2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 1 of 28 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISCTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY TOOLEY, as Next Friend of SETH TOOLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: 14-

-

Hon.

VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, South Middle School Principal, KAREN MIDA, ROBERT WILKINSON, South Middle Superintendent, MICHAEL VAN TASSEL, VAN BUREN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, BRENT MIKULSKI, MARTHA TOTH, SHERRY FRAZIER, KEVIN ENGLISH, KATHY KOVACH, SCOTT RUSSELL, KELLY OWEN, Individually,
SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH DISTRICT, Superintendent, ALISON CANCILLIARI, Principal, ALEX CHAPMAN; Assistant Principal, RIA COLE, Special Services Director, CATHERINE GRIFFIN; SUMMIT ACADEMY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Board Members, PORTER, ANASTASIA, SMITH, REALE, Individually.
WYANDOTTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Superintendent, DR. CARLA HARDING, Social Worker, MARIA SUTKA, Psychologist, DR. VIKTOR BROWN; Wilson Middle School Principal, JASON KRAJEWSKI, WYANDOTTE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, ROBERT KIRBY, CHRISTOPHER CALVIN, PATRICK SUTKA, STEPHANIE MIELLO, Trustees, KATHRYN BEDIKIAN, DANA BROWNING, MICHAEL SWIECKI, Individually.
DEARBORN HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, JEFFREY L. BARTOLD, Superintendent, JON ZNAMEROWSKI, OW Best Middle School Principal, CLAUDIA PORTSCHELLER, OW Best Middle School Vice Principal.

1

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 2 of 28 Pg ID 2
Defendants. _______________________________________________/ THE RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC By: James B. Rasor (P43476) By: Jonathan Marko (P72450) Attorney for Plaintiffs 321 South Williams Street Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 543-9000 ________________________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND JURY REQUEST NOW COMES the above named Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, The Rasor Law Firm, and for her Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and under the statutes and common law of the State of Michigan. 2. This lawsuit arises out of events occurring within the Cities of Wyandotte, Dearborn Heights, Van Buren, and Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 3. Jurisdiction is based upon Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 1681 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. (Title IV). The amount in controversy in this case is well in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Kimberly Tooley as Next Friend of Seth Tooley, is a resident of the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
2

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 3 of 28 Pg ID 3
5. Defendants, South Middle School and its administrators: Karen Mida, South Middle School Principal; Robert Wilkinson, Interim Principal of South Middle School; Michael Van Tassel, Interim Principal of South Middle School are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Van Buren, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
6. Defendants, Summit Academy Charter Public School and its administrators: Amy Grey; Ms. Clark; Mr. Alex Chapman, Principal; Ria Cole, Superintendent; Catherine Griffin; Robin Paris; Ms. Nelson are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
7. Defendants, Wilson Middle School and its administrators: Maria Sutka, Dr. Brown, Psychologist; Ms. Alt; Mr. Krease; Cindy Hough; Dr. Carla Harding, Superintendent; Jason Krajewski are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Wyandotte, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
8. Defendants, O.W. Best Middle School and its administrators: Jon Znamerowski, Principal and Claudia Portscheller, Vice Principal are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is a 14 year old boy. He was born as a girl, named Olivia, but has since
transitioned, and now goes by Seth Tooley. He has experienced overwhelming instances of harassment and discrimination because of his transition, as outline below.
3

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 4 of 28 Pg ID 4
2. Plaintiff, Seth Tooley began sixth grade at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan on September 6, 2011. Approximately a week later, Plaintiff was passed a note during class to him by a classmate, Katana Vaughn. He waited until he returned home to open it. The letter told him he was going to go to hell because of the way he dressed and there was a rainbow colored on it.
3. The next morning, Plaintiff's mother called Karen Mida, the vice principal at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan. Mrs. Mida knew Seth and plaintiff's mother for years, as she was the principal at South Elementary School and was aware of who Seth was, and of Seth's transitioning. Plaintiff’s mother brought her the note and she made light of it, saying that Katana comes from a good family. Ms. Mida made a copy of the note. She said it was for Seth's file and kept the original note and said she would take care of it, but never did.
4. That same day Seth got off the bus and ran through the door upset. He had urinated himself because he was scolded for attempting to walk into the boy's bathroom, so he just didn't go all day long.
5. Also that same day, Plaintiff was given another note from the same little girl that told him he was going to go to hell the day prior. Inside it, she asked him to forgive her for scaring him. Plaintiff’s mother went to South Middle School the next morning and told Mrs. Mida what had happened. Mrs. Mida told Plaintiff’s mother that she figured that since the girl apologized on her own, that the situation was handled. Plaintiff's mother demanded to have a meeting with the child's parents but Mrs. Mida said it wasn't possible, but that she would talk to the little girl's mother.
4

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 5 of 28 Pg ID 5
6. Plaintiff's mother tried for two days to find out what happened with the conversation with Katana Vaughn’s mother. When plaintiff's mother finally caught up with Mrs. Mida, she said "Oh her mother said that they are good Christian people and Katana would never do that." Plaintiff’s mother told Mrs. Mida that was not acceptable and reminded her that she had seen the note Katana had written and that the child needed to be disciplined, but nothing was ever done.
7. Plaintiff was forced to take gym and the school said that the only way he could opt out was if he had a physical handicap. For days he would change in the bathroom because he wouldn't change with the girls. He changed in the stalls but there were cracks and the same girls stood directly outside his stall when he would change.
8. Seth's gym teachers yelled at him for being late to class because he took longer to go to the girl's bathroom to change. Eventually he went to the bathroom because the girls wouldn't stop hanging outside the stalls.
9. Plaintiff's mother went in and spoke with both of the gym teachers but they refused to take action.
10. Plaintiff's mother requested that Ms. Mida remove Plaintiff from gym class, but was told that people have to do things in life that they don't want to do. Plaintiff started to throw up daily after gym at that point because of the severe harassment.
11. Between September 6 and October 17, 2011, Plaintiff was called fag, queer, and he/she at school.
12. Plaintiff's mother went to the office almost daily. 13. Four female students told Plaintiff that they kill dykes like him. Plaintiff turned and ran to
his locker and while doing so, the girls said, “You better be afraid bitch,” and laughed.
5

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 6 of 28 Pg ID 6
14. Plaintiff’s mother saw Mrs. Mida about this threat. Plaintiff didn't know the names of the girls, but he knew their faces. Plaintiff’s mother suggested having Seth look at the yearbook from the prior school year to pick out who did this to him when he came to school the next day. Mrs. Mida agreed to walk Seth to his classes the next day.
15. Mrs. Mida walked Plaintiff to his very first class, but abandoned him after that. On this particular day, Plaintiff's mother walked in Mrs. Mida’s office expecting Seth to pick the girls' pictures out, but she had an excuse that she was going to walk Seth to class and that they would take care of it after first hour when she picked him up. That never happened.
16. When plaintiff's mother picked him up from school Plaintiff was sick and anxious. The same girls followed him to gym. When Plaintiff’s mother asked Mrs. Mida what happened, she said she forgot to walk him to the rest of his classes. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother went into Mrs. Mida’s office and she told Seth that “When you get older you'll forget all about the kids that didn't like that you were a tomboy and you will develop into a beautiful woman and…" Seth stood up and said "I am a boy" before plaintiff's mother had the chance to. Plaintiff's mother again reminded her that those four girls threatened to kill her son. Mrs. Mida said, "It was their word against hers," and she refused to do protect Plaintiff.
17. Mrs. Mida was unavailable from that point on. Plaintiff’s mother eventually demanded to see Mr. Wilkinson, an interim principal at South Middle School. Plaintiff’s mother made several appointments to see him. At every appointment he would say the same things such as, "If she is going to dress like a boy she needs to toughen up." He said "It was Olivia's words against four girls." Mr. Wilkinson said that "The school would be better off without a troublemaker like her." 6

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 7 of 28 Pg ID 7
18. On or about November 1, 2011 a meeting was held with Mr. Wilkinson according to a certified letter he sent Plaintiff’s mother. In this letter, Mr. Wilkinson threatened Plaintiff’s mother with truancy charges. At that point, Mr. Wilkinson had threatened Plaintiff’s mother with CPS several times.
19. Seth never returned to school after October 17, 2011 because Mrs. Mida failed to discipline Katana Vaughn and the four girls that threatened to kill him. The administration at South Middle School said Seth needed to make the changes by dressing more feminine and that he wasn't allowed to use the boy's restroom.
20. Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to see Superintendent Mr. Van Tassel on three separate occasions. She also left him several voice mails. She even walked in two times demanding to see him. She explained that her child had been out of school for a very long time and that she needed help so that her child could get back in school, but she never received a reply.
21. In January 2012, Plaintiff’s mother decided to look into different school options because of the harassment. Plaintiff’s mother chose Summit Academy- Romulus campus.
22. After Seth was tested, the special education department at Summit advised Plaintiff’s mother that Seth needed to go down a grade. Plaintiff’s mother had a meeting with the principal and special education teacher and advised them of Seth's transitioning. They said that there wouldn't be a problem; however, they refused to call him by his name, Seth, or even an alternative nickname.
23. The staff and everyone involved at Summit Academy informed Plaintiff’s mother that they would "Not participate in any correspondence be it verbal or oral where Plaintiff’s
7

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 8 of 28 Pg ID 8
mother did not support Olivia in her emotional and mental potential or it would be to her and [my] detriment." 24. When Plaintiff left South Middle School he started to experience a psychosomatic pain condition and within a few months he was in a wheelchair. This was caused by the mental and emotional distress that had taken its physical toll on the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ actions. 25. In February 2012, Seth started to miss a lot of school. This was due to the psychosomatic pain and vomiting from being bullying by staff and students. Plaintiff’s mother then asked about homebound school. 26. On or about February 16, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Amy Gray from special education over the phone and requested that Plaintiff’s mother "Fax over the diagnosis of dystonia to her and she could get the ball rolling on the homebound instruction." Seth was seeing his new neurologist Dr. Sivaswami at that time. Plaintiff's mother faxed the report to Summit Academy, attention Amy Gray on February 23, 2012. On it, plaintiff's mother made a note that the hard copy would be brought into school. The same day Plaintiff’s mother faxed the report, emailed the school and asked them if they had a wheelchair they could borrow until insurance paid for one. When Plaintiff’s mother talked to them about this at a later date, Mrs. Clark the fifth grade teacher, Mr. Alex Chapman the principal, and Ria Cole the superintendent, refused to provide Seth with accommodations. 27. Plaintiff’s mother hand-delivered the information to Mrs. Clark herself. Jan, the secretary at Dr. Frederelli's office faxed the homebound paperwork several times because
8

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 9 of 28 Pg ID 9
they kept saying that they never received it. There were fax confirmations from the doctor's office that Jan sent the documents dated March 15, 2012. 28. On March 28, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother received an Email from Kathryn Griffin, the special education director. The email said that she acknowledged receiving documentation on March 28, 2012, when the fax confirmations actually said she received it on March 15. After receiving it, they had 15 days to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Ms. Griffin said that she "has someone in mind for a teacher, but it wasn’t exactly positive. She wasn't sure that was going to work.” The potential teacher was in the process of registering for school and had to check her schedule at that time. They were not adhering to mandatory deadlines and were not taking this seriously. 29. Also, the same day Kathryn Griffin asked Plaintiff’s mother for any paperwork that she may have from the old school that may help out. Van Buren had already sent over Seth’s file at that point. She clearly had not reviewed or looked at it when it was sent. Plaintiff’s mother had to contact RESA and they intervened. An RESA representative called Summit and told them they only had a certain amount of days to get Seth into school. 30. On April 17, 2012, Homebound IEP was finally held, which was beyond 30 days after it was faxed from the doctor's office. 31. During the IEP, they discussed who the teacher would be. Ms. Clark was the fifth grade teacher and she agreed to do it but she would only do it Tuesdays and Thursdays because of her school schedule and “Fridays were her date nights with her husband.” They also talked about the fact that Seth was transitioning and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted him to be referred to as Seth. Ms. Clark refused to do so. Plaintiff’s mother stated that she felt
9

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 10 of 28 Pg ID 10
that their lack of cooperation and understanding was where Seth’s depression and a lot of the other issues were coming from. 32. Ms. Griffin said that Plaintiff’s mother was free to hire her own teacher if she would like to. 33. Ms. Clark stated she would not call a child that is clearly a female by a male name and that it was “not appropriate to make her feel that way.” Ms. Clark had never even met Seth. Seth lived as a boy and Plaintiff’s mother tried to explain that. Plaintiff’s mother explained that her son has been known as Seth the whole time but no one would allow it, but Ms. Griffin she said that it was too late now. Plaintiff’s mother was left again with no choice. The staff, administration and teachers all again reiterated that any and all correspondence had to be of Plaintiff as Olivia. 34. On or about August 30, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went to meet-your-teacher night at Summit. Plaintiff’s mother talked to Seth's teacher Robin Pierce about Seth being transgender. She also brought some information for her to read explaining transgender people and the transitioning process, including the importance of Seth being referred to in masculine terms. Ms. Pierce said she would get back to Plaintiff’s mother, but eventually said she said was not allowed to refer to Seth in masculine terms. 35. On or about September 14, 2012 was picture day. Seth's picture was zoomed in on his face, so none of his wheelchair showed in the picture. 36. Plaintiff’s mother requested to amend the IEP based on Seth's problems he was having in his class, but was denied the right. Approximately one week prior to October 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went into class and asked Ms. Pierce why several of Seth's papers were being marked down or marked as incomplete. Plaintiff’s mother told her a few times that Plaintiff had trouble with his penmanship and because his hands hurt and spasmed, which
10

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 11 of 28 Pg ID 11
caused by his penmanship to change literally from hour to hour. Ms. Pierce ignored Plaintiff’s mother and she said she needed to leave. Plaintiff’s mother and Ms. Pierce had another interaction over the same subject matter that same week and Ms. Pierce informed Plaintiff’s mother that she was only legally required to stick to the IEP, so Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to amend it. 37. The meeting to amend the IEP was scheduled for October 3, 2012. Everyone showed up including the principal, Mr. Chapman. The school refused to amend the IEP. 38. Plaintiff’s mother brought in the diagnosis of dystonia and samples of how beautifully Seth used to write; Plaintiff’s mother showed how Seth’s penmanship had deteriorated over the last few years and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted the IEP to be amended. 39. Ms. Pierce refused to accept entire papers due to Seth’s penmanship problems. Plaintiff’s mother told her that if Seth is anxious or nervous he gets spasms and he experienced them in his hands too. Sometimes his hands were fine but other times they weren’t. Ms. Pierce stopped Plaintiff’s mother and said “who are you talking about?” with a smirk. “Are we talking about the same person?” As though to mock that they were talking about Olivia as a boy. 40. Ms. Pierce said “do you mean to tell me that since Olivia has triple the time to finish her work when she misses a day of school, which is the longest of any child I've ever had, she doesn't have any amount of time that she doesn't have an episode?” 41. Mr. Chapman stopped the entire meeting and said that they were not amending an IEP for this. Ms. Grace said, "We need some diagnosis to continue to give services to her, she doesn't seem to have all these things wrong that you say she has wrong." Plaintiff’s mother wasn't the one who diagnosed him. His doctors had.
11

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 12 of 28 Pg ID 12
42. Mr. Chapman told Plaintiff’s mother that he thinks she likes the attention and Olivia has suffered for it. Plaintiff’s mother said that these were grades and Seth has a handicap that isn’t being taking into consideration when giving those grades and that they were making it worse and causing more anxiety. Mr. Chapman said he wasn't doing it. He stood up and said “Have a nice day Ms. Tooley.”
43. On or about October 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Seth's doctor and asked for all the diagnoses that they had on record, so she could keep getting him services at Summit while she decided whether or not she was going to take him out. Seth was very unhappy there but he was afraid to go to a regular public school. He liked that at Summit he wore a uniform. In a uniform, he didn't stick out and he could disappear into the crowd.
44. Summit called CPS stating that Plaintiff’s mother had Munchhausen syndrome. CPS concluded that the complaint was unfounded.
45. Plaintiff’s mother then took Plaintiff out of Summit. 46. On or about December 4, 2012, Plaintiff started sixth grade at Wilson Middle School. 47. On or about January 14, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother turned in her part of the evaluation
paperwork to enroll Seth, and followed up via email. Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Dr. Brown, the school psychologist, that week regarding Seth being transgender. 48. Plaintiff’s mother also spoke with Maria Sutka about Seth needing to be referred to as Seth and about having access to the boy's bathroom. Plaintiff’s mother was told that it was in Olivia's best interests to be referred to as Olivia and to use female pronouns, even though he had been living as a male for years.
12

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 13 of 28 Pg ID 13
49. Plaintiff’s mother let the teachers and administration know that she wasn't going to allow this. That all of Seth’s doctors and psychologists stated that the fact that his gender identity had been denied for so many years, was causing his psychosomatic pain.
50. It wasn't until a month after Maria Sutka, the social worker, spoke with his therapist that she agreed to allow Seth to be referred to as such, but they still made Seth use the staff ladies room across from the cafeteria.
51. When Plaintiff’s mother complained enough, they told Seth about another bathroom. The bathroom was unisex, but they didn't tell him about the bathroom until they were doing construction on the front office. By that time the unisex bathroom was closed most of the time.
52. Seth was warned to never try to use the boy's bathroom upstairs. It was a trough urinal and there were no doors. He was told that if boys caught him sneaking, they would see him and he would probably get hurt. Maria Sutka said to Seth, “who would be there for your sister if someone hurts you?”
53. On or about May 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother emailed the social worker, Maria Sutka, requesting the principal's email address so she could make yet another unsuccessful attempt at an appointment with him.
54. Ms. Alt, Seth's math teacher, made a hurtful comment about Seth. Seth had missed a week of school and when he came back, Ms. Alt asked the co-teacher, Mr. Crease, if Seth was there? Plaintiff kindly said yes. Mr. Crease was standing next to Seth working with him and she said “Wow that's a surprise.” Seth fought tears as hard as he could and the kids laughed at him. He then asked to go to the bathroom, but Ms. Alt denied him permission, so he stayed there with everyone staring at him.
13

