Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Dcc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 1 of 16 PagelD #: 1

Transcription

1 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Dcc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 1 of 16 PagelD #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION ) JANE DOE, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) CaseNo.: ) ) Jury Demand 3:13cv220 MPM-SAA v. ) ) RUST COLLEGE and ) SYLVESTER OLIVER, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jane Doe. by and through undersigned counsel of record, files this Complaint against Rust College and Sylvester Oliver, and states for her causes of action the following: PARTIES 1. Defendant Rust College is a private educational institution located in Holly Springs, Marshall County, Mississippi with its principal place of business located at 150 Rust Avenue, Holly Springs, Mississippi Because Rust College has no registered agent for service of process listed with the Mississippi Secretary of States office. it may be served through its president, David L. Beckley. 2. Defendant Sylvester Oliver is an adult resident citizen of Holly Springs. Marshal! County, Mississippi. 3. At all times material herein, Rust College acted by and through its authorized agents, servants and employees, including Defendant Sylvester Oliver ( Oliver ), a former

2 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Dcc #: 1 Red: 08/28/13 2 of 16 PagelD #: 2 professor. all of whom acted within the full course and scope of the authority vested in them by Rust College. 4. Plaintiff Jane Doe is an adult female. The identity of Plaintiff is not disclosed in this Complaint in order to protect her identity. as Plaintiff was a victim of a sex crime. The identity of Plaintiff has been made known to Defendants by separate communication. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff brings this action to redress a hostile educational environment pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, as more fully set forth herein. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1343, and 28 U.S.C In addition to having jurisdiction over the parties, venue is proper in this district pursuantto28 U.S.C FACTS 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant Rust College had a paramount financial interest in protecting the reputation and commercial viability of the institution. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant Rust College was receiving federal funding, as contemplated by Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681, etseq. 10. In its student handbook, Defendant Rust College touts itself as a church related institution commiued to the moral and social tenets prescribed b the United Methodist Church and warns that anv students engaging in extra and pre-marital sexual intercourse will be subject to disciplinary action. The student handbook further states that situations involving sexual morality are in direct conflict with the colleg&s mission. Regrettably. this language is not

3 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 3 of 16 PagelD #: 3 included in the institution s faculty handbook but by reasonable implication extends to the faculty of Rust College in its interactions between faculty and students. 11. Despite its purported stance on moral propriety, Defendant Rust College failed to implement and/or execute policies and procedures that would protect its young female students from the unlawful behavior of its employees, including Defendant Sylvester Oliver. 12. Based on investigation and belief, Defendant Oliver was employed with Defendant Rust College in the early 2000 s as a professor. During his initial tenure, Defendant Oliver had an inappropriate sexual relationship with at least one female student at Defendant Rust College, and was informally asked to resign from his position. 13. In 2005, Defendant Oliver was hired by Memphis City Schools in Memphis. Shelby County, Tennessee, to serve as a teacher at Northside High School. During his tenure at Northside High, a 16-year old student reported that Defendant Oliver molested her in a vacant classroom of the school. 14. Following a full investigation of the 16 year old s report of rape, which included statements of several students and a review of school security tapes, Defendant Oliver was terminated by Memphis City Schools. Pursuant to Tennessee law, Defendant Oliver was afforded the legal opportunity to be represented by counsel and appeal the firing and the underlying basis of the firing therefor. He ultimately chose not to pursue appeal. 15. On January , Memphis City Schools notified the Tennessee State Board of Educations Office of Teacher Licensinu and informed them that Defendant Oliver had been terminated as a result of being accused of rapine a student. A copy of the January 26, 2006 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

