Judge partially dismisses former L-S student's lawsuit claiming he was denied due process

SUDBURY — A federal judge has dismissed most of a former Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School student's lawsuit claiming the district denied him his right to due process after he was accused of sexual assault.

Plaintiff John Doe's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on Aug. 21, 2020, stems from a 2013 allegation.

Late last month, Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV dismissed two of the three claims in the complaint, saying the district has not yet proved that it is not liable for directing school officials to issue a 2017 letter that retracted an earlier letter calling the investigation "inconclusive" — a decision that Doe says violated his right to due process.

Seth Barnett, a partner at Pierce Davis & Perritano, the Boston law firm representing the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District, said Saylor dismissing most of the claims affirms the district's position that "this lawsuit had no merit and that the district and its staff properly investigated and responded to the 2013 reported incident at the time."

"The remaining claims concern only a narrow issue that we expect Judge Saylor will address on a future motion," Barnett told the Daily News.

Philip Cormier, a partner in the Boston firm of Good Schneider Cormier & Fried, and one of John Doe's lawyers, said the team will not comment on the matter at this time.

Doe's suit names the district and the Lincoln Sudbury Regional School Committee as defendants, as well as the Superintendent and Principal Bella Wong and several school officials. It calls for a jury trial to recover monetary damages for wrongful actions of defendants.

John Doe's claims

According to Doe, he, his then-15-year-old ex-girlfriend “Jane Roe" and another male student had a consensual sexual encounter on a campus field near a school football game on Nov. 1, 2013.

Roe said she was sexually assaulted by both boys. In 2018, she filed her own lawsuit claiming the district did not properly investigate. In March, the judge sided with the district when he granted summary judgment on all counts, saying it could not be proved that the district and school officials acted with "deliberate indifference."

School officials did not tell 14-year-old “John Doe” that the district’s investigation into the matter was a Title IX proceeding or that he could be found responsible for “sexual harassment” under Title IX, according to court documents. He also alleges that during a disciplinary hearing he was not afforded the right to present witnesses or to question witnesses before him.

Read our past coverage: Ex-student files suit against L-S

On Dec. 5, 2013, the district held a hearing concerning the accusations. The next day, Doe's parents received a letter from the school saying school officials "believe that there is sufficient evidence that an interaction of an egregious nature did occur" and that Doe was "an instigator of both physical and sexual harassment."

Doe was then suspended for 16 school days, and not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities.

Meanwhile, Sudbury police and the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office did not bring any charges against either boy.

About a year later, Doe's mother asked that her son's record be expunged or corrected, saying there were conflicting accounts in the proceedings. On Oct. 1, 2015, the district sent Doe's family a letter signed by Title IX co-chairs Peter Elenbaas and Aida Ramos calling the investigation "inconclusive" and saying the district would not take further action on the incident.

More: Court sides with Lincoln-Sudbury school officials in sex assault case

But a subsequent letter, dated Aug. 24, 2017, from school officials said the earlier letter was incorrect and reinstated the findings of the December 2013 decision. It said “there was sufficient evidence that an interaction of an egregious nature did occur on the evening of Nov. 1, and that (John Doe's) role in the incident was one that substantially violated one of the core values of L-S.”

Doe's complaint alleged the district's about-face was due to a "pressure campaign" launched by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The office was investigating the matter after Jane Roe filed a civil rights complaint in April 2014, saying the district did not respond promptly and appropriately after she reported she'd been sexually assaulted.

Judge partially dismisses claims

In a 27-page decision issued on Aug. 27, Saylor dismissed Doe's claim that the district's retraction letter was fueled by gender bias because it sought to protect itself from criticism that it had failed to protect female students from sexual assault.

"... the alleged concern of Lincoln-Sudbury was that it would be criticized because the OCR Title IX investigation of Roe's complaint remained open. It was not that the district favored one gender over another in sexual-assault investigations," wrote Saylor.

Saylor also dismissed Doe's claims that the district failed to train and supervise employees concerning due process and Title IX requirements. To assert such a claim, the complaint must allege that the district's failure to train caused the violation of due-process rights when the retraction letter was issued and was because Lincoln-Sudbury employees did not care about the rights of all involved, wrote Saylor.

"The complaint falls short of alleging deliberate indifference in that respect," said the judge.

More: Sexual assault claim by former Lincoln-Sudbury High student

However, Saylor denied the district's motion to dismiss a claim that the district and School Committee, as final policymakers, are liable for directing school officials to issue the retraction letter. The complaint "plausibly alleges that the decision to issue that letter — absent notice and the opportunity to be heard and contract to the underlying evidence — violated plaintiff's right to due process," wrote Saylor.

Further, the letter was written because of advice from legal counsel, acting on behalf of the district and School Committee.

"Even though liability typically may not be imposed on a municipality for a single instance of misconduct, it may be imposed 'for a single decision by a final policymaker,' " wrote Saylor.

The matter will appear in court again next month for a status hearing. 

Zane Razzaq writes about education. Reach her at 508-626-3919 or zrazzaq@wickedlocal.com. Follow her on Twitter @zanerazz.