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 14 of 28 Pg ID 14
55. The next week, Ms. Alt called Plaintiff Olivia three times in roll call. Plaintiff’s mother finally met with Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt refused to see Plaintiff’s mother at first, but finally met with Plaintiff’s mother and said she would make a conscious effort to stop calling Plaintiff Olivia. Ms. Alt placed the blame on Plaintiff’s mother saying that if she wanted the name to be different, she should change it legally. During the meeting Ms. Alt told Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother that her sister had a type of arthritis, so she understood Seth's pain. Ms. Alt told Seth that he needed to work through his pain and not let it own him. Plaintiff’s mother asked Ms. Alt about Seth's IEP and the math disability and how the school could help him succeed. Ms. Alt said that Plaintiff needed to stop missing school or he will not succeed, right in front of him.
56. On or about June 17, 2013, Cindy Hough, special education director at Wilson Middle School outed Seth to another student’s mother during her son's IEP. Marcy Mayrand, a neighbor and the mother of a boy that Seth played with, called Plaintiff’s mother telling her that Ms. Hough just stepped out of her son’s IEP to make copies and that Ms. Hough mentioned Olivia Tooley. Ms. Hough asked Marcy Mayrand if she knew that her son’s friend, who he has been playing with all summer, is a girl? Marcy was bragging to Mrs. Hough about how well her son Sean's behavior had been since he had found a friend in Seth. Marcy felt Seth was a good influence on her son. Plaintiff’s mother drove to the meeting and went to see Mrs. Hough. When Plaintiff’s mother arrived, Marcy recorded the conversation. Ms. Hough basically made excuses as to why she outed the Plaintiff.
57. After the meeting, Plaintiff’s mother requested, seven times in writing, to receive a meeting with Dr. Carla Harding, the superintendent, and Mr. Krajewski the principal.
14

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 15 of 28 Pg ID 15
Plaintiff’s mother called and left voicemails and also went into the Principal’s office twice. Mr. Krajewski just refused to speak with Plaintiff’s mother. 58. On or about June 26, 2013, Seth's schoolmate, who worked with his older brother at the concession stand at Bishop Park, called Seth a “fucking faggot” and refused to sell him and a friend water. Plaintiff’s mother filed a formal complaint with the head of parks and recreation about what happened, but nothing was done. They told Plaintiff’s mother to have her son stay away from their concession stand because of their religious rights. 59. The younger boy who was at the concession stand was from Seth's school and told Plaintiff’s mother that their principal had told him that Seth was a girl. The next day, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Maria Sutka and told her she needed to know where and when she could get into contact with Mr. Jason Krajewski. Plaintiff’s mother told Maria Sutka what happened at the park and that several other students told her that Mr. Krajewski outed Seth. Plaintiff’s mother also found out that a classmate’s mother refused to let her kids play with Seth after Mr. Krajewski told her that Seth was in fact a female. 60. On or about July 15, 2013 was Nate Adkins first attack of Seth. Nate Adkins was a boy that Seth went to school with. He was an eighth grader at Wilson Middle School in Wyandotte. Chris Sizemore was another boy in Seth's seventh hour language arts class that Seth had problems with. 61. Because Seth wasn't allowed to use the regular boy's bathroom, he was forced to use the women's staff restroom which was clearly marked as such. This bathroom was right outside the cafeteria. Nate saw Seth come out of the bathroom one afternoon, laughed at him and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?” Then laughed and called him a fag
15

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 16 of 28 Pg ID 16
while walking away. Seth told his mother about this and she immediately made an appointment with Ms. Sutka, but it was dismissed as Seth being overly sensitive. 62. On or about July 15, 2013, Seth was at Pulaski Park with a friend and a few smaller boys all talking about their bikes, when out of the blue, Seth looked up because he recognized one of the voices. It was Nate Adkins. Nate walked up behind him and pushed Seth’s neighborhood friend off his bike, got in Seth's face, laughed and said, “You better run fag. Are you scared? I'll rape you straight.” Seth ran away so hard he was injured. Seth fractured his elbow and he hit his ear and his face. That child was eventually prosecuted. 63. Early September 2013, Seth started at a new school, OW Best Middle School in Dearborn Heights. 64. Seth was basically accepted by staff but was not allowed to use the boy's bathroom. 65. Mr. Zemerowski made comments every day at lunch when Seth was sitting with his female friends. Mr. Zemerowski would come up behind Seth, pat him on the back, and say “Have a nice day ladies.” Plaintiff’s mother let Mr. Zemerowski know several times that it bothered Plaintiff, but he still did it. Mr. Zemerowski told Plaintiff’s mother many times that it would have been a lot easier if Seth was just honest with everyone. 66. On or about November 11, 2013, Vice Principal, Ms. Portescheler saw Seth and his girlfriend hold hands in the hallway. It was Plaintiff’s first girlfriend and he didn't know he couldn't hold hands with his girlfirend. When the vice principal saw it, she went up to Seth and his girlfriend and told them to stop now or they would both be in detention. 67. When Plaintiff’s mother picked up Seth from school he told his mother what happened. He was embarrassed, but Plaintiff’s mother told him it was okay and they moved on with
16

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 17 of 28 Pg ID 17
their Friday evening. Around dinnertime, Seth received a text from his girlfriend that she wanted to call him when he was done eating. 68. Seth’s girlfriend said that Mrs. Portercheler had called and told her mother what happened at school and that her mom was making her break up with the Plaintiff. Then Seth’s girlfriend said “Are you a girl? She told my mom you're a girl. Are you a girl? Tell me the truth.” 69. Mrs. Portescheller outed Seth to his girlfriend’s parents. 70. Seth experienced kidney infections due to not being allowed to use the bathroom. He was in the hospital at Children's on or about April 1, 2014. 71. Plaintiff’s mother called an IEP around April 2014 because Plaintiff had a math disability, but when he asked for help, they told him that he needed to stop missing so much school.
COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. 72. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint. 73. Defendants have a custom, policy or procedure of discriminating against students on the basis of sex, specifically transgender individuals. This custom, policy, or procedure allows their employees and agents to violate the constitutional rights of students, like Plaintiff. 74. In addition, Defendants have also been given notice on repeated occasions of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices against students by Defendants and the
17

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 18 of 28 Pg ID 18
agents under their supervision. Said patterns and practices have resulted in, and continue to result in the wrongful injury to transgender students, particularly to Plaintiff. 75. Despite notice, Defendants have demonstrated deliberate indifference to these patterns and practices of constitutional violations by failing to take necessary, appropriate, or adequate measures to prevent their continued perpetration. This lack of adequate response by Defendants demonstrates the existence of a custom or policy by Defendants that tolerates and promotes the continued violation of civil rights of American citizens by Defendants and others under Defendants' supervision. 76. By committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, while acting under color of law, have demonstrated a deliberate indifference to clearly established law. 77. Defendants and persons acting under color of state law and as agents of, and/or in collusion with, Defendant School Districts, caused a constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff's rights, namely the loss of Equal Protection under the law and a loss of Substantive Due Process under the law. 78. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendant violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right by arbitrarily depriving Plaintiff and other transgender individuals of protected interests. 79. Defendants' willful, wanton and malicious denial of necessary and appropriate medical treatment to Plaintiff, while acting under color of law, denied Plaintiff his right to Substantive Due Process and his right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
18

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 19 of 28 Pg ID 19
80. Defendants also violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process right by failing to train educators to handle and understand the needs of transgender individuals.
81. Defendants further violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by failing to provide equal access to educational opportunity to Plaintiff as they did to Plaintiff's peers.
82. The intentional, willful and wanton act of Defendants establishes a claim for punitive damages by Plaintiff against non-governmental Defendants.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policies and acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained physical injury, pain and suffering in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT II: SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE IX
20 U.S.C. sections 1681 et. seq. 84. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the
factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint. 85. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides in relevant part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance .... 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 86. The public and charter school funding is a program or activity within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
19

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 20 of 28 Pg ID 20
87. The acts complained of herein constitute a violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights under 20 U.S.C. §1681 et. seq. by effectively denying the benefits to transsexual individuals on the basis of their sex, and by failing to accord transsexual individuals equal treatment and benefits.
88. Defendants' acts in denying Plaintiff adequate accommodations in an educational environment were done with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health and wellbeing.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth under Title IX.
COUNT III: SEX-BASED HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE IV of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-2000c-9 89. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the
factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint. 90. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6, prohibits discrimination on
the basis of, among other things, race, color, and/or national origin in public schools, which deprives individuals of the equal protection of the laws. Actual knowledge of and a clearly unreasonable response to severe or pervasive harassment, which bars students from enjoying the educational benefits afforded to them based on race, sex, gender, color, and/or national origin, constitutes discrimination. 91. Defendants' deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment to which a transgender student was subjected as alleged in paragraphs 1-47, effectively barred him equal access to educational opportunities. Defendants' acts and omissions as alleged in paragraphs 1-72, deny transgender students the equal protection
20

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 21 of 28 Pg ID 21
of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOTT LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 68. At all material times, Plaintiff was an student, and defendants were public institutions, covered by and within the meaning of Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq. 69. Plaintiff’s sex was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of him. 70. Defendants, through their agents, representatives, and employees, were predisposed to discriminate on the basis of sex and acted in accordance with that predisposition. 71. Defendant treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated male students in the terms and conditions of his education, based on unlawful consideration of sex. 72. Defendants’ actions were intentional and disregarded for Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities. 73. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about the unlawful treatment that he was experiencing, in violation of the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act. 74. As a direct result of defendant’s unlawful actions Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
21

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 22 of 28 Pg ID 22
75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
76. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal protection rights of Seth Tooley guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional. 77. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of the Defendants
as other similarly situated students were. 78. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth Tooley and the rest of
the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
79. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VI FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS 80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 81. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was openly transgender and held himself out as such to his family, peers, work colleagues, teachers, administrators, and the public at large.
22

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 23 of 28 Pg ID 23
82. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was also a vocal supporter of his own status and the legal rights of transgender people.
83. Plaintiff Seth Tooley is ensured his right to Free Speech and expressive conduct as demonstrated in his journals and conversations with peers and friends by the First Amendment.
84. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was retaliated against by his peers for being openly homosexual and expressing himself in manners protected by the First Amendment.
85. Defendant’s failure to punish or protect the harassing students and staff or Seth Tooley, respectively, is a violation of Plaintiff Tooley’s right to free speech as under the United States Constitution.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE MICHIGAN
CONSTITUTION 86. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated
herein. 87. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal protection rights of Seth Tooley, guaranteed by M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional. 88. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of the Defendant as other similarly situated students were.
23

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 24 of 28 Pg ID 24
89. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth Tooley and the rest of the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
90. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Rights.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VIII GROSS NEGLIGENCE 91. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 92. At all times material to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff, and to any student attending to keep students safe, to supervise conduct at the school, and/or to maintain an environment conductive to learning. 93. Defendant’s wrongful conduct includes but is not limited to the following: a. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their District Code; b. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their School Regulations and Rules;
c. Failure to take appropriate and proper remedial action to preserve a safe environment conductive to learning;
24

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 25 of 28 Pg ID 25
d. Failure to protect Plaintiff from pervasive physical and emotional abuse of which they had knowledge;
e. Failure to train school staff, teachers, principals and counselors on taking the appropriate actions to protect students and provide an equal opportunity educational environment.
94. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants breached the above duties and all other applicable duties and thereby was grossly negligent and/or guilty of conduct amounting to intentional willful and/or wanton misconduct. Defendant’s actions were reckless and demonstrated a substantial lack of concern as to whether injury or death resulted, thereby subjecting Defendant to liability under Michigan statutes and law.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.\
COUNT IX 42 USC 1983 VIOLATION PURSUANT TO MONELL
95. The Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of execution of the Districts’ policies and customs, pursuant to Monell v Department of Soc Servs, 436 US 658, 690 (1978).
96. Plaintiff’s constitutional deprivations resulted from the Districts’ customs and procedures.
97. The Districts’ failure to train employees, staff, and administration, gives rise to the Districts’ liability resulting from the Districts’ employee-caused constitutional violations.
25

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 26 of 28 Pg ID 26

WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.

COUNT X

42 USC 1983- VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGH SUPERVISION, CUSTOMS, POLICIES, ACUIESCENCE AND TRAINING

98. Plaintiff incorporates herein all other prior allegations.

99. The Defendant Districts had an obligation to train is administrative staff, teachers,

counselors and employees regarding the constitutional rights of citizens under the

constitution, including but not limited to that they take action to protect students from

harassment and discrimination based on sex.

100.

The Defendant districts had an obligation to supervise its administrative staff,

teachers, counselors and employees to insure that the constitutional rights of citizens

under the Constitution were not violated, including the right not to be subjected to be

free from a deprivation of liberty, property, bodily security and integrity without due

process of law, and not to expose a greater risk of danger at the hands of the State.

101.

The Defendant districts failed to comply with the aforementioned obligations and

had a custom or policy of acting with deliberate indifference to the violations of the constitutional rights of the State’s citizens and had a custom or policy of failing to train

and/or failing to supervise school district employees regarding the protection/violation of

those constitutional rights and/or failing to discipline employees who violated those

constitutional rights.

26

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 27 of 28 Pg ID 27

WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

102.

The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in paragraphs 1-101 above.

103.

Students in the Districts’ schools, including but not limited to the Plaintiff, have

been harassed by their peers with derogatory language, threats, and physical assaults

because of their nonconformity to gender stereotypes and/or sexually harassed by their

peers. Sex-based harassment in the Districts is severe, pervasive, or persistent, and has

denied or limited students' abilities to participate in or benefit from the District's

educational program.

104.

In some instances, the District should have known of the harassment but failed to

investigate, address, and/or stop the harassment. In most instances involving Plaintiff,

Plaintiff himself and his mother have reported sex-based harassment to school and

District officials. District officials clearly knew of the harassment but the District either

took no action or its response was inadequate. The harassment continued and in many

instances escalated.

105.

A hostile environment exists in the Districts, and the Districts’ existing policies

and procedures have contributed to the hostile environment.

106.

The District's failure to appropriately and adequately address sex-based

harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-

27

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 28 of 28 Pg ID 28

2000c-9, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

107.

Unless enjoined by this court, the District will continue to violate the Plaintiff’s

state, federal and Constitutional rights. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief from allowing

the Districts from continuing their discriminatory policies and procedures.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests a monetary judgment for the actual damages

sustained together with statutory fees, reasonable attorney fees, interest, and costs.

Respectfully Submitted,

\

THE RASOR LAW FIRM

Dated: September 5, 2014

/s/ James B. Rasor _______________________________ James B. Rasor (P43476) Jonathan R. Marko (P72450) 201 East Fourth St. Royal Oak MI 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com jrm@rasorlawfirm.com

28

 
 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISCTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY TOOLEY, as Next Friend of SETH TOOLEY,

Plaintiff, vs. -
VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, South Middle School Principal, KAREN MIDA, ROBERT WILKINSON, South Middle Superintendent, MICHAEL VAN TASSEL, VAN BUREN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, BRENT MIKULSKI, MARTHA TOTH, SHERRY FRAZIER, KEVIN ENGLISH, KATHY KOVACH, SCOTT RUSSELL, KELLY OWEN, Individually,

Case No.: 14-cv-13466-ACC-DRG HON. AVERN COHN

SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH DISTRICT, Superintendent, ALISON CANCILLIARI, Principal, ALEX CHAPMAN; Assistant Principal, RIA COLE, Special Services Director, CATHERINE GRIFFIN; SUMMIT ACADEMY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Board Members

WYANDOTTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Superintendent, DR. CARLA HARDING, Social Worker, MARIA SUTKA, Psychologist, DR. VIKTOR BROWN; Wilson Middle School Principal, JASON KRAJEWSKI, WYANDOTTE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, ROBERT KIRBY, CHRISTOPHER CALVIN, PATRICK SUTKA, STEPHANIE MIELLO, Trustees, KATHRYN BEDIKIAN, DANA BROWNING, MICHAEL SWIECKI, Individually.

DEARBORN HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, JEFFREY L. BARTOLD, Superintendent, JON ZNAMEROWSKI, OW Best Middle School Principal, CLAUDIA PORTSCHELLER, OW Best Middle School Vice Principal.

Defendants. 1

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 102
_______________________________________________/ THE RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC James B. Rasor (P43476) Jonathan Marko (P72450) Attorney for Plaintiffs 201 E. Fourth Street Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com jrm@rasorlawfirm.com ________________________________________________/
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RELIEANCE ON JURY DEMAND NOW COMES the above named Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, The Rasor Law Firm, and for her First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and under the statutes and common law of the State of Michigan. 2. This lawsuit arises out of events occurring within the Cities of Wyandotte, Dearborn Heights, Van Buren, and Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 3. Jurisdiction is based upon Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 1681 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. (Title IV). The amount in controversy in this case is well in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
2

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 103
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Kimberly Tooley as Next Friend of Seth Tooley, is a resident of the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 5. Defendants, South Middle School and its administrators: Karen Mida, South Middle School Principal; Robert Wilkinson, Interim Principal of South Middle School; Michael Van Tassel, Interim Principal of South Middle School are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Van Buren, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 6. Defendants, Summit Academy Charter Public School and its administrators: Amy Grey; Ms. Clark; Mr. Alex Chapman, Principal; Ria Cole, Superintendent; Catherine Griffin; Robin Paris; Ms. Nelson are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 7. Defendants, Wilson Middle School and its administrators: Maria Sutka, Dr. Brown, Psychologist; Ms. Alt; Mr. Krease; Cindy Hough; Dr. Carla Harding, Superintendent; Jason Krajewski are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Wyandotte, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 8. Defendants, O.W. Best Middle School and its administrators: Jon Znamerowski, Principal and Claudia Portscheller, Vice Principal are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
3

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 104
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is a 14 year old boy. He was born as a girl, named Olivia, but has since
transitioned, and now goes by Seth Tooley. He has experienced overwhelming instances of harassment and discrimination because of his transition, as outline below.
2. Plaintiff, Seth Tooley began sixth grade at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan on September 6, 2011. Approximately a week later, Plaintiff was passed a note during class to him by a classmate, Katana Vaughn. He waited until he returned home to open it. The letter told him he was going to go to hell because of the way he dressed and there was a rainbow colored on it.
3. The next morning, Plaintiff's mother called Karen Mida, the vice principal at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan. Mrs. Mida knew Seth and plaintiff's mother for years, as she was the principal at South Elementary School and was aware of who Seth was, and of Seth's transitioning. Plaintiff’s mother brought her the note and she made light of it, saying that Katana comes from a good family. Ms. Mida made a copy of the note. She said it was for Seth's file and kept the original note and said she would take care of it, but never did.
4. That same day Seth got off the bus and ran through the door upset. He had urinated himself because he was scolded for attempting to walk into the boy's bathroom, so he just didn't go all day long.
5. Also that same day, Plaintiff was given another note from the same little girl that told him he was going to go to hell the day prior. Inside it, she asked him to forgive her for scaring him. Plaintiff’s mother went to South Middle School the next morning and told Mrs. Mida what had happened. Mrs. Mida told Plaintiff’s mother that she figured that
4