4 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 4 of 16 PagelD #: Notwithstanding the documented history of Defendant Oliver, he was rehired at Defendant Rust College after his termination from Memphis City Schools. 17. Plaintiff was enrolled as a student at Rust College during the 2012 school year. On September 7, 2012, while attempting to seek advice from Defendant Oliver, Plaintiff was forcibly raped in his office on Defendant Rust Colleges premises by Defendant Oliver. 18. Shortly after the rape, Plaintiff reported what occurred to an employee of Defendant Rust College and shortly thereafter to the Holly Springs Police Department. 19. Despite having reported the rape to an employee of Defendant Rust College, Defendant Oliver was not terminated. Plaintiff then reported the incident to the Holly Springs Police Department. Plaintiff cooperated with the Holly Springs Police Department to obtain corroborating evidence against Defendant Oliver. 20. On October 2, 2012, Defendant Oliver was indicted by a grand jury in Marshall County. Mississippi for sexual battery. Following his arrest, Defendant Oliver voluntarily resigned his faculty post at the college. 21. As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant Oliver has not been tried for the rape of Plaintiff. 22. Based on investigation and belief, this is not the first time that Defendant Oliver has sexually assaulted and/or forcibly raped a female student at Rust College. 23. In fact. Defendant Oliver is not the only male employee of Defendant Rust College ho has sexually assaulted a student or other employee at Rust College. 24. David Becklev. President of Rust College. has communicated to faculty. staff. and employees of Rust College that anyone who cooperates in the investigation andlor litigation of claims arising out of Plaintiffs rape will be terminated. 4

5 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Pi ed: 08/28/13 5 of 16 PagelD #: 5 college as a 25. Throughout his tenures at Defendant Rust College. Defendant Oliver used the hunting ground for victims of his perverted desire for sexual gratification. 26. Based on information and belief, Defendant Oliver has been employed with Defendant Rust College on at least two (2) different occasions in the past ten (10) years. Defendant Oliver, as described below, traded on and exploited his status as a Professor to develop relationships with and subsequently manipulate and sexually assault young women who attended Rust College. 27. Defendant Rust College granted Oliver unfettered access to its facilities, including, but not limited to, its classrooms and offices. 28. Defendant Rust College had actual and constructive notice of the sexual abuse activities of Defendant Oliver over a period of years and certainly before he was rehired as a faculty member in Defendant Rust College has fostered an environment that allows faculty, with impunity, to commit sexual battery on students and other faculty members. 30. Defendant Rust College s purposeful disregard and continued, deliberate concealment of Oliver s inappropriate conduct was a function of its recognition that the University s stature, reputation, and economic interests would be adversely affected by any public disclosure regarding the sociopathic character of an individual associated with the institution. 31. Defendant Rust College s concealment of the prior incidents, and its failure to discipline or otherwise sanction Oliver, or to report him to appropriate authorities, substantially contributed to Oliver s ability to continually victimize Rust College s predominantly female student population on Rust College s property and elsewhere.

6 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 6 of 16 PagelD #: Defendant Rust College s actions and failure to act, constitutes deliberate indifference and created a hostile educational environment for its young female students, to include Plaintiff. 33. Before September 2012, Defendant Rust College recognized and/or should have recognized that Oliver was using his position at Rust College and its facilities for inappropriate and illicit purposes. The female students were subject to a significant risk of serious physical injury as a result of Defendant s concealment of and/or failure to disclose Oliver s harmful contact with young women. Defendant Rust College knew, or should have known, that Oliver had committed repeated acts of sexual battery, as defined in Miss. Code Ann by having sexual intercourse with Rust College s young female students, including Plaintiff. 34. As a direct result of Defendant Rust College s failure to take reasonable and necessary precautions in light of the information available to it, Oliver was enabled to sexually assault young women and have indecent contact with them. Oliver did, in fact, sexually assault, forcibly rape and have indecent contact with young women, including Plaintiff. 35. The failure to properly vet Defendant Oliver prior to hire, inadequate oversight, deliberate indifference to the harm suffered by Plaintiff, the failure to report Oliver and other male employees engaging in the same or similar conduct, and the intentional concealment of Defendant Oliver s actions by Defendant Rust College contributed substantially to Defendant Oliver s ability to commit his criminally outrageous and depraved acts. 36. Despite actual and or constructie kno ledge of the dangers that Oliver posed to young women. and in particular the dangers he posed to young female students of the institution, Defendant Rust College took no action to alert law enforcement authorities of these dangers. To the contrary, as alleged hereinabove, Defendant Rust College actually concealed Oliver s pattern t)

