Skip to main content

School district moves to dismiss civil rights lawsuit

Subhead
Oconto Falls claims no evidence policies, practices contributed to staff members’ acts
By
Kevin Passon, Editor-in-Chief

Attorneys representing the Oconto Falls School District have filed a motion to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit against the district in which several plaintiffs accused the district of systematic sexual misconduct toward students.

Earlier this year, several former students filed a lawsuit alleging that for more than 20 years, the district failed to protect students from a predatory environment.

The district’s attorneys, Stadler Sacks LLC, said there is no evidence any policy or practice contributed to the individual acts of the staff members.

“There is nothing plead in the Third Amended Complaint that comes close to suggesting that there are facts that plausibly suggest a direct causal link between the District’s alleged actions and the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ federal rights by the alleged perpetrator,” according to the motion. “Simply because a Plaintiff experienced sexual misconduct does not plausibly suggest that a District policy or custom was the moving force behind it.

“Here, where the allegations involve acts of intentional sexual misconduct by particular employees, it cannot be said that the District caused, i.e., was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged. There are no facts to show a ‘causal connection, or affirmative link’ between the conduct complained of and the District.”

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Disparti Law, have yet to file a response as of May 14, but the firm did issue a statement about the district’s motion to dismiss.

“This motion is a tactic that ignores the reality of the trauma endured by these students,” said Cass Casper, lead counsel. “It is consistent with the decades-long history of the district looking the other way while children were being harmed.”

In its motion, the district said it was not defending sexual misconduct by staff, only that the district was not financially liable for those employees’ actions.

“As a matter of law it cannot be financially liable for the acts of reprehensible teachers,” according to the motion. “Teachers who engage in sexual misconduct should face consequences — the loss of their employment, criminal prosecution and civil liability for the damages they cause. This motion only addresses legal issues as to whether the district has financial liability for the nefarious misconduct of a few bad employees.”

In addition, the response also raises the question of timeliness.

Without allegations of facts to show deliberate indifference, the plaintiffs’ claims fail, according to the motion. But, if the plaintiffs argue they have plead facts to plausibly suggest that the district had actual notice of their claims, their claims fail because they are barred by the relevant statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are:

• Amanda Watzka: 17 years old when she was reportedly cornered and sexually assaulted by a teacher in a hotel stairway during a school-sponsored trip.

• Brooke La Count: 15 years old when she was reportedly assaulted by her volleyball coach during their first meeting, followed by multiple instances of abuse.

• Grace Williams: 17 years old when she was reportedly assaulted by the same coach — an individual the district failed to remove even after La Count’s report.

• Brianna Kain: A minor reportedly subjected to unwanted sexual contact by the school’s athletic trainer under the guise of medical treatment.

• Kayla Kasper: Reportedly groomed and targeted in her classroom by a teacher who used isolation and sexualized comments to exert control.

• Jesse Kasal: Removed from class on false pretexts and taken to locked rooms by a drama teacher, where he reportedly suffered escalating sexual contact on 25-40 occasions.

• D.P.: Discouraged from reporting due to the district’s alleged public shaming against those who come forward.

“Our clients deserve better, and students deserve better,” said Larry Disparti, founder of Disparti Law. “The district’s argument that a child’s right to bodily autonomy is not a constitutional matter is not only legally flawed but morally bankrupt.”

Both sides now wait for the judge’s decision on the motion to dismiss.

kpasson@newmedia-wi.com