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 105
since the girl apologized on her own, that the situation was handled. Plaintiff's mother demanded to have a meeting with the child's parents but Mrs. Mida said it wasn't possible, but that she would talk to the little girl's mother.
6. Plaintiff's mother tried for two days to find out what happened with the conversation with Katana Vaughn’s mother. When plaintiff's mother finally caught up with Mrs. Mida, she said "Oh her mother said that they are good Christian people and Katana would never do that." Plaintiff’s mother told Mrs. Mida that was not acceptable and reminded her that she had seen the note Katana had written and that the child needed to be disciplined, but nothing was ever done.
7. Plaintiff was forced to take gym and the school said that the only way he could opt out was if he had a physical handicap. For days he would change in the bathroom because he wouldn't change with the girls. He changed in the stalls but there were cracks and the same girls stood directly outside his stall when he would change.
8. Seth's gym teachers yelled at him for being late to class because he took longer to go to the girl's bathroom to change. Eventually he went to the bathroom because the girls wouldn't stop hanging outside the stalls.
9. Plaintiff's mother went in and spoke with both of the gym teachers but they refused to take action.
10. Plaintiff's mother requested that Ms. Mida remove Plaintiff from gym class, but was told that people have to do things in life that they don't want to do. Plaintiff started to throw up daily after gym at that point because of the severe harassment.
11. Between September 6 and October 17, 2011, Plaintiff was called fag, queer, and he/she at school. 5

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 106
12. Plaintiff's mother went to the office almost daily. 13. Four female students told Plaintiff that they kill dykes like him. Plaintiff turned and ran to
his locker and while doing so, the girls said, “You better be afraid bitch,” and laughed.
14. Plaintiff’s mother saw Mrs. Mida about this threat. Plaintiff didn't know the names of the girls, but he knew their faces. Plaintiff’s mother suggested having Seth look at the yearbook from the prior school year to pick out who did this to him when he came to school the next day. Mrs. Mida agreed to walk Seth to his classes the next day.
15. Mrs. Mida walked Plaintiff to his very first class, but abandoned him after that. On this particular day, Plaintiff's mother walked in Mrs. Mida’s office expecting Seth to pick the girls' pictures out, but she had an excuse that she was going to walk Seth to class and that they would take care of it after first hour when she picked him up. That never happened.
16. When plaintiff's mother picked him up from school Plaintiff was sick and anxious. The same girls followed him to gym. When Plaintiff’s mother asked Mrs. Mida what happened, she said she forgot to walk him to the rest of his classes. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother went into Mrs. Mida’s office and she told Seth that “When you get older you'll forget all about the kids that didn't like that you were a tomboy and you will develop into a beautiful woman and…" Seth stood up and said "I am a boy" before plaintiff's mother had the chance to. Plaintiff's mother again reminded her that those four girls threatened to kill her son. Mrs. Mida said, "It was their word against hers," and she refused to do protect Plaintiff.
17. Mrs. Mida was unavailable from that point on. Plaintiff’s mother eventually demanded to see Mr. Wilkinson, an interim principal at South Middle School. Plaintiff’s mother made several appointments to see him. At every appointment he would say the same 6

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 107
things such as, "If she is going to dress like a boy she needs to toughen up." He said "It was Olivia's words against four girls." Mr. Wilkinson said that "The school would be better off without a troublemaker like her."
18. On or about November 1, 2011 a meeting was held with Mr. Wilkinson according to a certified letter he sent Plaintiff’s mother. In this letter, Mr. Wilkinson threatened Plaintiff’s mother with truancy charges. At that point, Mr. Wilkinson had threatened Plaintiff’s mother with CPS several times.
19. Seth never returned to school after October 17, 2011 because Mrs. Mida failed to discipline Katana Vaughn and the four girls that threatened to kill him. The administration at South Middle School said Seth needed to make the changes by dressing more feminine and that he wasn't allowed to use the boy's restroom.
20. Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to see Superintendent Mr. Van Tassel on three separate occasions. She also left him several voice mails. She even walked in two times demanding to see him. She explained that her child had been out of school for a very long time and that she needed help so that her child could get back in school, but she never received a reply.
21. In January 2012, Plaintiff’s mother decided to look into different school options because of the harassment. Plaintiff’s mother chose Summit Academy- Romulus campus.
22. After Seth was tested, the special education department at Summit advised Plaintiff’s mother that Seth needed to go down a grade. Plaintiff’s mother had a meeting with the principal and special education teacher and advised them of Seth's transitioning. They said that there wouldn't be a problem; however, they refused to call him by his name, Seth, or even an alternative nickname. 7

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 108
23. The staff and everyone involved at Summit Academy informed Plaintiff’s mother that they would "Not participate in any correspondence be it verbal or oral where Plaintiff’s mother did not support Olivia in her emotional and mental potential or it would be to her and [my] detriment."
24. When Plaintiff left South Middle School he started to experience a psychosomatic pain condition and within a few months he was in a wheelchair. This was caused by the mental and emotional distress that had taken its physical toll on the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ actions.
25. In February 2012, Seth started to miss a lot of school. This was due to the psychosomatic pain and vomiting from being bullying by staff and students. Plaintiff’s mother then asked about homebound school.
26. On or about February 16, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Amy Gray from special education over the phone and requested that Plaintiff’s mother "Fax over the diagnosis of dystonia to her and she could get the ball rolling on the homebound instruction." Seth was seeing his new neurologist Dr. Sivaswami at that time. Plaintiff's mother faxed the report to Summit Academy, attention Amy Gray on February 23, 2012. On it, plaintiff's mother made a note that the hard copy would be brought into school. The same day Plaintiff’s mother faxed the report, emailed the school and asked them if they had a wheelchair they could borrow until insurance paid for one. When Plaintiff’s mother talked to them about this at a later date, Mrs. Clark the fifth grade teacher, Mr. Alex Chapman the principal, and Ria Cole the superintendent, refused to provide Seth with accommodations.
8

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 109
27. Plaintiff’s mother hand-delivered the information to Mrs. Clark herself. Jan, the secretary at Dr. Frederelli's office faxed the homebound paperwork several times because they kept saying that they never received it. There were fax confirmations from the doctor's office that Jan sent the documents dated March 15, 2012.
28. On March 28, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother received an Email from Kathryn Griffin, the special education director. The email said that she acknowledged receiving documentation on March 28, 2012, when the fax confirmations actually said she received it on March 15. After receiving it, they had 15 days to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Ms. Griffin said that she "has someone in mind for a teacher, but it wasn’t exactly positive. She wasn't sure that was going to work.” The potential teacher was in the process of registering for school and had to check her schedule at that time. They were not adhering to mandatory deadlines and were not taking this seriously.
29. Also, the same day Kathryn Griffin asked Plaintiff’s mother for any paperwork that she may have from the old school that may help out. Van Buren had already sent over Seth’s file at that point. She clearly had not reviewed or looked at it when it was sent. Plaintiff’s mother had to contact RESA and they intervened. An RESA representative called Summit and told them they only had a certain amount of days to get Seth into school.
30. On April 17, 2012, Homebound IEP was finally held, which was beyond 30 days after it was faxed from the doctor's office.
31. During the IEP, they discussed who the teacher would be. Ms. Clark was the fifth grade teacher and she agreed to do it but she would only do it Tuesdays and Thursdays because of her school schedule and “Fridays were her date nights with her husband.” They also talked about the fact that Seth was transitioning and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted him to
9

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 110
be referred to as Seth. Ms. Clark refused to do so. Plaintiff’s mother stated that she felt that their lack of cooperation and understanding was where Seth’s depression and a lot of the other issues were coming from. 32. Ms. Griffin said that Plaintiff’s mother was free to hire her own teacher if she would like to. 33. Ms. Clark stated she would not call a child that is clearly a female by a male name and that it was “not appropriate to make her feel that way.” Ms. Clark had never even met Seth. Seth lived as a boy and Plaintiff’s mother tried to explain that. Plaintiff’s mother explained that her son has been known as Seth the whole time but no one would allow it, but Ms. Griffin she said that it was too late now. Plaintiff’s mother was left again with no choice. The staff, administration and teachers all again reiterated that any and all correspondence had to be of Plaintiff as Olivia. 34. On or about August 30, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went to meet-your-teacher night at Summit. Plaintiff’s mother talked to Seth's teacher Robin Pierce about Seth being transgender. She also brought some information for her to read explaining transgender people and the transitioning process, including the importance of Seth being referred to in masculine terms. Ms. Pierce said she would get back to Plaintiff’s mother, but eventually said she said was not allowed to refer to Seth in masculine terms. 35. On or about September 14, 2012 was picture day. Seth's picture was zoomed in on his face, so none of his wheelchair showed in the picture. 36. Plaintiff’s mother requested to amend the IEP based on Seth's problems he was having in his class, but was denied the right. Approximately one week prior to October 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went into class and asked Ms. Pierce why several of Seth's papers were being marked down or marked as incomplete. Plaintiff’s mother told her a few times that
10

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 111
Plaintiff had trouble with his penmanship and because his hands hurt and spasmed, which caused by his penmanship to change literally from hour to hour. Ms. Pierce ignored Plaintiff’s mother and she said she needed to leave. Plaintiff’s mother and Ms. Pierce had another interaction over the same subject matter that same week and Ms. Pierce informed Plaintiff’s mother that she was only legally required to stick to the IEP, so Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to amend it. 37. The meeting to amend the IEP was scheduled for October 3, 2012. Everyone showed up including the principal, Mr. Chapman. The school refused to amend the IEP. 38. Plaintiff’s mother brought in the diagnosis of dystonia and samples of how beautifully Seth used to write; Plaintiff’s mother showed how Seth’s penmanship had deteriorated over the last few years and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted the IEP to be amended. 39. Ms. Pierce refused to accept entire papers due to Seth’s penmanship problems. Plaintiff’s mother told her that if Seth is anxious or nervous he gets spasms and he experienced them in his hands too. Sometimes his hands were fine but other times they weren’t. Ms. Pierce stopped Plaintiff’s mother and said “who are you talking about?” with a smirk. “Are we talking about the same person?” As though to mock that they were talking about Olivia as a boy. 40. Ms. Pierce said “do you mean to tell me that since Olivia has triple the time to finish her work when she misses a day of school, which is the longest of any child I've ever had, she doesn't have any amount of time that she doesn't have an episode?” 41. Mr. Chapman stopped the entire meeting and said that they were not amending an IEP for this. Ms. Grace said, "We need some diagnosis to continue to give services to her, she
11

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 112
doesn't seem to have all these things wrong that you say she has wrong." Plaintiff’s mother wasn't the one who diagnosed him. His doctors had. 42. Mr. Chapman told Plaintiff’s mother that he thinks she likes the attention and Olivia has suffered for it. Plaintiff’s mother said that these were grades and Seth has a handicap that isn’t being taking into consideration when giving those grades and that they were making it worse and causing more anxiety. Mr. Chapman said he wasn't doing it. He stood up and said “Have a nice day Ms. Tooley.” 43. On or about October 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Seth's doctor and asked for all the diagnoses that they had on record, so she could keep getting him services at Summit while she decided whether or not she was going to take him out. Seth was very unhappy there but he was afraid to go to a regular public school. He liked that at Summit he wore a uniform. In a uniform, he didn't stick out and he could disappear into the crowd. 44. Summit called CPS stating that Plaintiff’s mother had Munchhausen syndrome. CPS concluded that the complaint was unfounded. 45. Plaintiff’s mother then took Plaintiff out of Summit. 46. On or about December 4, 2012, Plaintiff started sixth grade at Wilson Middle School. 47. On or about January 14, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother turned in her part of the evaluation paperwork to enroll Seth, and followed up via email. Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Dr. Brown, the school psychologist, that week regarding Seth being transgender. 48. Plaintiff’s mother also spoke with Maria Sutka about Seth needing to be referred to as Seth and about having access to the boy's bathroom. Plaintiff’s mother was told that it was in Olivia's best interests to be referred to as Olivia and to use female pronouns, even though he had been living as a male for years.
12

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 113
49. Plaintiff’s mother let the teachers and administration know that she wasn't going to allow this. That all of Seth’s doctors and psychologists stated that the fact that his gender identity had been denied for so many years, was causing his psychosomatic pain.
50. It wasn't until a month after Maria Sutka, the social worker, spoke with his therapist that she agreed to allow Seth to be referred to as such, but they still made Seth use the staff ladies room across from the cafeteria.
51. When Plaintiff’s mother complained enough, they told Seth about another bathroom. The bathroom was unisex, but they didn't tell him about the bathroom until they were doing construction on the front office. By that time the unisex bathroom was closed most of the time.
52. Seth was warned to never try to use the boy's bathroom upstairs. It was a trough urinal and there were no doors. He was told that if boys caught him sneaking, they would see him and he would probably get hurt. Maria Sutka said to Seth, “who would be there for your sister if someone hurts you?”
53. On or about May 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother emailed the social worker, Maria Sutka, requesting the principal's email address so she could make yet another unsuccessful attempt at an appointment with him.
54. Ms. Alt, Seth's math teacher, made a hurtful comment about Seth. Seth had missed a week of school and when he came back, Ms. Alt asked the co-teacher, Mr. Crease, if Seth was there? Plaintiff kindly said yes. Mr. Crease was standing next to Seth working with him and she said “Wow that's a surprise.” Seth fought tears as hard as he could and the kids laughed at him. He then asked to go to the bathroom, but Ms. Alt denied him permission, so he stayed there with everyone staring at him.
13

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 114
55. The next week, Ms. Alt called Plaintiff Olivia three times in roll call. Plaintiff’s mother finally met with Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt refused to see Plaintiff’s mother at first, but finally met with Plaintiff’s mother and said she would make a conscious effort to stop calling Plaintiff Olivia. Ms. Alt placed the blame on Plaintiff’s mother saying that if she wanted the name to be different, she should change it legally. During the meeting Ms. Alt told Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother that her sister had a type of arthritis, so she understood Seth's pain. Ms. Alt told Seth that he needed to work through his pain and not let it own him. Plaintiff’s mother asked Ms. Alt about Seth's IEP and the math disability and how the school could help him succeed. Ms. Alt said that Plaintiff needed to stop missing school or he will not succeed, right in front of him.
56. On or about June 17, 2013, Cindy Hough, special education director at Wilson Middle School outed Seth to another student’s mother during her son's IEP. Marcy Mayrand, a neighbor and the mother of a boy that Seth played with, called Plaintiff’s mother telling her that Ms. Hough just stepped out of her son’s IEP to make copies and that Ms. Hough mentioned Olivia Tooley. Ms. Hough asked Marcy Mayrand if she knew that her son’s friend, who he has been playing with all summer, is a girl? Marcy was bragging to Mrs. Hough about how well her son Sean's behavior had been since he had found a friend in Seth. Marcy felt Seth was a good influence on her son. Plaintiff’s mother drove to the meeting and went to see Mrs. Hough. When Plaintiff’s mother arrived, Marcy recorded the conversation. Ms. Hough basically made excuses as to why she outed the Plaintiff.
57. After the meeting, Plaintiff’s mother requested, seven times in writing, to receive a meeting with Dr. Carla Harding, the superintendent, and Mr. Krajewski the principal.
14

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 115
Plaintiff’s mother called and left voicemails and also went into the Principal’s office twice. Mr. Krajewski just refused to speak with Plaintiff’s mother. 58. On or about June 26, 2013, Seth's schoolmate, who worked with his older brother at the concession stand at Bishop Park, called Seth a “fucking faggot” and refused to sell him and a friend water. Plaintiff’s mother filed a formal complaint with the head of parks and recreation about what happened, but nothing was done. They told Plaintiff’s mother to have her son stay away from their concession stand because of their religious rights. 59. The younger boy who was at the concession stand was from Seth's school and told Plaintiff’s mother that their principal had told him that Seth was a girl. The next day, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Maria Sutka and told her she needed to know where and when she could get into contact with Mr. Jason Krajewski. Plaintiff’s mother told Maria Sutka what happened at the park and that several other students told her that Mr. Krajewski outed Seth. Plaintiff’s mother also found out that a classmate’s mother refused to let her kids play with Seth after Mr. Krajewski told her that Seth was in fact a female. 60. On or about July 15, 2013 was Nate Adkins first attack of Seth. Nate Adkins was a boy that Seth went to school with. He was an eighth grader at Wilson Middle School in Wyandotte. Chris Sizemore was another boy in Seth's seventh hour language arts class that Seth had problems with. 61. Because Seth wasn't allowed to use the regular boy's bathroom, he was forced to use the women's staff restroom which was clearly marked as such. This bathroom was right outside the cafeteria. Nate saw Seth come out of the bathroom one afternoon, laughed at him and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?” Then laughed and called him a fag
15

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 116
while walking away. Seth told his mother about this and she immediately made an appointment with Ms. Sutka, but it was dismissed as Seth being overly sensitive. 62. On or about July 15, 2013, Seth was at Pulaski Park with a friend and a few smaller boys all talking about their bikes, when out of the blue, Seth looked up because he recognized one of the voices. It was Nate Adkins. Nate walked up behind him and pushed Seth’s neighborhood friend off his bike, got in Seth's face, laughed and said, “You better run fag. Are you scared? I'll rape you straight.” Seth ran away so hard he was injured. Seth fractured his elbow and he hit his ear and his face. That child was eventually prosecuted. 63. Early September 2013, Seth started at a new school, OW Best Middle School in Dearborn Heights. 64. Seth was basically accepted by staff but was not allowed to use the boy's bathroom. 65. Mr. Zemerowski made comments every day at lunch when Seth was sitting with his female friends. Mr. Zemerowski would come up behind Seth, pat him on the back, and say “Have a nice day ladies.” Plaintiff’s mother let Mr. Zemerowski know several times that it bothered Plaintiff, but he still did it. Mr. Zemerowski told Plaintiff’s mother many times that it would have been a lot easier if Seth was just honest with everyone. 66. On or about November 11, 2013, Vice Principal, Ms. Portescheler saw Seth and his girlfriend hold hands in the hallway. It was Plaintiff’s first girlfriend and he didn't know he couldn't hold hands with his girlfirend. When the vice principal saw it, she went up to Seth and his girlfriend and told them to stop now or they would both be in detention. 67. When Plaintiff’s mother picked up Seth from school he told his mother what happened. He was embarrassed, but Plaintiff’s mother told him it was okay and they moved on with
16

