Claims that the Prince William County School Board and school system failed to stop the bullying of a former student who identified as gay are set to move forward in U.S. District Court in Alexandria after a judge denied the School Board’s motion to dismiss.
The School Board and two individual defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of a failure to state a claim. While the board’s motion to dismiss was denied in full, the individuals’ motions were granted in part and denied in part.
The case stems from a complaint filed by the plaintiff’s mother in June 2023.
The complaint details bullying that her son suffered from 2019-2022 at Ronald Reagan Middle School in Haymarket. The complaint specifically states the plaintiff, who is gay, experienced “regular and relentless anti-LGBTQ+ bullying” at the hands of his classmates.
The complaint states that when the plaintiff’s parents brought complaints to the school’s principal and assistant principal, “they were met with victim blaming and inaction.”
The Prince William School Board is named as a defendant in the case, alongside Christopher Beemer and Jenita Boatwright, the principal and former assistant principal, respectively, of Ronald Reagan Middle School. Beemer is still the school’s principal, while Boatwright is no longer with Prince William County Public Schools.
A spokesperson for the school division said it does not comment on active litigation, but “PWCS remains committed to providing an inclusive and excellent education for every student and has no tolerance for harassment, bullying or intimidation of students.”
The complaint filed by the plaintiff’s mother details bullying the plaintiff experienced at Ronald Reagan Middle School.
It started in August 2019, when the plaintiff began sixth grade at the school. By that time, according to court documents, he identified as gay, and it was well-known among students and school staff.
The first incident detailed in the court documents occurred in September 2019, when, in drama class, several students allegedly repeatedly took the plaintiff’s belongings and passed them around the classroom while voicing homophobic slurs.
The teacher allegedly did not put a stop to the behavior until it happened three additional times. That evening, the boy’s mother emailed Boatwright and other administrators regarding the incident. Then-principal Joseph Murgo replied the following day, saying, “We are on it. Thanks for letting us know!”
Later that year, verbal harassment continued against the student, according to the complaint.
In fall 2020, Beemer took over as principal of the school before students began distance learning in spring 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Students returned to in-person learning in fall 2021, when the plaintiff began eighth grade.
In December 2021, five students, all identified in court documents by their initials, surrounded the plaintiff in front of the school building after school let out and called him homophobic slurs.
The plaintiff’s mother alleges two teachers in the area did nothing and that he felt unsafe and intimidated. The mother observed the boys surrounding her son when she came to pick him up from school. The student hurried to the car, but the alleged harassers called out to the plaintiff’s mother and gave her “the finger,” according to the complaint. The mother got out of her car and asked two nearby teachers for assistance, who said they would “take care of it.”
The plaintiff’s mother said the teachers walked the boys to defendant Boatwright’s office, where they were met by one of the boy’s mother, who worked for the school. The plaintiff’s mother then called the front office of the school to again report what happened — a call that was received by the one boy’s mother, who told the plaintiff’s mother that she would handle the matter.
The plaintiff’s mother believes the mother who worked for the school brought the matter to the attention of Boatwright, as required by policy; Boatwright did not follow up, and no further investigation was conducted, according to the complaint.
The complaint details a number of other specific incidents from 2019-2022 along with derogatory comments and slurs said by a number of students in 2022, including an incident in which a student made a “straight pride” poster with the plaintiff’s face on it.
The plaintiff reported many of these incidents to his eighth-grade counselor, Meagan Huntington, according to the complaint.
In May 2022, in the span of several days, there were two incidents in the school bathroom in which several students followed the plaintiff into the bathroom and pounded on the stall doors shouting homophobic slurs, saying “there’s a girl in here” and threatening violence.
Later that month, the plaintiff’s mother met with Huntington to review the incidents her son had suffered since 2019 and the defendants’ lack of response. According to court documents, Huntington told the mother her son was “not safe” at the school.
Huntington went on to say, according to the documents, that school administrators were too afraid of backlash from conservative parents to support the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s situation “was a Title IX case” because he was being targeted because of his sexuality.
Ultimately, Huntington recommended the plaintiff’s mother remove her son from the school for his safety.
In June, Huntington told the plaintiff she was trying to have school administrators investigate the May bathroom incidents and other incidents of harassment.
On the same day, the mother wrote to defendant Beemer, the Title IX Equity Office, Director of Counseling Amy Covell-Sharek and Linda Dick, a counselor at Battlefield High School. The mother requested an investigation into the students’ bullying and the school’s failure to respond.
That same day, the mother received a call from Beemer – his first attempt to communicate with her, according to court documents. During that call, Beemer is alleged to have said he “dropped the ball on this one.” Beemer reportedly said he had discussed the matter with the Title IX coordinator to determine what the school could do proactively and reactively.
On June 10, 2022, the plaintiff’s parents filed formal complaints with the Title IX equity officer, and a week later the parents requested and attended a meeting with Beemer to discuss the complaint.
At the meeting, Beemer declined to provide any information, and the plaintiff’s parents then decided to remove him from Prince William Public Schools. At the end of the school year, the family moved out of the country.
The case brought by the plaintiff asserts four causes of action: sex discrimination under Title IX against the School Board, an Equal Protection Clause violation against the individual defendants, a violation of Section 1986 against the individual defendants and gross negligence against the individual defendants.
In response to motions filed by the defendants to dismiss the case on the basis of failure to state a claim, District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. filed a memorandum opinion and order on Aug. 22. Alston denied in full the School Board’s motion to dismiss and denied in part and granted in part the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss.
To establish a Title IX claim, a plaintiff must satisfy four elements:
“In sum, because plaintiff has plausibly alleged facts in support of each element of a student-on-student Title IX claim, the School Board’s motion to dismiss will be denied,” Alston wrote.
On the Equal Protection Clause violation brought against the individual defendants, the judge denied the motion to dismiss because the allegations are sufficient, at this stage of proceedings, to state a plausible equal protection violation.
“In seeking dismissal of the Equal Protection claim, the Individual Defendants rely on the same arguments as the School Board in seeking to dismiss the Title IX claim. Their arguments therefore fail for largely the same reasons,” Alston wrote.
Alston also denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss the gross negligence claim, saying discovery was necessary to determine whether the individual school administrators’ conduct rose to the level of gross negligence.
The motion to dismiss claim that was granted came on what’s called the Section 1986 claim. Section 1986 provides a “cause of action against anyone who has knowledge of a conspiracy and who, ‘having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of’ act pursuant to that conspiracy, ‘neglects or refuses to do so.’”
To adequately allege the conspiracy claim, the judge wrote, a plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate a “meeting of the minds” to “violate the claimant’s constitutional right.” In this case, the judge wrote, the plaintiff’s allegations don’t plausibly support the existence of a conspiracy.
Alston gave the plaintiff 14 days from the date the court’s memorandum opinion was filed, on Aug. 22, to file an amended complaint if they so choose.
The defendants were directed to file an answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days of the filing of any amended complaint or of the expiration of the time to file any such amended complaint.