7 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 7 of 16 PagelD #: 7 of inappropriate contact with its female students. misrepresented the degree of danger he posed, and affirmatively held him out to the public in general as a trusted and respected member of the Rust College faculty. 37. Defendant Rust College turned a blind eye to Olivers sexual exploitation of its young female students. Defendant Rust fostered a culture and/or code of silence that unduly influenced those within its respective ranks from revealing conduct of the nature of that committed by Oliver from being reported and acted upon. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligent, reckless, and outrageous conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical and emotional injuries. 39. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants negligent, reckless, and outrageous conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff requires and will likely require medical and psychological care for a lengthy period of time into the future. 40. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants negligent, reckless. and outrageous conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff has suffered injuries that are permanent in nature. 41. At all times material hereto, Defendant Rust College knew or had reason to know that Oliver was exploiting Rust College as a source of victims for his dangerous. unlawful, and outrageous sexual misconduct. 42. The neaiience and reckless. outrageous misconduct of Defendants consisted of the following: a) Failure of Defendant Rust College to report Oliver to law enforcement;

8 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Piled: 08/28/13 8 of 16 PagelD #: 8 b) Failure of Defendant Rust College to disclose to the population served by Rust College that Oliver was a sexual predator who had sexually assaulted students on Rust College s premises in the past; c) Failure to properly investigate incidents in which Oliver was reportedly in the company of young female students in inappropriate settings; d) Failure to properly supervise and/or monitor Oliver while he was on Rust College premises despite knowledge of and/or reason to know of the dangers he posed to young women; e) Failure to implement proper safeguards for whistleblowers who would otherwise be reluctant to report improper conduct by faculty, staff. or other persons in positions of authority; 0 Representing to the public, in general, that Oliver was a dependable, respected, and trustworthy member of the Rust College faculty; g) Failure to report Oliver s sexual misconduct as required by Mississippi and federal statutory law; h) Knowingly and deliberately failing to disclose to the public in general information concerning Oliver s dangerous sociopathic behavior; i) Turning a blind eye to Oliver s wrongful. tortious and illegal conduct as it related to students on Rust Colleges premises and elsewhere: and j) Concealing previous incidents in which Oliver has sexually assaulted students at Rust College. 43. Defendants were grossly negligent and acted with a reckless indifference and disregard for the welfare of Plaintiff and others similarly situated in managing the risk posed to 8

9 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Piled: 08/28/13 9 of 16 PagelD #: 9 young women by persons such as Oliver. Such conduct amounted to actual and/or implied malice. 44, Had Defendant Rust College acted responsibly and in accordance with the duties it owed to Plaintiff at any time prior to 2012, the heinous, reprehensible acts of September 7, 2012 never would have occurred. COUNT I: VIoLATION OF TITLE IX AS TO DEFENDANT RUST COLLEGE 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 44 as if fully set forth herein. 46. Defendant Rust College created and/or subjected Plaintiff to a hostile educational environment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a) ( Title IX ), as: a) Plaintiff was a member of a protected class; b) she was subjected to the forcible rape by an employee of Defendant Rust College; c) she was subjected to this unlawful conduct based on her sex; and d) she was subjected to a hostile educational environment created by Defendant Rust College s lack of policies and procedures and failure to properly vet its employees or properly investigate and/or address the sexual predatory conduct of Defendant Sylvester Oliver and other employees engaging in the same or similar conduct. 47. Defendant Rust College and its officials had actual knowledge of Defendant Sylvester Oliver s dangerous and exploitive sexual proclivities and still rehired and retained him as an employee despite his behavior. 48, Defendant Rust College s failure to promptly and appropriately respond to the actions of Defendant Sylvester Oliver and other employees who engaged in the same or similar 9