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 117
their Friday evening. Around dinnertime, Seth received a text from his girlfriend that she wanted to call him when he was done eating. 68. Seth’s girlfriend said that Mrs. Portercheler had called and told her mother what happened at school and that her mom was making her break up with the Plaintiff. Then Seth’s girlfriend said “Are you a girl? She told my mom you're a girl. Are you a girl? Tell me the truth.” 69. Mrs. Portescheller outed Seth to his girlfriend’s parents. 70. Seth experienced kidney infections due to not being allowed to use the bathroom. He was in the hospital at Children's on or about April 1, 2014. 71. Plaintiff’s mother called an IEP around April 2014 because Plaintiff had a math disability, but when he asked for help, they told him that he needed to stop missing so much school.
COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. 72. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint. 73. Defendants have a custom, policy or procedure of discriminating against students on the basis of sex, specifically transgender individuals. This custom, policy, or procedure allows their employees and agents to violate the constitutional rights of students, like Plaintiff. 74. In addition, Defendants have also been given notice on repeated occasions of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices against students by Defendants and the
17

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 118
agents under their supervision. Said patterns and practices have resulted in, and continue to result in the wrongful injury to transgender students, particularly to Plaintiff. 75. Despite notice, Defendants have demonstrated deliberate indifference to these patterns and practices of constitutional violations by failing to take necessary, appropriate, or adequate measures to prevent their continued perpetration. This lack of adequate response by Defendants demonstrates the existence of a custom or policy by Defendants that tolerates and promotes the continued violation of civil rights of American citizens by Defendants and others under Defendants' supervision. 76. By committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, while acting under color of law, have demonstrated a deliberate indifference to clearly established law. 77. Defendants and persons acting under color of state law and as agents of, and/or in collusion with, Defendant School Districts, caused a constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff's rights, namely the loss of Equal Protection under the law and a loss of Substantive Due Process under the law. 78. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendant violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right by arbitrarily depriving Plaintiff and other transgender individuals of protected interests. 79. Defendants' willful, wanton and malicious denial of necessary and appropriate medical treatment to Plaintiff, while acting under color of law, denied Plaintiff his right to Substantive Due Process and his right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
18

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 119
80. Defendants also violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process right by failing to train educators to handle and understand the needs of transgender individuals.
81. Defendants further violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by failing to provide equal access to educational opportunity to Plaintiff as they did to Plaintiff's peers.
82. The intentional, willful and wanton act of Defendants establishes a claim for punitive damages by Plaintiff against non-governmental Defendants.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policies and acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained physical injury, pain and suffering in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT II: SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE IX
20 U.S.C. sections 1681 et. seq. 84. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the
factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint. 85. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides in relevant part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance .... 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 86. The public and charter school funding is a program or activity within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
19

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 120
87. The acts complained of herein constitute a violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights under 20 U.S.C. §1681 et. seq. by effectively denying the benefits to transsexual individuals on the basis of their sex, and by failing to accord transsexual individuals equal treatment and benefits.
88. Defendants' acts in denying Plaintiff adequate accommodations in an educational environment were done with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health and wellbeing.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth under Title IX.
COUNT III: SEX-BASED HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE IV of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-2000c-9 89. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the
factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint. 90. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6, prohibits discrimination on
the basis of, among other things, race, color, and/or national origin in public schools, which deprives individuals of the equal protection of the laws. Actual knowledge of and a clearly unreasonable response to severe or pervasive harassment, which bars students from enjoying the educational benefits afforded to them based on race, sex, gender, color, and/or national origin, constitutes discrimination. 91. Defendants' deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment to which a transgender student was subjected as alleged in paragraphs 1-47, effectively barred him equal access to educational opportunities. Defendants' acts and omissions as alleged in paragraphs 1-72, deny transgender students the equal protection
20

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 121
of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOTT LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 68. At all material times, Plaintiff was an student, and defendants were public institutions, covered by and within the meaning of Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq. 69. Plaintiff’s sex was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of him. 70. Defendants, through their agents, representatives, and employees, were predisposed to discriminate on the basis of sex and acted in accordance with that predisposition. 71. Defendant treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated male students in the terms and conditions of his education, based on unlawful consideration of sex. 72. Defendants’ actions were intentional and disregarded for Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities. 73. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about the unlawful treatment that he was experiencing, in violation of the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act. 74. As a direct result of defendant’s unlawful actions Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
21

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 122
75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
76. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal protection rights of Seth Tooley guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional. 77. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of the Defendants
as other similarly situated students were. 78. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth Tooley and the rest of
the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
79. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VI FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS 80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 81. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was openly transgender and held himself out as such to his family, peers, work colleagues, teachers, administrators, and the public at large.
22

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 123
82. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was also a vocal supporter of his own status and the legal rights of transgender people.
83. Plaintiff Seth Tooley is ensured his right to Free Speech and expressive conduct as demonstrated in his journals and conversations with peers and friends by the First Amendment.
84. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was retaliated against by his peers for being openly homosexual and expressing himself in manners protected by the First Amendment.
85. Defendant’s failure to punish or protect the harassing students and staff or Seth Tooley, respectively, is a violation of Plaintiff Tooley’s right to free speech as under the United States Constitution.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE MICHIGAN
CONSTITUTION 86. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated
herein. 87. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal protection rights of Seth Tooley, guaranteed by M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional. 88. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of the Defendant as other similarly situated students were.
23

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 124
89. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth Tooley and the rest of the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
90. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Rights.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VIII GROSS NEGLIGENCE 91. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 92. At all times material to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff, and to any student attending to keep students safe, to supervise conduct at the school, and/or to maintain an environment conductive to learning. 93. Defendant’s wrongful conduct includes but is not limited to the following: a. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their District Code; b. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their School Regulations and Rules;
c. Failure to take appropriate and proper remedial action to preserve a safe environment conductive to learning;
24

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 125
d. Failure to protect Plaintiff from pervasive physical and emotional abuse of which they had knowledge;
e. Failure to train school staff, teachers, principals and counselors on taking the appropriate actions to protect students and provide an equal opportunity educational environment.
94. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants breached the above duties and all other applicable duties and thereby was grossly negligent and/or guilty of conduct amounting to intentional willful and/or wanton misconduct. Defendant’s actions were reckless and demonstrated a substantial lack of concern as to whether injury or death resulted, thereby subjecting Defendant to liability under Michigan statutes and law.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.\
COUNT IX 42 USC 1983 VIOLATION PURSUANT TO MONELL
95. The Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of execution of the Districts’ policies and customs, pursuant to Monell v Department of Soc Servs, 436 US 658, 690 (1978).
96. Plaintiff’s constitutional deprivations resulted from the Districts’ customs and procedures.
97. The Districts’ failure to train employees, staff, and administration, gives rise to the Districts’ liability resulting from the Districts’ employee-caused constitutional violations.
25

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 126

WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.

COUNT X

42 USC 1983- VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGH SUPERVISION, CUSTOMS, POLICIES, ACUIESCENCE AND TRAINING

98. Plaintiff incorporates herein all other prior allegations.

99. The Defendant Districts had an obligation to train is administrative staff, teachers,

counselors and employees regarding the constitutional rights of citizens under the

constitution, including but not limited to that they take action to protect students from

harassment and discrimination based on sex.

100.

The Defendant districts had an obligation to supervise its administrative staff,

teachers, counselors and employees to insure that the constitutional rights of citizens

under the Constitution were not violated, including the right not to be subjected to be

free from a deprivation of liberty, property, bodily security and integrity without due

process of law, and not to expose a greater risk of danger at the hands of the State.

101.

The Defendant districts failed to comply with the aforementioned obligations and

had a custom or policy of acting with deliberate indifference to the violations of the constitutional rights of the State’s citizens and had a custom or policy of failing to train

and/or failing to supervise school district employees regarding the protection/violation of

those constitutional rights and/or failing to discipline employees who violated those

constitutional rights.

26

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 127

WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

102.

The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in paragraphs 1-101 above.

103.

Students in the Districts’ schools, including but not limited to the Plaintiff, have

been harassed by their peers with derogatory language, threats, and physical assaults

because of their nonconformity to gender stereotypes and/or sexually harassed by their

peers. Sex-based harassment in the Districts is severe, pervasive, or persistent, and has

denied or limited students' abilities to participate in or benefit from the District's

educational program.

104.

In some instances, the District should have known of the harassment but failed to

investigate, address, and/or stop the harassment. In most instances involving Plaintiff,

Plaintiff himself and his mother have reported sex-based harassment to school and

District officials. District officials clearly knew of the harassment but the District either

took no action or its response was inadequate. The harassment continued and in many

instances escalated.

105.

A hostile environment exists in the Districts, and the Districts’ existing policies

and procedures have contributed to the hostile environment.

106.

The District's failure to appropriately and adequately address sex-based

harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-

27

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 128

2000c-9, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

107.

Unless enjoined by this court, the District will continue to violate the Plaintiff’s

state, federal and Constitutional rights. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief from allowing

the Districts from continuing their discriminatory policies and procedures.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests a monetary judgment for the actual damages

sustained together with statutory fees, reasonable attorney fees, interest, and costs.

Respectfully Submitted,

\

THE RASOR LAW FIRM

Dated: September 15, 2014

/s/ James B. Rasor _______________________________ James B. Rasor (P43476) Jonathan R. Marko (P72450) 201 East Fourth St. Royal Oak MI 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com jrm@rasorlawfirm.com

28

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 4 Filed 09/15/14 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 129

RELIANCE ON DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, The Rasor Law Firm, hereby rely on its demand for jury trial in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

\

THE RASOR LAW FIRM

Dated: September 8, 2014

/s/ James B. Rasor _______________________________ James B. Rasor (P43476) Jonathan R. Marko (P72450) 201 East Fourth St. Royal Oak MI 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com jrm@rasorlawfirm.com

29

 
 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 1 of 31 Pg ID 638

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION


)

KIMBERLEY TOOLEY as Next Friend )

of SETH TOOLEY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)

Case No. 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG
Judge Avern Cohn Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 2 of 31 Pg ID 639
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
 INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES................................................................2

I. BACKGROUND...................................................................................4
 II. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................5

A. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit Sex
 Discrimination Against All Persons, Including 
 Transgender Individuals..............................................................5

B. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit
 Discrimination Against an Individual Based on That 
 Individual’s Gender Identity or Transgender Status...................8

C. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit
 Discrimination Against an Individual, Including a
 Transgender Individual, on the Basis of Sex Stereotypes ........14

D. This Case Should Proceed to Discovery to Resolve
 Questions of Fact ......................................................................17

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................24

i

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 3 of 31 Pg ID 640
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Baker v. John Morrell & Company, 
 220 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (N.D. Iowa 2002) ............................................................19

Barnes v. City of Cincinnati,
 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................15

Biediger v. Quinnipiac University, 
 691 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2012) .................................................................................14

Craig v. Boren, 
 429 U.S. 190 (1976)............................................................................................21

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 
 526 U.S. 629 (1999)............................................................................................14

DeClue v. Central Illinois Light Company, 
 223 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................19

Doe v. Brimfield Grade School,
 552 F. Supp. 2d 816 (C.D. Ill. 2008) ..................................................................16

Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, 
 No. Pen–12–582, 2014 WL 325906 (Me. Jan. 30, 2014)...................................23

EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Company, 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................15

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 
 503 U.S. 60 (1992)................................................................................................8

Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District,
 710 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................8, 21

Glenn v. Brumby, 
 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) ....................................................... 10, 16, 21, 22

ii


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 4 of 31 Pg ID 641
Kastl v. Maricopa County Community College District,
 No. Civ.02–1531PHX–SRB, 2004 WL 2008954
 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2004) ...................................................................................9, 19

Macy v. Holder, 
 2012 WL 1435995 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012)...................................... 10, 11, 12, 13 

Mathis v. Fountain-Ft. Carson School District No. 8, 
 Colorado Civil Rights Division Determination, Charge No.
 P20130034X, at 13-14 (June 17, 2013) ..............................................................23

Montgomery v. Independent School District No. 709, 
 109 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minn. 2000)...............................................................17

Nelson v. Christian Brothers University, 
 226 Fed. Appx. 448 (6th Cir. 2007)......................................................................8

Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................15

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 
 523 U.S. 75 (1998)..............................................................................................12

Pratt v. Indian River Central School District, 
 803 F. Supp. 2d 135 (N.D.N.Y. 2011)................................................................16

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,
 490 U.S. 228 (1989)............................................................................... 14, 15, 16

Rentos v. OCE-Office Systems, 
 No. 95-civ-7908, 1996 WL 737215 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 1996) .........................11

Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Company, 
 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000)...............................................................................16

Schroer v. Billington, 
 424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2006)....................................................................11

Schroer v. Billington, 
 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008)................................................... 9, 10, 11, 12

iii


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 5 of 31 Pg ID 642
Schwenk v. Hartford, 
 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................16

Smith v. City of Salem, 
 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 11, 12, 15

Theno v. Tonganoxie Unified School District, 
 377 F. Supp. 2d 952 (D. Kan. 2005)...................................................................17

United States v. Gonzales, 
 520 U.S. 1 (1997)..................................................................................................6

United States v. Virginia, 
 518 U.S. 515 (1996)..................................................................................... 14, 21

Statutes 28 U.S.C § 517...........................................................................................................2
 42 U.S.C. § 1983........................................................................................................1
 Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c ...................................3
 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681................. 2, 6, 8
 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ' 2000e...................................8
 Other Authorities Resolution Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Office for Civil 

Rights & Downey Unified Sch. Dist., Oct. 8, 2014 .............................................3
 Resolution Agreement between United States and Arcadia Unified 

Sch. Dist., July 24, 2013 .......................................................................................3
 U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Dear Colleague

Letter: Bullying and Harassment (Oct. 26, 2010) ....................................... 17, 21
 U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Questions &

Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (Apr. 29, 2014) .............. 6, 13, 17, 21

iv


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 6 of 31 Pg ID 643
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights,
 Questions & Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and 
 Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities (Dec. 1, 2014)......... 13, 17, 19

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual
 Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School 
 Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (2001), at v..................................17

United States’ Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellants and Urging Reversal in Carmichael v. Galbraith, No. 12-11074 
 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2013) ..........................................................................................3

United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention, Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin
 Sch. Dist. No. 11, No. 0:11-cv-01999 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2012)...........................3

United States’ Mem. as Amicus Curiae in Response to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss/Mot. for Summary Judgment, Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 7:09-cv-00411 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011).......................................3

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976) ........................................6
 Regulations 28 C.F.R. Part 54....................................................................................................2, 6
 34 C.F.R. Part 106..................................................................................................2, 6
 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Equal Protection Clause..... 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12-18

