.

occurred on school premises.

representative to conduct her investigation to the extent she felt necessary.

ensure their safety, as well.

to the meeting with the representative of DCS.

Defendants’ continued assertions.

represented to her mother.

take place at Bradley County Juvenile Court, Case No. 19-00834.

requesting a meeting, stating A.T. was failing all of her classes.

failing to submit her homework and was “not trying” in class.

sexual assault arose.

but all of the students were afraid of the assailant.

the proceedings despite being the actual victim.

to comply with Court-Ordered counseling.

occurred several times in the past.

48. Subsequent to this, the Assistant District Attorney advised a representative

the events complained of herein.

additional emotional distress for A.T.

their daughter by another student.

suffered by not only A.T., but also by her parents.

repeated sexual assaults.

prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications.

Order previously issued by the Juvenile Court of Bradley County.

58. This further exemplifies callous and intentional indifference to Plaintiffs’

rights and wellbeing, both physical and emotional.

upon the person of this child.

60. Presently, Plaintiff A.T. is in the seventh (7th) grade.

for the seventh (7th) grade.

A.T. given by Defendants.

66. Seemingly attempting to dissuade students from reporting similar instances of

to add any additional comments.

teacher, and her peers.

wellbeing of this child.

failed to adequately address the underlying objectionable conduct of their employees,