10 to Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 10 of 16 PagelD #: 10 conduct resulted in the college s young female students include Plaintiff being excluded from participating in, being denied the benefits of. and being subjected to discrimination in Defendant Rust College s education program on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX. 49. Defendant Rust College failed to take immediate, effective remedial steps to ensure the safety of its young female students from sexual predators like Defendant Sylvester Oliver and acted with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff. 50. Defendant Rust College persisted in its actions and inaction even after it had actual knowledge of the harm suffered by Plaintiff. 51. Defendant Rust College engaged in a pattern or practice of behavior designed to discourage and dissuade students who had been sexually assaulted from seeking prosecution and protection and from seeking to have sexual assaults from being fully investigated. 52. This policy and/or practice constitutes disparate treatment of females and had a disparate impact on Defendant Rust College s female student population. 53. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer immeasurable pain of mind and body. shock, embarrassment, emotional distress. public ridicule, loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling for the foreseeable future. COUNT II: SExuAL BATTERY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein. 55. As described herein, Defendant Oliver engaged in unlawful. harmful, and offensive sexual conduct and contact with Plaintiff, in violation of Mississippi state law. Said

11 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Dcc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 11 of 16 PagelD #: 11 conduct was undertaken while Defendant Oliver was under the supervision and authority of Defendant Rust College. The conduct of Defendant Oliver was committed during the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Rust College. Defendant Rust College, therefore. is vicariously liable for Oliver s wrongful conduct alleged in this Complaint. 56. Defendant Oliver s sexual misconduct was ratified by Defendant Rust College. Namely, as noted above, Defendant Rust College concealed Oliver s pattern of inappropriate contact with its female students, misrepresented the degree of danger he posed, and affirmatively held him out to the public as a dependable and respected member of the Rust College faculty. 57. Defendant Rust College knew, or should have known. that Defendant Oliver posed a risk and would harm its female students. 58. Defendants failure to act and affirmative conduct, which enabled Oliver to prey on Plaintiff and victimize Plaintiff, was outrageous and that conduct was committed with reckless indifference and disregard as to Plaintiff. 59. As a result of the aforementioned conduct. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer immeasurable pain of mind and body. shock, embarrassment, emotional distress, public ridicule, loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling for the foreseeable future. CoUNT III: NEGLIGENCE 60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs I through 59 as if fully set forth herein. ii

12 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 12 of 16 PagelD #: Defendant Rust College had a duty to protect Plaintiff when she enrolled as a student. Plaintiff s safety was entrusted to Defendant Rust College when on the premises of the institution. 62. Defendant Rust College. by and through its agents. servants. and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of Defendant Oliver s dangerous and exploitive propensities. It was reasonably foreseeable that if Defendant Rust College did not adequately exercise or uphold the duty of care owed to its students, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, the students would be vulnerable to sexual abuse by Rust College s personnel, including Defendant Oliver. Defendant Rust College s failure to uphold its duty of care set the stage and created an opportunity structure for Defendant Oliver to sexually assault Plaintiff. 63. Defendant Rust College breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff by failing to protect her from the foreseeable harm of the sexual misconduct of its employees or personnel, including Defendant Oliver. 64. Defendant Rust Colleges failure to protect Plaintiff from the foreseeable harm of Oliver s sexual misconduct was outrageous and was committed with reckless indifference to Plaintiff. 65. As a result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer immeasurable pain of mind and body. shock. embarrassment. emotional distress. public ridicule, loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling for the foreseeable future.