v 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 7 of 31 Pg ID 644
INTRODUCTION Seth Tooley (“Plaintiff”) is a 14-year-old student, who has attended several school districts in Michigan, including Defendant Wyandotte Public Schools (“Wyandotte”). Plaintiff is a transgender boy. He was assigned the female sex at birth, but his gender identity is male and he presents as a boy in all aspects of his life.1 Plaintiff alleges that various defendants in this case, including Wyandotte, denied him equal treatment and benefits and subjected him to harassment based on sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title IV”), and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 Wyandotte has moved to dismiss these claims, arguing, inter alia, that a transgender plaintiff may establish a claim for sex discrimination only through evidence that the defendant engaged in sex stereotyping. Wyandotte’s Mot. to Dismiss at 12-15 (“Wyandotte Motion”). The United States files this Statement of Interest to assist the Court in evaluating Plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination. Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, discrimination based on a person’s nonconformity to sex
1 A transgender person has a gender identity (i.e., one’s internal sense of gender) that is different from the individual’s assigned sex at birth (i.e., the gender designation listed on one’s original birth certificate). 2 Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I), Title IV (Count III), and the Fourteenth Amendment (Count V) each allege a denial of equal protection under these federal laws. Consequently, the United States refers to these collectively as claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause or as “Equal Protection claims.”
1 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 8 of 31 Pg ID 645
stereotypes, a person’s gender identity, or a person’s transgender status constitutes discrimination based on sex. As explained below, numerous courts that have addressed claims by transgender plaintiffs have recognized that sex-based discrimination may be established in all three of these ways. In this case, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts on each of these bases to survive Wyandotte’s Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, a person may establish sex discrimination through discriminatory conduct based on gender identity or transgender status, regardless of whether there is evidence of sex stereotyping.
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES The United States has authority to file this Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 517, which permits the Attorney General to attend to the interests of the United States in any case pending in a federal court. The United States has a significant interest in ensuring that all students, including transgender students, have the opportunity to learn in an environment free of discrimination and that the proper legal standards are applied to claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The United States Departments of Education and Justice share responsibility for enforcing Title IX and its implementing regulations in the education context. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (2006); 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (2010); 28 C.F.R. Part 54 (2000). The Justice Department also can enforce the Equal
2 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 9 of 31 Pg ID 646
Protection Clause’s ban on sex discrimination against public schools under Title
IV. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000c.3
The United States thus respectfully submits this Statement of Interest to
provide the correct legal standards governing sex discrimination claims under Title
IX and the Equal Protection Clause.4 Applying these standards, this Court should
reject Wyandotte’s Motion to Dismiss, as Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
3 The United States has furthered its significant interests noted above by intervening or participating as amicus curiae in lawsuits involving claims of sex discrimination based on sex stereotyping and gender-based harassment against students under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., United States’ Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellants and Urging Reversal in Carmichael v. Galbraith, No. 12-11074 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/app/briefs/carmichaelbrf.pdf ; United States’ Complaint-in-Intervention, Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, No. 0:11-cv­ 01999 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/anokacompint.pdf ; and United States’ Mem. as Amicus Curiae in Response to Defs. Mot. to Dismiss/Mot. for Summary Judgment, Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 7:09-cv-00411 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/prattamicus.pdf . The Departments of Justice and Education have also enforced Title IX and Title IV in matters involving claims of sex discrimination against transgender students. See, e.g., Resolution Agreement between United States & Arcadia Unified Sch. Dist., July 24, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/casesummary.php#arcadia; Resolution Agreement between U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Office for Civil Rights & Downey Unified Sch. Dist., Oct. 8, 2014, available at http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/downey-school-district­ agreement.pdf. 4 The United States is not taking a position on Plaintiff’s other claims.
3 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 10 of 31 Pg ID 647
discrimination based on sex because of his gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a transgender student who started the sixth grade at Wilson Middle School in Wyandotte on or about December 4, 2012. First Am. Compl. at 12. Plaintiff alleges that Wyandotte denied him the treatment and benefits afforded to other male students and that he was subjected to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment in violation of Title IX, Title IV, and the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 12-22. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that although his mother asked the school to allow him to use the boys’ restroom, school personnel refused, requiring him instead to use “the staff ladies’ room” or a unisex restroom, which was frequently closed and not accessible. Id. at 12-13, 15. As a result, a male classmate who spotted Plaintiff leaving the women’s restroom laughed at him, called him a “fag,” and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?” Id. at 15-16. When Plaintiff’s mother complained to a school employee about this event, the employee dismissed it as Plaintiff “being overly sensitive.” Id. at 16. Later, this same classmate approached Plaintiff off school grounds and threatened, “You better run fag. Are you scared? I’ll rape you straight,” causing Plaintiff to run away so fast he fell, fracturing his elbow and hitting his ear and face. Id.
4 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 11 of 31 Pg ID 648
Plaintiff further alleges that school personnel addressed him as “Olivia,” his name assigned at birth, and referred to him using female pronouns despite his consistent presentation of his male gender identity and his mother’s requests that he be addressed using his preferred name and male pronouns. Id. at 12-14. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that school personnel, including the school principal and special education director, “outed” Plaintiff as transgender to students and parents of students who interacted with Plaintiff by referring to him as a female. Id. at 14­ 15. Consequently, some of these parents refused to allow their children to interact with Plaintiff. Id. at 15.
II. ARGUMENT A. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit Sex
Discrimination Against All Persons, Including Transgender Individuals Any student may state a valid claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the defendant denied or limited the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s programs or activities on the basis of sex. Plaintiff, like all other students in Wyandotte’s schools, is protected against sex discrimination under these laws. That he is a transgender boy does not remove him from the ambit of these protections. Under Title IX, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
5 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 12 of 31 Pg ID 649
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); see also 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a); 28 C.F.R. § 54.400(a) . Title IX’s implementing regulations specifically prohibit recipients from engaging in differential or adverse treatment on the basis of sex, including inter alia, “[t]reat[ing] one person differently from another in determining whether such person satisfies any requirement or condition for the provision of such aid, benefit, or service,” “[p]rovid[ing] different aid, benefits, or services or provid[ing] aid, benefits, or services in a different manner,” “[d]eny[ing] any person any such aid, benefit, or service;” “[s]ubject[ing] any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or other treatment;” or “[o]therwise limit[ing] any person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity.” 34 C.F.R § 106.31(b) (emphasis added); 28 C.F.R. § 54.400(b) (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute thus affirms that Title IX protects all individuals from sex discrimination, including transgender individuals. Cf. United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (“Read naturally, the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’”) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976)).5
5 See OCR, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (Apr. 29, 2014), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title­ ix.pdf (“OCR Sexual Violence Q&A”), at 5 (“[T]he actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the parties does not change a school’s [Title IX] obligations.”).
6 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 13 of 31 Pg ID 650
Similarly, this Court should reject any suggestion that Plaintiff fails to state a legally cognizable claim under Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause because “transgender” is not an explicit suspect classification under either law. Rather, as Plaintiff pleads in his First Amended Complaint, the relevant suspect classification in this case is sex, which courts have held includes gender, gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. See infra at II.B-II.C. Wyandotte argues that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is devoid of allegations demonstrating that Wyandotte engaged in discrimination based on sex stereotypes. See Wyandotte Mot. at 12-15. Wyandotte does not address whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleges discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. See id.; Wyandotte Reply at 4-6. The Court should review Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination on all three of these bases as claims of sex discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The fact that Plaintiff is transgender, and asserts discriminatory conduct related to his gender expression or gender identity, does not, as Wyandotte suggests, defeat his sex discrimination claims as a matter of law.
At this stage, the issue before this Court is whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Wyandotte discriminated against him based on his sex (including his gender identity, transgender status, and/or nonconformity to sex stereotypes) to state a plausible claim for relief under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
7 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 14 of 31 Pg ID 651
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff has adequately alleged discrimination on each of these bases.
B. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit Discrimination Against an Individual Based on That Individual’s Gender Identity or Transgender Status
Wyandotte mistakenly argues that claims of sex discrimination by transgender individuals are limited to those alleging discrimination based on sex stereotyping. See Wyandotte Mot. at 12-15. While transgender persons may allege sex discrimination based on sex stereotyping under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, see infra at II.C, they may also allege discrimination based on gender identity and transgender status. As further explained below, Plaintiff alleges conduct by Wyandotte that could establish discrimination on each of these bases under the relevant case law. See First Am. Compl. at 12-16.
Similar to the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. '' 2000e et seq., Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in education. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Federal courts routinely look to Title VII case law in construing Title IX’s anti-discrimination provisions. See, e.g., Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75 (1992) (applying Supreme Court’s interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII to Title IX); Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668, 673 n.2 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Title IX retaliation claims are analyzed using the same standards as Title VII.”); Nelson v. Christian Bros.
8 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 15 of 31 Pg ID 652
Univ., 226 Fed. Appx. 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, courts have looked to Title VII . . . as an analog for the legal standards in both Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims.”).
“On the basis of sex” includes discrimination based on the fact that an individual is transgender (i.e., has a gender identity different from the person’s sex assigned at birth) or the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing, a gender transition.6 See Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 306-08 (D.D.C. 2008) (holding that employer violated Title VII by refusing to hire transgender woman in response to her decision to transition). For example, in a case involving both Title IX and Title VII, the court found that discrimination against a transgender individual because the individual’s anatomy does not conform to his or her gender identity is actionable sex discrimination under both Title VII and Title IX. See Kastl v. Maricopa Cnty. Comm. College Dist., No. Civ.02–1531PHX– SRB, 2004 WL 2008954, at *2-3 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss Title VII and Title IX sex discrimination claims by transgender plaintiff denied access to restrooms, finding that “neither a woman with male genitalia nor a
6 A gender transition is the experience by which a transgender person goes from living and identifying as one’s assigned sex to living and identifying as the sex consistent with one’s gender identity. A gender transition often includes a “social transition,” during which an individual begins to live and identify as the sex consistent with the individual’s gender identity.
9 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 16 of 31 Pg ID 653
man with stereotypically female anatomy, such as breasts, may be deprived of a benefit or privilege of employment by reason of that nonconforming trait”).
In a different Title VII case involving a transgender plaintiff, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken a gender transition is sex discrimination:
Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only “converts.” That would be a clear case of discrimination “because of religion.” No court would take seriously the notion that “converts” are not covered by the statute. Discrimination “because of religion” easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. Schroer, 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306 (emphasis in original). In other words, discrimination because one has changed or is changing his or her sex is discrimination on the basis of sex, and focusing on a “label” like “transgender” as a justification for denying that individual protection under sex discrimination law would be “blind” to the “statutory language itself.” Id. at 307; see also Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding “ample direct evidence” that plaintiff, a transgender woman, had been discriminated against because of sex where defendant testified that his decision to fire her was based “on his perception of [plaintiff] as ‘a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman,’ and … ‘on the sheer fact of the transition’”); Macy v.
10 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 17 of 31 Pg ID 654
Holder, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012) (concluding that “intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination ‘based on . . . sex,’ and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII,” in the same way that discrimination against an individual based on that person’s perceived religion or religious conversion is also prohibited under Title VII); Rentos v. OCE-Office Sys., No. 95­ civ-7908, 1996 WL 737215, at *1, 8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 1996) (denying defendant’s motion to strike transgender plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim alleging disparate treatment due to her “sex background and subsequent change”). As these cases recognize, it would be illogical to immunize a defendant from liability merely because the defendant “superimpose[s]” a transgender status on the plaintiff. Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 574-75 (6th Cir. 2004). This Court should reject any reliance on this long discredited argument. See Schroer, 577 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (finding that the analysis used by courts holding that changing one’s sex is not discrimination because of sex “is no longer a tenable approach to statutory construction”).
As recognized in the cases above, an individual’s gender identity is one aspect of an individual’s sex. See, e.g., Smith, 378 F.3d at 575; Schroer, 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306-07; Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203, 211 (D.D.C. 2006) (“sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of
11 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 18 of 31 Pg ID 655
chromosomes,” but extends to one’s “sexual identity”) (internal citation omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is, “literally,” discrimination on the basis of sex, even though the words “gender identity” or “transgender” are not explicitly mentioned in Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. See Schroer, 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306-07; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998) (holding that Title VII prohibits same-sex sexual harassment and explaining “[s]tatutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.”); accord Macy, 2012 WL 1435995 at *9-10 and n.10.
Wyandotte cites the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Smith v. City of Salem for the proposition that Plaintiff may bring a claim for sex discrimination, but only where there is evidence of sex stereotyping. See Wyandotte Mot. at 12-13 (citing Smith, 378 F.3d at 571-72). In Smith, however, the Sixth Circuit recognized that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex: “discrimination against a plaintiff who is a transsexual—and therefore fails to act and/or identify with his or her gender” is discrimination on the basis of sex. 378 F.3d at 575 (emphasis added).7
7 Although terms like “transsexual” or “transgendered” have been used to describe transgender people, those terms are now disfavored. For this reason, the United States uses the term “transgender” consistently throughout this Statement of
12 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 19 of 31 Pg ID 656
Contrary to Wyandotte’s argument that Plaintiff’s claim must rest on evidence of sex stereotyping, Wyandotte Mot. at 12-15, Plaintiff may also prevail on his claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause through evidence that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his transgender status or gender identity. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained in Macy, “evidence of gender stereotyping is simply one means of proving sex discrimination” that is available to transgender individuals. Macy, 2012 WL 1435995 at *10. Discrimination against a transgender individual is sex discrimination “regardless of whether an employer discriminates against an employee because the individual has expressed his or her gender in a nonstereotypical fashion, because the employer is uncomfortable with the fact that the person has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning from one gender to another, or because the employer simply does not like that the person is identifying as a transgender person.” Id. at *7.
The Department of Education has issued guidance similarly recognizing that Title IX protects transgender students against sex discrimination, including that based on their gender identity. See OCR Sexual Violence Q&A, at 5.8 Courts
Interest. 8 See also OCR, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex
Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities (Dec. 1, 2014), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex­ 201412.pdf (“OCR Single-Sex Classes and Activities Q&A”), at 25.
13

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 20 of 31 Pg ID 657
routinely look to federal guidance when construing Title IX and other federal civil rights laws enforced by the United States.9 Thus, consistent with the case law and federal guidance, Plaintiff may state valid Title IX and sex-based Equal Protection claims for discrimination based on his gender identity and transgender status.
C. Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause Prohibit Discrimination Against an Individual, Including a Transgender Individual, on the Basis of Sex Stereotypes
This Court should also deny Wyandotte’s Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to establish a sex stereotyping claim. Wyandotte concedes that Plaintiff may make this type of claim; it simply challenges the sufficiency of his allegations regarding its engagement in sex stereotyping. Wyandotte Mot. at 12-15.
The Supreme Court made clear in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that discrimination based on an individual’s nonconformity to sex stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by federal civil rights laws. 490 U.S. 228, 239-40, 250-51 (1989). The Supreme Court later held that the Equal Protection Clause also protects students from impermissible discrimination on the basis of sex, including based on sex stereotyping. See United States v. Virginia (“VMI”), 518 U.S. 515,
9 See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 647-48 (1999) (applying OCR’s Title IX guidance when evaluating Title IX’s application to student-on-student harassment); Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 691 F.3d 85, 97 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that OCR’s guidance is entitled to “substantial deference” in interpreting Title IX).
14 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 21 of 31 Pg ID 658
533 (1996) (finding that state action “must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females”). Subsequently, numerous federal courts of appeal have expressly recognized that discrimination based on sex stereotyping is an actionable form of sex discrimination under federal law. See, e.g., Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 735-39 (6th Cir. 2005) (transgender plaintiff stated claim for sex discrimination under Title VII and Equal Protection Clause based on failure to conform to sex stereotypes).10
In Smith, the Sixth Circuit explicitly held that discrimination “because of sex” includes discrimination against transgender individuals on the basis of sex stereotypes. 378 F.3d at 575. Applying the Supreme Court’s holding in Price Waterhouse in the context of discrimination against a transgender woman, the Smith court explained that discrimination against the transgender plaintiff “is no different from the discrimination directed against [the plaintiff] in Price Waterhouse who, in sex-stereotypical terms, did not act like a woman.” Id. The court emphasized that treatment “based on a person’s gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination, irrespective of the cause of that behavior;
10 See also EEOC v. Boh Brothers Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444, 454 (5th Cir. 2013) (sex stereotyping evidence may be used to establish sex discrimination claim where there is a perception that a plaintiff does not “conform to traditional gender stereotypes”); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874 (9th Cir. 2001) (same).
15 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 22 of 31 Pg ID 659
a label, such as ‘transsexual,’ is not fatal to a sex discrimination claim where the victim has suffered discrimination because of his or her gender non-conformity.” Id.
Indeed, since Price Waterhouse, while the issue has arisen in a variety of contexts, no court of appeals has categorically denied protections against sex discrimination to transgender individuals. To the contrary, in addition to the Sixth Circuit, the First, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits have all recognized that a transgender plaintiff may rely on evidence of sex stereotyping to establish discrimination on the basis of sex. See Glenn, 663 F.3d at 1318-20 (“All persons, whether transgender or not, are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender stereotype.”); Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213, 214-15 (1st Cir. 2000) (same); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1200-02 (9th Cir. 2000) (same).
Similarly, federal courts have consistently held that plaintiffs alleging discrimination based on nonconformity to sex stereotypes may state an actionable claim of sex discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. See Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., 803 F. Supp. 2d 135, 151-52 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss because harassment based on nonconformity to sex stereotypes is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause); Doe v. Brimfield Grade Sch., 552 F. Supp. 2d 816,
16 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 23 of 31 Pg ID 660
823 (C.D. Ill. 2008) (holding that “[d]iscrimination because one’s behavior does not ‘conform to stereotypical ideas’ of one’s gender can amount to actionable discrimination ‘based on sex’” under Title IX) (internal citation omitted); Theno v. Tonganoxie Unified Sch. Dist., 377 F. Supp. 2d 952, 964-65 (D. Kan. 2005) (holding that sex stereotyping is a viable theory of sex discrimination under Title IX); Montgomery v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1090-93 (D. Minn. 2000) (holding complaint of same-sex harassment based on sex stereotyping alleged viable Title IX same-sex harassment claim). The U.S. Department of Education also issued guidance stating that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex stereotypes. OCR Sexual Violence Q&A at 5-6 (“Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity and OCR accepts such complaints for investigation.”).11
D. This Case Should Proceed to Discovery to Resolve Questions of Fact Under the appropriate legal standards discussed above, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a sex discrimination claim under Title IX and the Equal
11 See also OCR Single-Sex Classes and Activities Q&A at 25; OCR, Dear Colleague Letter: Bullying and Harassment (Oct. 26, 2010), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf (“OCR Bullying & Harassment DCL”), at 7-8; OCR, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (2001), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf, at v.
17 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 24 of 31 Pg ID 661
Protection Clause on the grounds that Wyandotte treated him differently from other male students because of his transgender status, gender identity, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes – all that is required of Plaintiff at this stage. This case should, therefore, proceed to discovery to resolve questions of fact regarding whether Wyandotte’s actions were discriminatory.
1. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination
Plaintiff has alleged facts that, when read in the light most favorable to him, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on his gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges (and Wyandotte acknowledges in its Motion) that unlike other male students, he was denied access to the boys’ restrooms. First Am. Compl. at 12-13; Wyandotte Mot. at 14-15. School personnel required him to use “the staff ladies’ room” or a unisex restroom, which was often not accessible, despite notice from his mother and his therapist that he needed to be treated consistent with his gender identity. First Am. Compl. at 12-13, 15; Wyandotte Mot. at 14; see OCR Single-Sex Classes and Activities Q&A at 25 (When a school separates students on the basis of sex, the school “generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”).
Courts have recognized that the denial of equal access to restroom facilities is sufficient deprivation to constitute a violation of Title IX and other sex
18 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 25 of 31 Pg ID 662
discrimination laws. See Kastl, 2004 WL 2008954, at *3 (holding that it is a violation of both Title VII and Title IX “to create restrooms for each sex but to require a woman to use the men’s restroom if she fails to conform to the employer’s expectations regarding a woman’s behavior or anatomy, or to require her to prove her conformity with those expectations”); Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 220 F. Supp. 2d 1000, 1011, 1014 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (holding that denial of equal access to restroom facilities can alter the terms and conditions of employment in violation of Title VII); cf. DeClue v. Central Illinois Light Co., 223 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2000) (same).
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and singled out by school employees based on his gender identity, transgender status, and failure to conform to gender stereotypes. For example, when a male student saw Plaintiff leaving the women’s restroom, the student called Plaintiff a “fag” and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?” First Am. Compl. at 15-16. When his mother complained, a school employee said Plaintiff was “being overly sensitive.” Id. at 16. This same student later threatened Plaintiff off campus with, “You better run fag. Are you scared? I’ll rape you straight.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that school personnel “outed” him by informing students and their parents of his birth gender, referring to him as “Olivia,” and using feminine pronouns when referring to him in class. Id. at 12-15; Wyandotte Mot. at 14-15. At least in part due to these actions by
19 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 26 of 31 Pg ID 663
Wyandotte, Plaintiff alleges that students harassed and ostracized him. First Am. Compl. at 15-16.12
2. Wyandotte’s motivation for treating Plaintiff differently from other male students is a question of fact that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage
In addition to incorrectly arguing that Plaintiff may only proceed on a sex
discrimination claim if it involves sex stereotyping, Wyandotte attempts to address
the merits of Plaintiff’s claims by asserting justifications for several of his factual
allegations. Wyandotte Mot. at 14-15. Most pertinent here, Wyandotte asserts
that the district “advised” Plaintiff not to use the boys’ restroom “for the sole
reason that the boys’ restroom only had urinals and stalls with no doors,” and “that
if the other boys saw [Plaintiff] using the bathroom given her [sic] unique
circumstances, it may result in bullying and other safety concerns.” Id. at 14. This
unsupported justification goes beyond the allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint and should not be considered at the motion to dismiss stage. But even
if it were, myriad fact questions nevertheless preclude dismissal.
12 These allegations also indicate that the hostile environment of which Plaintiff complains in Counts III and V was at least in part created by school employees, not just students. See First Am. Compl. at 12-16, 20-22. So while Wyandotte insists that “there is no legal theory that would hold the Wyandotte Defendants liable for the actions of the students who attend the District,” Wyandotte Mot. at 15, Wyandotte is legally responsible for its own actions and the environment it creates or tolerates under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Although Plaintiff has not directly asserted a hostile environment claim under Title IX, the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint do not foreclose such a claim at the motion to dismiss stage.
20 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 27 of 31 Pg ID 664
At the merits stage, once Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish a
prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection
Clause, the burden then would shift to Wyandotte to demonstrate that its actions
were legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and not pretextual under Title IX, see, e.g.,
Fuhr, 710 F.3d at 673-75, and meet the intermediate scrutiny standard under the Equal Protection Clause. See VMI, 518 U.S. at 531-34.13 In considering whether
Wyandotte has met that burden, this Court must assess whether: the safety interest
asserted actually motivated Wyandotte to treat Plaintiff differently from other male
students; Wyandotte’s actions in fact advanced that interest; other nondiscriminatory actions could have furthered that interest;14 and this stated
interest was pretextual.
13 Heightened scrutiny applies to sex-based Equal Protection claims regardless of the sex or gender identity of the plaintiff. See VMI, 518 U.S. at 531-34; Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-99 (1976); Glenn, 663 F.3d at 1315-17 (applying heightened scrutiny to transgender plaintiff’s equal protection sex discrimination claim). 14 For instance, rather than denying Plaintiff access to the boys’ restroom based on a fear of potential harassment, Wyandotte could have responded promptly and effectively to any harassment that arose, as Title IX requires. See OCR Sexual Violence Q&A at 2-3; OCR Bullying & Harassment DCL at 2-3, 7-8. If the absence of doors on the stalls is the basis for Wyandotte’s concern, it could put up doors to address this concern rather than require the Plaintiff to use a conspicuous restroom designated for female staff members. Whatever appropriate steps Wyandotte could take to address its concern about harassment, those steps should not penalize the student who was, or could be, harassed, such as by excluding the student from a restroom when reasonable alternatives exist. Id. at 3.
21 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 28 of 31 Pg ID 665
Plaintiff raises genuine questions of fact regarding each of these inquiries that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. For example, as noted in Section II.D.1 above, Plaintiff has raised several allegations that create questions of fact as to whether Wyandotte’s purported desire to protect him actually motivated its refusal to let him use the boys’ restroom. These allegations include that Wyandotte: (1) forced him to use a conspicuously labeled women’s restroom right next to the cafeteria where other students could see him coming and going; (2) told Plaintiff’s mother that he was “being overly sensitive” when a student harassed him for using “the staff ladies’ room”; (3) referred to him with feminine pronouns and by the name “Olivia” despite his maintaining a male gender identity; and (4) “outed” him as transgender to other students and parents of other students who then ostracized him. First Am. Compl. at 12-16.
Recent decisions by other federal courts indicate that where there are facts such as these, this Court should not take generalized arguments about restroom safety at face value without further development of the record. For instance, in Glenn, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant’s “purported concern that other women might object to [the transgender plaintiff’s] restroom use” was “speculative” and failed to meet defendant’s burden of showing a sufficiently important governmental objective to survive the heightened scrutiny
22 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 29 of 31 Pg ID 666
standard of review. 663 F.3d at 1321. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff. Id. at 1315-19.
Additionally, this court should consider Wyandotte’s asserted interest in protecting Plaintiff’s safety in light of the fact that transgender students in many jurisdictions are using restroom facilities without issue. Across the country, transgender students use sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity. See, e.g., Doe v. Regional Sch. Unit 26, No. Pen–12–582, 2014 WL 325906 (Me. Jan. 30, 2014) (holding that school district discriminated against transgender girl in violation of state law by denying her access to communal girls’ facilities and requiring her to use the unisex staff restroom); Mathis v. Fountain-Ft. Carson Sch. Dist. No. 8, Colo. Civ. Rts. Div. Determination, Charge No. P20130034X, at 13-14 (June 17, 2013) (determining that school district discriminated against transgender girl by denying her access to girls’ restrooms at school in violation of Colorado law, because none of district’s articulated justifications were substantiated by sufficient evidence).
Based on the parties’ pleadings, Plaintiff states viable claims of sex discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, and Wyandotte’s actual motives and the permissibility of the means it adopted to advance those motives are questions of fact that cannot properly be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
23 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 30 of 31 Pg ID 667

CONCLUSION The United States respectfully requests that this Court hold that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause encompasses discrimination on the basis of transgender status, gender identity, and sex stereotyping. Further, this Court should find that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims for relief under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and deny Wyandotte’s Motion to Dismiss these claims.

JAMES COLE, JR. General Counsel U.S. Department of Education
VANESSA SANTOS MICHELLE TUCKER Attorneys U.S. Department of Education

Respectfully submitted,
VANITA GUPTA Acting Assistant Attorney General
ANURIMA BHARGAVA EMILY MCCARTHY JOSEPH J. WARDENSKI VERONICA PERCIA Educational Opportunities Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney
s/ Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Michigan Bar Number P60545 Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 226-9149 Susan.DeClercq@usdoj.gov

24 


2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 64-1 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 31 of 31 Pg ID 668

 
 Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.918 Page 1 of 41

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISCTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY TOOLEY, as Next Friend of SETH TOOLEY,

Plaintiff, vs.

Case No.: 14-cv-13466-ACC-DRG HONORABLE AVERN COHN

VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, South Middle School Principal, KAREN MIDA, ROBERT WILKINSON, South Middle Superintendent, MICHAEL VAN TASSEL, VAN BUREN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, BRENT MIKULSKI, MARTHA TOTH, SHERRY FRAZIER, KEVIN ENGLISH, KATHY KOVACH, SCOTT RUSSELL, KELLY OWEN, Individually,

SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH DISTRICT, Superintendent, ALISON CANCILLIARI, Principal, ALEX CHAPMAN; Assistant Principal, RIA COLE, Special Services Director, CATHERINE GRIFFIN; SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Board Members

WYANDOTTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Superintendent, DR. CARLA HARDING, Social Worker, MARIA SUTKA, Psychologist, DR. VIKTOR BROWN; Wilson Middle School Principal, JASON KRAJEWSKI, WYANDOTTE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Board Members, ROBERT KIRBY, CHRISTOPHER CALVIN, PATRICK SUTKA, STEPHANIE MIELLO, Trustees, KATHRYN BEDIKIAN, DANA BROWNING, MICHAEL SWIECKI, Individually.

1

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.919 Page 2 of 41

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

DEARBORN HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, JEFFREY L. BARTOLD, Superintendent, JON ZNAMEROWSKI, OW Best Middle School Principal, CLAUDIA PORTSCHELLER, OW Best Middle School Vice Principal.

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________/

James B. Rasor (P43476)

Kevin T. Sutton (P65264)

Jonathan Marko (P72450)

Robert T. Schindler (P70925)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Defendants, Wyandotte

THE RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC Public Schools; Wyandotte Board of

201 E. Fourth Street

Education; Harting, Sutka, Brown,

Royal Oak, MI 48067

Krajewski, Kirby, Calvin, Sutka,

(248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax Miello, Bedikian, Browning &

jbr@rasorlawfirm.com

Swiecki

jrm@rasorlawfirm.com

LUSK & ALBERTSON PLC

40950 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

(248) 988-5695; (248) 258-2851 fax

ksutton@luskalbertson.com

Timothy J. Mullins (P28021)

Kenneth B. Chapie (P66148)

George P. Butler (P43692)

Attorneys for Defendants, Dearborn Sherry O’Neal Taylor (P62288)

Heights Public Schools No. 7,

Carmen Dorris (P77747)

Bartold, Znamierowski, and

Attorneys for Summit Academy

Portscheller

North, Summit Academy North

GIARMARCO, MULLINS

Board of Directors and Summit

HORTON, PC

Academy Board of Directors

101 W. Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

Troy, MI 48084-5280

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000

(248) 457-7020

Detroit, MI 48226

tmullins@gmhlaw.com

(313) 223-3500; (313) 223-3598 fax

gbutler@dickinsonwright.com

Roy H. Henley (P39921)

soneal@dickinsonwright.com

Jennifer K. Johnston (P74093)

cdorris@dickinsonwright.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Alison

Cancilliari

2

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.920 Page 3 of 41

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

THRUN LAW FIRM, P.C.

David R. Hudson (P78652)

2900 West Road, Suite 400

Roy A. Hulme (0001090)

P.O. Box 2575

Attorneys for the Van Buren

East Lansing, MI 48826-2575

Defendants

(517) 484-8000

REMINGER CO., L.P.A.

rhenley@thrunlaw.com

One SeaGate, Suite 1600

jjohnston@thrunlaw.com

Toledo, OH 43604

(419) 254-1311; (419) 243-7830 fax

Joseph Furton, Jr. (P45653)

dhudson@reminger.com

Peter N. Camps (P68561)

rhulme@reminger.com

Attorneys for Alex Chapman, Ria

Cole and Catherine Griffin

FURTON CAMPS, PLLC

6 Parklane Blvd., Suite 130

Dearborn, MI 48126

(313) 586-8869

jfurton@furtoncamps.com

pcamps@furtoncamps.com

_____________________________________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the above named Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, The Rasor Law Firm, and for her First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and
3

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.921 Page 4 of 41
under the statutes and common law of the State of Michigan. 2. This lawsuit arises out of events occurring within the Cities of
Wyandotte, Dearborn Heights, Van Buren, and Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
3. Jurisdiction is based upon Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 1681 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. (Title IV). The amount in controversy in this case is well in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Kimberly Tooley as Next Friend of Seth Tooley, is a resident of the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 5. Defendants, South Middle School and its administrators: Karen Mida, South Middle School Principal; Robert Wilkinson, Interim Principal of South Middle School; Michael Van Tassel, Interim Principal of South Middle School are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Van Buren, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
4

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.922 Page 5 of 41
6. Defendants, Summit Academy North Charter Public School and its administrators: Amy Grey; Ms. Clark; Mr. Alex Chapman, Principal; Ria Cole, Superintendent; Catherine Griffin; Robin Paris; Ms. Nelson and Summit Academy North Board of Directors are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Romulus, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
7. Defendants, Wilson Middle School and its administrators: Maria Sutka, Dr. Brown, Psychologist; Ms. Alt; Mr. Krease; Cindy Hough; Dr. Carla Harding, Superintendent; Jason Krajewski are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Wyandotte, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
8. Defendants, O.W. Best Middle School and its administrators: Jon Znamerowski, Principal and Claudia Portscheller, Vice Principal are organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal place of business in the City of Dearborn Heights, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiff is a 14 year old boy. He was born as a girl, named Olivia, but has since transitioned, and now goes by Seth Tooley. He has experienced
5

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.923 Page 6 of 41
overwhelming instances of harassment and discrimination because of his transition, as outline below.
10. Plaintiff, Seth Tooley began sixth grade at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan on September 6, 2011. Approximately a week later, Plaintiff was passed a note during class to him by a classmate, Katana Vaughn. He waited until he returned home to open it. The letter told him he was going to go to hell because of the way he dressed and there was a rainbow colored on it.The next morning, Plaintiff's mother called Karen Mida, the vice principal at South Middle School in Van Buren, Michigan. Mrs. Mida knew Seth and plaintiff's mother for years, as she was the principal at South Elementary School and was aware of who Seth was, and of Seth's transitioning. Plaintiff’s mother brought her the note and she made light of it, saying that Katana comes from a good family. Ms. Mida made a copy of the note. She said it was for Seth's file and kept the original note and said she would take care of it, but never did.
11.That same day Seth got off the bus and ran through the door upset. He had urinated himself because he was scolded for attempting to walk into the boy's bathroom, so he just didn't go all day long.
6

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.924 Page 7 of 41
12.Also that same day, Plaintiff was given another note from the same little girl that told him he was going to go to hell the day prior. Inside it, she asked him to forgive her for scaring him. Plaintiff’s mother went to South Middle School the next morning and told Mrs. Mida what had happened. Mrs. Mida told Plaintiff’s mother that she figured that since the girl apologized on her own, that the situation was handled. Plaintiff's mother demanded to have a meeting with the child's parents but Mrs. Mida said it wasn't possible, but that she would talk to the little girl's mother.
13.Plaintiff's mother tried for two days to find out what happened with the conversation with Katana Vaughn’s mother. When plaintiff's mother finally caught up with Mrs. Mida, she said "Oh her mother said that they are good Christian people and Katana would never do that." Plaintiff’s mother told Mrs. Mida that was not acceptable and reminded her that she had seen the note Katana had written and that the child needed to be disciplined, but nothing was ever done.
14.Plaintiff was forced to take gym and the school said that the only way he could opt out was if he had a physical handicap. For days he would change in the bathroom because he wouldn't change with the girls. He
7

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.925 Page 8 of 41
changed in the stalls but there were cracks and the same girls stood directly outside his stall when he would change.
15.Seth's gym teachers yelled at him for being late to class because he took longer to go to the girl's bathroom to change. Eventually he went to the bathroom because the girls wouldn't stop hanging outside the stalls.
16.Plaintiff's mother went in and spoke with both of the gym teachers but they refused to take action.
17. Plaintiff's mother requested that Ms. Mida remove Plaintiff from gym class, but was told that people have to do things in life that they don't want to do. Plaintiff started to throw up daily after gym at that point because of the severe harassment.
18. Between September 6 and October 17, 2011, Plaintiff was called fag, queer, and he/she at school.
19. Plaintiff's mother went to the office almost daily. 20. Four female students told Plaintiff that they kill dykes like him. Plaintiff turned and ran to his locker and while doing so, the girls said, “You better be afraid bitch,” and laughed. 21. Plaintiff’s mother saw Mrs. Mida about this threat. Plaintiff didn't know the names of the girls, but he knew their faces. Plaintiff’s mother
8

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.926 Page 9 of 41
suggested having Seth look at the yearbook from the prior school year to pick out who did this to him when he came to school the next day. Mrs. Mida agreed to walk Seth to his classes the next day.
22. Mrs. Mida walked Plaintiff to his very first class, but abandoned him after that. On this particular day, Plaintiff's mother walked in Mrs. Mida’s office expecting Seth to pick the girls' pictures out, but she had an excuse that she was going to walk Seth to class and that they would take care of it after first hour when she picked him up. That never happened.
23. When plaintiff's mother picked him up from school Plaintiff was sick and anxious. The same girls followed him to gym. When Plaintiff’s mother asked Mrs. Mida what happened, she said she forgot to walk him to the rest of his classes. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother went into Mrs. Mida’s office and she told Seth that “When you get older you'll forget all about the kids that didn't like that you were a tomboy and you will develop into a beautiful woman and…" Seth stood up and said "I am a boy" before plaintiff's mother had the chance to. Plaintiff's mother again reminded her that those four girls threatened to kill her son. Mrs. Mida said, "It was their word against hers," and she refused to do protect Plaintiff.
9

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.927 Page 10 of 41
24. Mrs. Mida was unavailable from that point on. Plaintiff’s mother eventually demanded to see Mr. Wilkinson, an interim principal at South Middle School. Plaintiff’s mother made several appointments to see him. At every appointment he would say the same things such as, "If she is going to dress like a boy she needs to toughen up." He said "It was Olivia's words against four girls." Mr. Wilkinson said that "The school would be better off without a troublemaker like her."
25. On or about November 1, 2011 a meeting was held with Mr. Wilkinson according to a certified letter he sent Plaintiff’s mother. In this letter, Mr. Wilkinson threatened Plaintiff’s mother with truancy charges. At that point, Mr. Wilkinson had threatened Plaintiff’s mother with CPS several times.
26. Seth never returned to school after October 17, 2011 because Mrs. Mida failed to discipline Katana Vaughn and the four girls that threatened to kill him. The administration at South Middle School said Seth needed to make the changes by dressing more feminine and that he wasn't allowed to use the boy's restroom.
27. Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to see Superintendent Mr. Van Tassel on three separate occasions. She also left him several voice
10

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.928 Page 11 of 41
mails. She even walked in two times demanding to see him. She explained that her child had been out of school for a very long time and that she needed help so that her child could get back in school, but she never received a reply.
28. In January 2012, Plaintiff’s mother decided to look into different school options because of the harassment. Plaintiff’s mother chose Summit Academy- Romulus campus.
29. After Seth was tested, the special education department at Summit advised Plaintiff’s mother that Seth needed to go down a grade. Plaintiff’s mother had a meeting with the principal and special education teacher and advised them of Seth's transitioning. They said that there wouldn't be a problem; however, they refused to call him by his name, Seth, or even an alternative nickname.
30. The staff and everyone involved at Summit Academy informed Plaintiff’s mother that they would "Not participate in any correspondence be it verbal or oral where Plaintiff’s mother did not support Olivia in her emotional and mental potential or it would be to her and [my] detriment."
31. When Plaintiff left South Middle School he started to experience a psychosomatic pain condition and within a few months he was in a
11

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.929 Page 12 of 41
wheelchair. This was caused by the mental and emotional distress that had taken its physical toll on the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ actions.
32. In February 2012, Seth started to miss a lot of school. This was due to the psychosomatic pain and vomiting from being bullying by staff and students. Plaintiff’s mother then asked about homebound school.
33. On or about February 16, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Amy Gray from special education over the phone and requested that Plaintiff’s mother "Fax over the diagnosis of dystonia to her and she could get the ball rolling on the homebound instruction." Seth was seeing his new neurologist Dr. Sivaswami at that time. Plaintiff's mother faxed the report to Summit Academy, attention Amy Gray on February 23, 2012. On it, plaintiff's mother made a note that the hard copy would be brought into school. The same day Plaintiff’s mother faxed the report, emailed the school and asked them if they had a wheelchair they could borrow until insurance paid for one. When Plaintiff’s mother talked to them about this at a later date, Mrs. Clark the fifth grade teacher, Mr. Alex Chapman the principal, and Ria Cole the superintendent, refused to provide Seth with accommodations.
34. Plaintiff’s mother hand-delivered the information to Mrs. Clark herself. Jan, the secretary at Dr. Frederelli's office faxed the homebound
12

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.930 Page 13 of 41
paperwork several times because they kept saying that they never received it. There were fax confirmations from the doctor's office that Jan sent the documents dated March 15, 2012.
35. On March 28, 2012 Plaintiff’s mother received an Email from Kathryn Griffin, the special education director. The email said that she acknowledged receiving documentation on March 28, 2012, when the fax confirmations actually said she received it on March 15. After receiving it, they had 15 days to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Ms. Griffin said that she "has someone in mind for a teacher, but it wasn’t exactly positive. She wasn't sure that was going to work.” The potential teacher was in the process of registering for school and had to check her schedule at that time. They were not adhering to mandatory deadlines and were not taking this seriously.
36. Also, the same day Kathryn Griffin asked Plaintiff’s mother for any paperwork that she may have from the old school that may help out. Van Buren had already sent over Seth’s file at that point. She clearly had not reviewed or looked at it when it was sent. Plaintiff’s mother had to contact RESA and they intervened. An RESA representative called Summit and told them they only had a certain amount of days to get Seth into school.
13

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.931 Page 14 of 41
37. On April 17, 2012, Homebound IEP was finally held, which was beyond 30 days after it was faxed from the doctor's office.
38. During the IEP, they discussed who the teacher would be. Ms. Clark was the fifth grade teacher and she agreed to do it but she would only do it Tuesdays and Thursdays because of her school schedule and “Fridays were her date nights with her husband.” They also talked about the fact that Seth was transitioning and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted him to be referred to as Seth. Ms. Clark refused to do so. Plaintiff’s mother stated that she felt that their lack of cooperation and understanding was where Seth’s depression and a lot of the other issues were coming from.
39. Ms. Griffin said that Plaintiff’s mother was free to hire her own teacher if she would like to.
40. Ms. Clark stated she would not call a child that is clearly a female by a male name and that it was “not appropriate to make her feel that way.” Ms. Clark had never even met Seth. Seth lived as a boy and Plaintiff’s mother tried to explain that. Plaintiff’s mother explained that her son has been known as Seth the whole time but no one would allow it, but Ms. Griffin she said that it was too late now. Plaintiff’s mother was left again with no choice. The staff, administration and teachers all again reiterated that any and all correspondence had to be of Plaintiff as Olivia.
14