13 67. Defendant Rust College hired Defendant Oliver and retained him throughout the through 64 as if fully set forth herein. 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs I COUNT IV: NEGLIGENT HIRING, SuPERvIsION, AND RETENTION indifference to Plaintiff. provide reasonable supervision of Oliver, was outrageous and committed with reckless course of activities of Rust College. Defendant s conduct. specifically its breach of its duty to 71. Said acts of sexual bauerv occurred upon the premises of Rust CoIle2e. during the constituting outrageous conduct that could only be termed as reprehensible. position of trust and authority for Defendant Rust College. to sexually assault Plaintiff, reasonable supervision of Defendant Oliver, and enabled Defendant Oliver. who was in a in young women. Despite such knowledge, Defendant Rust College breached its duty to provide proclivities and/or that Defendant Oliver was an unfit agent due to his predatory sexual interest or reasonably should have known of Defendant Oliver s dangerous and exploitive sexual 70. Rust College, by and through its respective agents, servants, and employees, knew young women. including Plaintiff, unless properly supervised. who exhibit a predatory sexual interest in young women, would sexually exploit and assault 69. It was reasonably foreseeable that those employees and agents of Rust College, employees and agents, including Defendant Oliver, when interacting with young female students. 68. Defendant Rust College also had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of its its students. vet any potential candidates for positions in which the individuals would come into contact with relevant time period. At all times relevant herein. Defendant Rust College had a duty to properly Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 13 of 16 PagelD #: 13

14 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 14 of 16 PagelD #: As a result of the aforementioned conduct. Plaintiff has suffered. and continues to suffer immeasurable pain of mind and body, shock. embarrassment, emotional distress, public ridicule, loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or psychological treatment. therapy, and counseling for the foreseeable future. COUNT V: PREMISES LIABILITY 73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully set forth herein. 74. Defendant Rust College owed a duty to Plaintiff, and by holding its premises or functions open to its students on its premises, Rust College assumed a duty to Plaintiff. 75. Defendant Rust College assumed a duty to Plaintiff that it would exercise reasonable care and take reasonable precautions against harmful conduct on its premises that it could reasonably anticipate. 76. Defendant Rust College breached its duty when it failed to exercise reasonable care to discover that Defendant Oliver was utilizing its premises and/or its position as an educational institution to commit sexual assault against its students. 77. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer immeasurable pain of mind and body, shock. embarrassment, emotional distress, public ridicule, loss of self-esteem. humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or psychological treatment, therapy. and counseling for the foreseeable future. 14

15 COUNT VI: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs I 79. By employing Oliver, by choosing to place Oliver in a position that frequently through 77 as if fully set forth herein. 80. Defendant Rust Colleges conduct in 1) employing Oliver; 2) holding itself out as 81. As a result of Defendant s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer 15 psychological treatment. therapy. and counseling for the foreseeable future. loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life and will require medical and/or immeasurable pain of mind and body, shock, embarrassment, emotional distress, public ridicule, students. constituted outrageous conduct that exceeds the bounds of decency. young female students when it had reason to know it could be a dangerous place for female member of Rust College s faculty; and 4) holding out its premises as a safe environment for its Plaintiff, her family, and the public to believe he was a trustworthy, respected, and dependable access to its young female students; 3) holding Defendant Oliver out in such a way as to cause while allowing its sociopathic employees with predatory sexual tendencies to have unfettered an institution that demands and expects morality to be a priority for its students and employees caused severe emotional distress and bodily harm to Plaintiff. and interactions with its young female students, Rust College intentionally and/or recklessly came in contact with young female students. by allowing Oliver to use its facilities for meetings Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 15 of 16 PagelD #: 15

16 Case: 3:13-cv MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/13 16 of 16 PagelD #: 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Jane Doe respectfully prays: I. That service of process be issued and served upon the Defendants; 2. That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, as provided by law, to include noneconomic damages in amount equal to the maximum allowed under Mississippi law; 3. That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an amount equal to the maximum allowed under Mississippi law; 4. For a trial by jury; 5. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and 6. That Plaintiff be granted such other and favorable relief, both general and special, to which she may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, THE COCHRAN FIRM - MEMPHIS By: /s/ Ursula Y. Holmes Ursula Y. Holmes (MSB No ) uholmes@cochranflrm,com One Commerce Square, Suite 1700 Memphis, TN (901) (Telephone) (901) (Facsimile)