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.932 Page 15 of 41
41. On or about August 30, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went to meet-yourteacher night at Summit. Plaintiff’s mother talked to Seth's teacher Robin Pierce about Seth being transgender. She also brought some information for her to read explaining transgender people and the transitioning process, including the importance of Seth being referred to in masculine terms. Ms. Pierce said she would get back to Plaintiff’s mother, but eventually said she said was not allowed to refer to Seth in masculine terms.
42. On or about September 14, 2012 was picture day. Seth's picture was zoomed in on his face, so none of his wheelchair showed in the picture.
43. Plaintiff’s mother requested to amend the IEP based on Seth's problems he was having in his class, but was denied the right. Approximately one week prior to October 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother went into class and asked Ms. Pierce why several of Seth's papers were being marked down or marked as incomplete. Plaintiff’s mother told her a few times that Plaintiff had trouble with his penmanship and because his hands hurt and spasmed, which caused by his penmanship to change literally from hour to hour. Ms. Pierce ignored Plaintiff’s mother and she said she needed to leave. Plaintiff’s mother and Ms. Pierce had another interaction over the same subject matter that same week and Ms. Pierce informed Plaintiff’s
15

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.933 Page 16 of 41
mother that she was only legally required to stick to the IEP, so Plaintiff’s mother made an appointment to amend it.
44. The meeting to amend the IEP was scheduled for October 3, 2012. Everyone showed up including the principal, Mr. Chapman. The school refused to amend the IEP.
45. Plaintiff’s mother brought in the diagnosis of dystonia and samples of how beautifully Seth used to write; Plaintiff’s mother showed how Seth’s penmanship had deteriorated over the last few years and that Plaintiff’s mother wanted the IEP to be amended.
46. Ms. Pierce refused to accept entire papers due to Seth’s penmanship problems. Plaintiff’s mother told her that if Seth is anxious or nervous he gets spasms and he experienced them in his hands too. Sometimes his hands were fine but other times they weren’t. Ms. Pierce stopped Plaintiff’s mother and said “who are you talking about?” with a smirk. “Are we talking about the same person?” As though to mock that they were talking about Olivia as a boy.
47. Ms. Pierce said “do you mean to tell me that since Olivia has triple the time to finish her work when she misses a day of school, which is the
16

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.934 Page 17 of 41
longest of any child I've ever had, she doesn't have any amount of time that she doesn't have an episode?”
48. Mr. Chapman stopped the entire meeting and said that they were not amending an IEP for this. Ms. Grace said, "We need some diagnosis to continue to give services to her, she doesn't seem to have all these things wrong that you say she has wrong." Plaintiff’s mother wasn't the one who diagnosed him. His doctors had.
49. Mr. Chapman told Plaintiff’s mother that he thinks she likes the attention and Olivia has suffered for it. Plaintiff’s mother said that these were grades and Seth has a handicap that isn’t being taking into consideration when giving those grades and that they were making it worse and causing more anxiety. Mr. Chapman said he wasn't doing it. He stood up and said “Have a nice day Ms. Tooley.”
50. On or about October 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Seth's doctor and asked for all the diagnoses that they had on record, so she could keep getting him services at Summit while she decided whether or not she was going to take him out. Seth was very unhappy there but he was afraid to go to a regular public school. He liked that at Summit he wore a uniform. In a uniform, he didn't stick out and he could disappear into the crowd.
17

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.935 Page 18 of 41
51. Summit called CPS stating that Plaintiff’s mother had Munchhausen syndrome. CPS concluded that the complaint was unfounded.
52. Plaintiff’s mother then took Plaintiff out of Summit. 53. On or about December 4, 2012, Plaintiff started sixth grade at Wilson Middle School. 54. On or about January 14, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother turned in her part of the evaluation paperwork to enroll Seth, and followed up via email. Plaintiff’s mother spoke with Dr. Brown, the school psychologist, that week regarding Seth being transgender. 55. Plaintiff’s mother also spoke with Maria Sutka about Seth needing to be referred to as Seth and about having access to the boy's bathroom. Plaintiff’s mother was told that it was in Olivia's best interests to be referred to as Olivia and to use female pronouns, even though he had been living as a male for years. 56. Plaintiff’s mother let the teachers and administration know that she wasn't going to allow this. That all of Seth’s doctors and psychologists stated that the fact that his gender identity had been denied for so many years, was causing his psychosomatic pain.
18

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.936 Page 19 of 41
57. It wasn't until a month after Maria Sutka, the social worker, spoke with his therapist that she agreed to allow Seth to be referred to as such, but they still made Seth use the staff ladies room across from the cafeteria.
58. When Plaintiff’s mother complained enough, they told Seth about another bathroom. The bathroom was unisex, but they didn't tell him about the bathroom until they were doing construction on the front office. By that time the unisex bathroom was closed most of the time.
59. Seth was warned to never try to use the boy's bathroom upstairs. It was a trough urinal and there were no doors. He was told that if boys caught him sneaking, they would see him and he would probably get hurt. Maria Sutka said to Seth, “who would be there for your sister if someone hurts you?”
60. On or about May 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s mother emailed the social worker, Maria Sutka, requesting the principal's email address so she could make yet another unsuccessful attempt at an appointment with him.
61. Ms. Alt, Seth's math teacher, made a hurtful comment about Seth. Seth had missed a week of school and when he came back, Ms. Alt asked the co-teacher, Mr. Crease, if Seth was there? Plaintiff kindly said yes. Mr. Crease was standing next to Seth working with him and she said “Wow
19

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.937 Page 20 of 41
that's a surprise.” Seth fought tears as hard as he could and the kids laughed at him. He then asked to go to the bathroom, but Ms. Alt denied him permission, so he stayed there with everyone staring at him.
62. The next week, Ms. Alt called Plaintiff Olivia three times in roll call. Plaintiff’s mother finally met with Ms. Alt. Ms. Alt refused to see Plaintiff’s mother at first, but finally met with Plaintiff’s mother and said she would make a conscious effort to stop calling Plaintiff Olivia. Ms. Alt placed the blame on Plaintiff’s mother saying that if she wanted the name to be different, she should change it legally. During the meeting Ms. Alt told Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother that her sister had a type of arthritis, so she understood Seth's pain. Ms. Alt told Seth that he needed to work through his pain and not let it own him. Plaintiff’s mother asked Ms. Alt about Seth's IEP and the math disability and how the school could help him succeed. Ms. Alt said that Plaintiff needed to stop missing school or he will not succeed, right in front of him.
63. On or about June 17, 2013, Cindy Hough, special education director at Wilson Middle School outed Seth to another student’s mother during her son's IEP. Marcy Mayrand, a neighbor and the mother of a boy that Seth played with, called Plaintiff’s mother telling her that Ms. Hough just stepped
20

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.938 Page 21 of 41
out of her son’s IEP to make copies and that Ms. Hough mentioned Olivia Tooley. Ms. Hough asked Marcy Mayrand if she knew that her son’s friend, who he has been playing with all summer, is a girl? Marcy was bragging to Mrs. Hough about how well her son Sean's behavior had been since he had found a friend in Seth. Marcy felt Seth was a good influence on her son. Plaintiff’s mother drove to the meeting and went to see Mrs. Hough. When Plaintiff’s mother arrived, Marcy recorded the conversation. Ms. Hough basically made excuses as to why she outed the Plaintiff.
64. After the meeting, Plaintiff’s mother requested, seven times in writing, to receive a meeting with Dr. Carla Harding, the superintendent, and Mr. Krajewski the principal. Plaintiff’s mother called and left voicemails and also went into the Principal’s office twice. Mr. Krajewski just refused to speak with Plaintiff’s mother.
65. On or about June 26, 2013, Seth's schoolmate, who worked with his older brother at the concession stand at Bishop Park, called Seth a “fucking faggot” and refused to sell him and a friend water. Plaintiff’s mother filed a formal complaint with the head of parks and recreation about what happened, but nothing was done. They told Plaintiff’s mother to have her son stay away from their concession stand because of their religious rights.
21

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.939 Page 22 of 41
66. The younger boy who was at the concession stand was from Seth's school and told Plaintiff’s mother that their principal had told him that Seth was a girl. The next day, Plaintiff’s mother emailed Maria Sutka and told her she needed to know where and when she could get into contact with Mr. Jason Krajewski. Plaintiff’s mother told Maria Sutka what happened at the park and that several other students told her that Mr. Krajewski outed Seth. Plaintiff’s mother also found out that a classmate’s mother refused to let her kids play with Seth after Mr. Krajewski told her that Seth was in fact a female.
67. On or about July 15, 2013 was Nate Adkins first attack of Seth. Nate Adkins was a boy that Seth went to school with. He was an eighth grader at Wilson Middle School in Wyandotte. Chris Sizemore was another boy in Seth's seventh hour language arts class that Seth had problems with.
68. Because Seth wasn't allowed to use the regular boy's bathroom, he was forced to use the women's staff restroom which was clearly marked as such. This bathroom was right outside the cafeteria. Nate saw Seth come out of the bathroom one afternoon, laughed at him and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?” Then laughed and called him a fag while walking away.
22

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.940 Page 23 of 41
Seth told his mother about this and she immediately made an appointment with Ms. Sutka, but it was dismissed as Seth being overly sensitive.
69. On or about July 15, 2013, Seth was at Pulaski Park with a friend and a few smaller boys all talking about their bikes, when out of the blue, Seth looked up because he recognized one of the voices. It was Nate Adkins. Nate walked up behind him and pushed Seth’s neighborhood friend off his bike, got in Seth's face, laughed and said, “You better run fag. Are you scared? I'll rape you straight.” Seth ran away so hard he was injured. Seth fractured his elbow and he hit his ear and his face. That child was eventually prosecuted.
70. Early September 2013, Seth started at a new school, OW Best Middle School in Dearborn Heights.
71. Seth was basically accepted by staff but was not allowed to use the boy's bathroom.
72. Mr. Zemerowski made comments every day at lunch when Seth was sitting with his female friends. Mr. Zemerowski would come up behind Seth, pat him on the back, and say “Have a nice day ladies.” Plaintiff’s mother let Mr. Zemerowski know several times that it bothered Plaintiff, but
23

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.941 Page 24 of 41
he still did it. Mr. Zemerowski told Plaintiff’s mother many times that it would have been a lot easier if Seth was just honest with everyone.
73. On or about November 11, 2013, Vice Principal, Ms. Portescheler saw Seth and his girlfriend hold hands in the hallway. It was Plaintiff’s first girlfriend and he didn't know he couldn't hold hands with his girlfirend. When the vice principal saw it, she went up to Seth and his girlfriend and told them to stop now or they would both be in detention.
74. When Plaintiff’s mother picked up Seth from school he told his mother what happened. He was embarrassed, but Plaintiff’s mother told him it was okay and they moved on with their Friday evening. Around dinnertime, Seth received a text from his girlfriend that she wanted to call him when he was done eating.
75. Seth’s girlfriend said that Mrs. Portercheler had called and told her mother what happened at school and that her mom was making her break up with the Plaintiff. Then Seth’s girlfriend said “Are you a girl? She told my mom you're a girl. Are you a girl? Tell me the truth.”
76. Mrs. Portescheller outed Seth to his girlfriend’s parents.
24

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.942 Page 25 of 41
77. Seth experienced kidney infections due to not being allowed to use the bathroom. He was in the hospital at Children's on or about April 1, 2014.
78. Plaintiff’s mother called an IEP around April 2014 because Plaintiff had a math disability, but when he asked for help, they told him that he needed to stop missing so much school.
COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. 79. Plaintiff re-alleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint. 80.Defendants have a custom, policy or procedure of discriminating against students on the basis of sex, specifically transgender individuals. This custom, policy, or procedure allows their employees and agents to violate the constitutional rights of students, like Plaintiff. 81. In addition, Defendants have also been given notice on repeated occasions of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices against students by Defendants and the agents under their supervision. Said patterns and practices have resulted in, and continue to result in the wrongful injury to transgender students, particularly to Plaintiff.
25

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.943 Page 26 of 41
82. Despite notice, Defendants have demonstrated deliberate indifference to these patterns and practices of constitutional violations by failing to take necessary, appropriate, or adequate measures to prevent their continued perpetration. This lack of adequate response by Defendants demonstrates the existence of a custom or policy by Defendants that tolerates and promotes the continued violation of civil rights of American citizens by Defendants and others under Defendants' supervision.
83. By committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, while acting under color of law, have demonstrated a deliberate indifference to clearly established law.
84. Defendants and persons acting under color of state law and as agents of, and/or in collusion with, Defendant School Districts, caused a constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff's rights, namely the loss of Equal Protection under the law and a loss of Substantive Due Process under the law.
85. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendant violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right by arbitrarily depriving Plaintiff and other transgender individuals of protected interests.
26

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.944 Page 27 of 41
86. Defendants' willful, wanton and malicious denial of necessary and appropriate medical treatment to Plaintiff, while acting under color of law, denied Plaintiff his right to Substantive Due Process and his right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
87. Defendants also violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process right by failing to train educators to handle and understand the needs of transgender individuals.
88. Defendants further violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by failing to provide equal access to educational opportunity to Plaintiff as they did to Plaintiff's peers.
89. The intentional, willful and wanton act of Defendants establishes a claim for punitive damages by Plaintiff against non-governmental Defendants.
90. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policies and acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained physical injury, pain and suffering in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
27

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.945 Page 28 of 41
COUNT II: SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE IX
20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. 91. Plaintiff re-alleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint. 92. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides in relevant part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ....
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 93. The public and charter school funding is a program or activity within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 94. The acts complained of herein constitute a violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights under 20 U.S.C. §1681 et. seq. by effectively denying the benefits to transsexual individuals on the basis of their sex, and by failing to accord transsexual individuals equal treatment and benefits. 95. Defendants' acts in denying Plaintiff adequate accommodations in an educational environment were done with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health and well-being.
28

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.946 Page 29 of 41
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth under Title IX.
COUNT III: SEX-BASED HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE IV of the CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-2000c-9 96. Plaintiff re-alleges as though fully set forth herein and incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint. 97. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6, prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, race, color, and/or national origin in public schools, which deprives individuals of the equal protection of the laws. Actual knowledge of and a clearly unreasonable response to severe or pervasive harassment, which bars students from enjoying the educational benefits afforded to them based on race, sex, gender, color, and/or national origin, constitutes discrimination. 98. Defendants' deliberate indifference to known instances of severe and pervasive harassment to which a transgender student was subjected as alleged in paragraphs 1-47, effectively barred him equal access to educational opportunities. Defendants' acts and omissions as alleged in paragraphs 1-72, deny transgender students the equal protection of the laws
29

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.947 Page 30 of 41
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOTT LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT 99. At all material times, Plaintiff was an student, and defendants were public institutions, covered by and within the meaning of Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101, et seq. 100. Plaintiff’s sex was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of him. 101. Defendants, through their agents, representatives, and employees, were predisposed to discriminate on the basis of sex and acted in accordance with that predisposition. 102. Defendant treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated male students in the terms and conditions of his education, based on unlawful consideration of sex.
30

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.948 Page 31 of 41
103. Defendants’ actions were intentional and disregarded for Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities.
104. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about the unlawful treatment that he was experiencing, in violation of the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.
105. . As a direct result of defendant’s unlawful actions Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, as set forth above.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT 106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 107. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal protection rights of Seth Tooley guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional. 108. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of
31

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.949 Page 32 of 41
the Defendants as other similarly situated students were. 109. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth
Tooley and the rest of the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
110. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VI FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS 111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 112. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was openly transgender and held himself out as such to his family, peers, work colleagues, teachers, administrators,
32

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.950 Page 33 of 41
and the public at large. 113. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was also a vocal supporter of his own
status and the legal rights of transgender people. 114. Plaintiff Seth Tooley is ensured his right to Free Speech and
expressive conduct as demonstrated in his journals and conversations with peers and friends by the First Amendment.
115. Plaintiff Seth Tooley was retaliated against by his peers for being openly homosexual and expressing himself in manners protected by the First Amendment.
116. Defendant’s failure to punish or protect the harassing students and staff or Seth Tooley, respectively, is a violation of Plaintiff Tooley’s right to free speech as under the United States Constitution.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE
MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION 117. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing
33

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.951 Page 34 of 41
paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 118. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for violation of the equal
protection rights of Seth Tooley, guaranteed by M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2, by failing to take decisive and appropriate remedial measures against known perpetrators of the offensive harassment, said failure being deliberate and intentional.
119. Plaintiff was not provided access to the educational programs of the Defendant as other similarly situated students were.
120. Defendants failed to ameliorate the disparity between Seth Tooley and the rest of the student body and staff in that they did not reprimand or punish any individual who harassed, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against Seth Tooley to the extent that it affected his educational opportunities.
121. Defendant’s failure to provide an equal educational opportunity as mandated by Federal law is a violation of Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Rights.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this
34

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.952 Page 35 of 41
court deems just under the circumstances. COUNT VIII
GROSS NEGLIGENCE 122. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated herein. 123. At all times material to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff, and to any student attending to keep students safe, to supervise conduct at the school, and/or to maintain an environment conductive to learning. 124. Defendant’s wrongful conduct includes but is not limited to the following:
a. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their District Code;
b. Failure to discipline students engaged in harassment of Plaintiff as required by their School Regulations and Rules;
c. Failure to take appropriate and proper remedial action to preserve a safe environment conductive to learning;
d. Failure to protect Plaintiff from pervasive physical and emotional abuse of which they had knowledge;
35

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.953 Page 36 of 41
e. Failure to train school staff, teachers, principals and counselors on taking the appropriate actions to protect students and provide an equal opportunity educational environment.
125. By acting in the manner described above, Defendants breached the above duties and all other applicable duties and thereby was grossly negligent and/or guilty of conduct amounting to intentional willful and/or wanton misconduct. Defendant’s actions were reckless and demonstrated a substantial lack of concern as to whether injury or death resulted, thereby subjecting Defendant to liability under Michigan statutes and law.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.\
COUNT IX 42 USC 1983 VIOLATION PURSUANT TO MONELL
126. The Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of execution of the Districts’ policies and customs, pursuant to Monell v Department of Soc Servs, 436 US 658, 690 (1978).
36

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.954 Page 37 of 41
127. Plaintiff’s constitutional deprivations resulted from the Districts’ customs and procedures.
128. The Districts’ failure to train employees, staff, and administration, gives rise to the Districts’ liability resulting from the Districts’ employee-caused constitutional violations.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT X 42 USC 1983- VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS THROUGH SUPERVISION, CUSTOMS, POLICIES, ACUIESCENCE AND
TRAINING 129. Plaintiff incorporates herein all other prior allegations. 130. The Defendant Districts had an obligation to train is administrative staff, teachers, counselors and employees regarding the constitutional rights of citizens under the constitution, including but not limited to that they take action to protect students from harassment and discrimination based on sex.
37

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.955 Page 38 of 41
131. The Defendant districts had an obligation to supervise its administrative staff, teachers, counselors and employees to insure that the constitutional rights of citizens under the Constitution were not violated, including the right not to be subjected to be free from a deprivation of liberty, property, bodily security and integrity without due process of law, and not to expose a greater risk of danger at the hands of the State.
132. The Defendant districts failed to comply with the aforementioned obligations and had a custom or policy of acting with deliberate indifference to the violations of the constitutional rights of the State’s citizens and had a custom or policy of failing to train and/or failing to supervise school district employees regarding the protection/violation of those constitutional rights and/or failing to discipline employees who violated those constitutional rights.
WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever amount she may be found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just under the circumstances.
38

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.956 Page 39 of 41
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 133. The Plaintiff re-alleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-133 above. 134. Students in the Districts’ schools, including but not limited to the Plaintiff, have been harassed by their peers with derogatory language, threats, and physical assaults because of their nonconformity to gender stereotypes and/or sexually harassed by their peers. Sex-based harassment in the Districts is severe, pervasive, or persistent, and has denied or limited students' abilities to participate in or benefit from the District's educational program. 135. In some instances, the District should have known of the harassment but failed to investigate, address, and/or stop the harassment. In most instances involving Plaintiff, Plaintiff himself and his mother have reported sex-based harassment to school and District officials. District officials clearly knew of the harassment but the District either took no action or its response was inadequate. The harassment continued and in many instances escalated. 136. A hostile environment exists in the Districts, and the Districts’ existing policies and procedures have contributed to the hostile environment.
39

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.957 Page 40 of 41
137. The District's failure to appropriately and adequately address sex-based harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c-2000c-9, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et. seq. the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.
138. Unless enjoined by this court, the District will continue to violate the Plaintiff’s state, federal and Constitutional rights. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief from allowing the Districts from continuing their discriminatory policies and procedures.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests a monetary judgment for the actual damages sustained together with statutory fees, reasonable attorney fees, interest, and costs.
Respectfully submitted, THE RASOR LAW FIRM
/s/ James B. Rasor _______________________________ James B. Rasor (P43476) Sarah M. Thomas (P76481) 201 East Fourth St.
40

Case 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG ECF No. 85 filed 11/05/15 PageID.958 Page 41 of 41

Dated: November 5, 2015

Royal Oak MI 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com smt@rasorlawfirm.com

RELIANCE ON DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, The Rasor Law Firm,

hereby rely on its demand for jury trial in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

\

THE RASOR LAW FIRM

Dated: November 5, 2015

/s/ James B. Rasor _______________________________ James B. Rasor (P43476) Sarah M. Thomas (P76481) 201 East Fourth St. Royal Oak MI 48067 (248) 543-9000; (248) 543-9050 fax jbr@rasorlawfirm.com smt@rasorlawfirm.com

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

41

 
 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 124 Filed 03/09/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2062

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY TOOLEY, as Next Friend of SETH TOOLEY,

Plaintiff, vs.
VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.,

Case No.: 14-cv-13466-ACC-DRG Honorable Avern Cohn

Defendants.

___________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLMENT AND APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
NOW COME the parties, by and through their respective attorneys and

upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement and for Approval of Attorney

Fees and Costs, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the above parties have reached a

settlement in this case in the amount of Ninety-Seven Thousand Five Hundred

Dollars & 00/100 ($97,500.00); and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s counsel, Rasor Law Firm,

PLLC, shall receive reimbursement of costs in the amount of Fourteen Thousand

Nine Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars & 37/100 ($14,954.37); and

1

2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG Doc # 124 Filed 03/09/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2063
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive an attorney fee in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred EightSeven Dollars & 69/100 ($27,487.69); and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Darren Findling Law Firm shall receive reimbursement of attorney fees and costs in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Seven Dollars & 50/100 ($1,907.50); and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the request for a lien in this matter by Attorney Jonathan Marko is hereby denied; and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that after payment of the above ordered attorney fees and costs, the remaining settlement proceeds shall be paid to Plaintiff, KIMBERLY TOOLEY, as Next Friend of SETH TOOLEY, in the amount of Fifty-Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars and 44/100 ($53,150.44), pursuant to probate court orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017

S/Avern Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

RASOR LAW FIRM, PLLC

2

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 1 of 22
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−13466−AC−DRG

CLOSED

Tooley et al v. Van Buren Public Schools et al Assigned to: District Judge Avern Cohn Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Grand Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Date Terminated: 03/09/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 448 Civil Rights: Education Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kimberly Tooley

represented by Edward G. Lennon Edward G. Lennon 355 S. Old Woodward Ste. 100 Birmingham, MI 48009 248−723−1276 Email: elennon@lennonlawpllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Marie Thomas Law Offices of Sarah M. Thomas, PLLC 300 Maple Park Blvd., Ste 304 St. Clair Shores, MI 48081 586−243−8972 Email: st@atlawgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James B. Rasor Rasor Law Firm 201 E Fourth Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 United Sta 248−543−9000 Fax: 248−543−9050 Email: jbr@rasorlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Marko Ernst & Marko Law, PLC 645 Griswold Suite 4100 Detroit, MI 48226 313−965−5555 Fax: 313−965−5556 Email: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Seth Tooley

represented by Edward G. Lennon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Marko (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Marie Thomas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James B. Rasor

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 2 of 22
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Van Buren Public Schools

represented by Carmen Dorris Dickinson Wright 500 Woodward Ave. Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 313−223−3031 Fax: 313−223−3598 Email: cdorris@dickinsonwright.com TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R. Hudson Reminger Attorneys At Law One Seagate Suite 1600 Toledo, OH 43604 419−254−1311 Fax: 419−243−7830 Email: dhudson@reminger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George P. Butler , III Dickinson Wright 500 Woodward Avenue Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226−3425 313−223−3500 Email: GButler@dickinsonwright.com TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler Lusk Albertson 409 E. Jefferson Ave. Fifth Floor Detroit, MI 48226 248−988−5696 Fax: 248−258−2851 Email: RSchindler@LuskAlbertson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy Hulme Reminger Co LPA 101 West Prospect Avenue Suite 1400 Cleveland, OH 44115−1093 216−687−1311 Fax: 216−687−1841 Email: rhulme@reminger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry D. O'Neal Dickinson Wright 500 Woodward Avenue Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226−3425 313−223−3500 Email: SONeal@DickinsonWright.com

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 3 of 22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C. 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., 10th Floor Troy, MI 48084 248−457−7000 Email: tmullins@gmhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Karen Mida

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Robert Wilkerson

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 4 of 22

Defendant Michael Van Tassel
Defendant Van Buren Board of Education
Defendant Brent Mikulski

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Dorris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 5 of 22

TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Martha Toth

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sherry Frazier

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 6 of 22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kevin English

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kathy Kovach

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 7 of 22

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Scott Russell

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kelly Owen

represented by George P. Butler , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/25/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David R. Hudson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roy Hulme (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Summit Academy North District TERMINATED: 06/03/2016

represented by Carmen Dorris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 8 of 22

George P. Butler , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alison Cancilliari TERMINATED: 06/03/2016

represented by Jennifer K. Johnston Thrun Law Firm, P.C. 2000 West Road Suite 400 East Lansing, MI 48826 517−484−8000 Fax: 517−484−0041 Email: jjohnston@thrunlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alex Chapman TERMINATED: 06/03/2016

represented by Jennifer Rupert Law Office of Jennifer Rupert P.O. Box 151 Milan, MI 48160 (231) 343−4373 Email: jrupert@furtoncamps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph R. Furton , Jr. 17430 Laurel Park Drive North Suite 120 E Livonia, MI 48152 734−591−4002 Email: jfurton@mikecoxlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter N. Camps Champnella Furton & Camps PLC 6 Parklane Boulevard Suite 130 Dearborn, MI 48126 586−530−7664 Fax: 313−908−5102 Email: pcamps@furtoncamps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 9 of 22

Defendant Ria Cole TERMINATED: 06/03/2016
Defendant Catherine Griffin TERMINATED: 06/03/2016
Defendant Summit Academy Board of Directors TERMINATED: 06/03/2016

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Rupert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph R. Furton , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N. Camps (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Rupert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph R. Furton , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N. Camps (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carmen Dorris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George P. Butler , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry D. O'Neal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 10 of 22

Defendant Wyandotte Public Schools
Defendant Carla Harding
Defendant Maria Sutka
Defendant Viktor Brown

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin T. Sutton Lusk Albertson PLC 409 E. Jefferson Ave. Fifth Floor Detroit, MI 48226 248−988−5695 Fax: 248−258−2851 Email: ksutton@luskalbertson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler Lusk & Albertson 40950 Woodward Avenue Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 248−988−5696 Fax: 248−258−2851 Email: RSchindler@LuskAlbertson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Schindler

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 11 of 22

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jason Krajewski

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Wyandotte Board of Education

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Robert Kirby

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Christopher C. Calvin

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Patrick Sutka

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 12 of 22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Stephanie Miello

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kathryn Bedikian

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dana Browning

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Michael Swiecki

represented by Kevin T. Sutton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 13 of 22

Defendant Dearborn Heights Public Schools

represented by Kenneth B. Chapie Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C. 10th Floor Columbia Center 101 West Big Beaver Rd. Troy, MI 48084−5280 248−457−7048 Fax: 248−457−7001 Email: kchapie@gmhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jeffrey L Bartold

represented by Kenneth B. Chapie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jon Znamerowski

represented by Kenneth B. Chapie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Claudia Portscheller

represented by Kenneth B. Chapie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert T. Schindler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy J. Mullins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Claimant Jonathan R Marko

represented by Kevin S. Ernst 645 Griswold St. Suite 4100

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 14 of 22
Detroit, MI 48226 313−965−5555 Fax: 313−965−5556 Email: kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Interested Party
United States

Date Filed 09/05/2014
09/08/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014
09/09/2014
09/15/2014 10/09/2014 11/17/2014
11/21/2014 11/21/2014
11/25/2014
11/25/2014 12/01/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645−4803041 − Fee: &#036 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Wayne − County Where Action Arose: Wayne − County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Rasor, James) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
2 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by All Plaintiffs (Rasor, James) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
3 SUMMONS Issued for * All Defendants * (DWor) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
NOTICE of Error directed to: James B. Rasor re 1 Complaint. Parties (Porter, Anastasia, Smith, and Reale) listed on the initiating document were omitted. The filing attorney must use the docket event Addition of Parties to correct the error. [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (DWor) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DWor) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Rasor, James) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Jennifer K. Johnston appearing on behalf of Alison Cancilliari Appearance and Notice of Appearance (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin T. Sutton on behalf of Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Sherry D. O'Neal Taylor on behalf of Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District. (Taylor, Sherry) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
8 Stipulated Order to Extend the Date for Defendants Summit Academy North and Summit Academy Board of Directors to File a Responsive Pleading re 1 Complaint, :( Response due by 12/10/2014) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
9 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Van Buren Public Schools. (Butler, George) [ANSWER FILED ON BEHALF OF VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, KAREN MIDA, ROBERT WILKINSON, MICHAEL VAN TASSEL, VAN BUREN BOARD OF EDUCATION, BRENT MIKULSKI, MARTHA TOTH, SHERRY FRAZIER, KEVIN ENGLISH, KATHY KOVACH, SCOTT RUSSELL AND KELLY OWEN]Modified on 1/16/2015 (SCha). (Entered: 11/25/2014)
10 REPLY to 2 Jury Demand by Van Buren Public Schools. (Butler, George) Modified on 11/26/2014 (DWor). [WRONG EVENT SELECTED − DOCUMENT IS A RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND] (Entered: 11/25/2014)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy J. Mullins on behalf of Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) (Entered: 12/01/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 15 of 22

12/04/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/31/2014
12/31/2014
12/31/2014
01/06/2015 01/06/2015

12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) by Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corporate Entity Details) (Taylor, Sherry) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
13 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Van Buren Public Schools served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
14 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Van Buren Board of Education served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
15 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Sherry Frazier served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
16 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Scott Russell served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
17 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Robert Wilkerson served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
18 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Michael Van Tassel served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
19 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Martha Toth served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
20 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Kevin English served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
21 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Kelly Owen served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
22 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Kathy Kovach served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
23 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Karen Mida served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
24 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Brent Mikulski served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
25 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
26 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Robert T. Schindler appearing on behalf of Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools (Schindler, Robert) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
28 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Reliance on Jury Demand by Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
29 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Ria Cole served on 1/5/2015, answer due 1/26/2015. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
30 Stipulated Order for a 14 Day Extension for Filing Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Summit Academy North and Summit Academy Board of Director's 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) :( Response due by

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 16 of 22

01/07/2015
01/09/2015 01/13/2015 01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/19/2015 01/20/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015

1/19/2015) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
31 ORDER for Plaintiff(s) to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute as to Defendants Karen Mida, Robert Wilkerson, Michael Van Tassel, Van Buren Board of Education, Brent Mikulski, Martha Toth, Sherry Frazier, Kevin English, Kathy Kovach, Scott Russell, Kelly Owen, Alex Chapman, Ria Cole and Catherine Griffin. Show Cause Response due by 1/14/2015 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth B. Chapie on behalf of Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Chapie, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
33 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Alex Chapman served on 1/12/2015, answer due 2/2/2015. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
34 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Catherine Griffin served on 1/12/2015, answer due 2/2/2015. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
35 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Summit Academy North District served on 11/5/2014, answer due 11/26/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
36 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Alison Cancilliari served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) Modified on 1/15/2015 (DWor). [SERVICE ON 11/5/14] (Entered: 01/14/2015)
37 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Summit Academy Board of Directors served on 11/4/2014, answer due 11/25/2014. (Marko, Jonathan) Modified on 1/15/2015 (DWor). [SERVICE ON 11/5/14] (Entered: 01/14/2015)
38 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Summit Academy North District by Kimberly Tooley. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
39 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Alison Cancilliari by Kimberly Tooley. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
40 REQUEST FOR CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Summit Academy Board of Directors by Kimberly Tooley. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
41 NOTICE OF DENIAL of Clerk's Entry of Default as to *Summit Academy North District*. Reason: *Motion to Dismiss filed on 12/4/14* (DWor) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
42 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to *Alison Cancilliari* (DWor) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
43 NOTICE OF DENIAL of Clerk's Entry of Default as to *Summit Academy Board of Directors*. Reason: *Motion to Dismiss filed on 12/4/14* (DWor) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
44 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Alison Cancilliari served on 1/15/2015, answer due 2/5/2015. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
45 Order Vacating 31 Order to Show Cause − Failure to Prosecute,. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
46 RESPONSE to 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) filed by Kimberly Tooley. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/19/2015)
47 Stipulated Order to Withdraw 42 Clerk's Entry of Default of Alison Cancilliari Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph R. Furton, Jr on behalf of Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Furton, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service by Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Furton, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 17 of 22

01/26/2015 01/30/2015 02/02/2015 02/03/2015 02/05/2015 02/06/2015 02/12/2015 02/13/2015
02/16/2015 02/19/2015
02/20/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/24/2015 02/24/2015 03/02/2015 03/05/2015 03/10/2015 04/16/2015

50 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter N. Camps on behalf of Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Camps, Peter) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
51 RESPONSE to 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
52 REPLY to Response re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) filed by Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District. (Taylor, Sherry) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
53 EXHIBIT A − MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PUPIL ACCOUNTING MANUAL re 52 Reply to Response to Motion by Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District (Taylor, Sherry) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
54 MOTION to Dismiss by Alison Cancilliari. (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
55 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 2/23/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
56 MOTION to Dismiss by Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
57 REPLY to Response re 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
58 RESPONSE to 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/16/2015)
59 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sherry D. O'Neal Taylor appearing on behalf of Kevin English, Sherry Frazier, Kathy Kovach, Karen Mida, Brent Mikulski, Kelly Owen, Scott Russell, Martha Toth, Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools, Michael Van Tassel, Robert Wilkerson (Taylor, Sherry) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
60 STATEMENT of Interest of the United States by United States (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
61 NOTICE of Appearance by Carmen Dorris on behalf of Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools. (Dorris, Carmen) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Rupert on behalf of Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Rupert, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Avern Cohn: Status Conference held on 2/23/2015. (Status Conference continued to 4/20/2015 10:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn) (Sandusky, K) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
63 Order Following Status Conference. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
64 ERRATA Sheet by United States (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Statement of Interest of the United States) (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
65 REPLY to Response re 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service filed by Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A) (Furton, Joseph) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
66 RESPONSE to 56 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
67 Stipulated Order to Extend Time for Submitting Letters to the Court Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
68 ORDER Requiring Response to 54 Motion to Dismiss. Response due by 4/27/2015 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 18 of 22

04/16/2015 04/16/2015
04/27/2015 05/01/2015
05/05/2015
05/05/2015 05/11/2015 05/26/2015 06/09/2015 06/16/2015
06/23/2015 07/13/2015 07/29/2015 07/29/2015

TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Status Conference on 4/20/2015 is Cancelled (SCha) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
69 NOTICE OF HEARING on 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service, 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 54 MOTION to Dismiss , 56 MOTION to Dismiss . Motion Hearing set for 5/27/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
70 RESPONSE to 54 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c) by Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2) (Dorris, Carmen) Modified on 6/9/2015 (SCha). [MOTION TO DISMISS ALSO FILED ON BEHALF OF KAREN MIDA, ROBERT WILKERSON, MICHAEL VAN TASSEL, BRENT MIKULSKI, MARTHA TOTH, SHERRY FRAZIER, KEVIN ENGLISH, KATHY KOVACH, SCOTT RUSSELL AND KELLY OWEN] (Entered: 05/01/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service, 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 54 MOTION to Dismiss , 56 MOTION to Dismiss . Motion Hearing RESET for 6/22/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
72 NOTICE OF HEARING on 71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c). Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
73 REPLY to Response re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(6) filed by Alison Cancilliari. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
74 RESPONSE to 71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
75 MOTION for Sanctions and Brief in Support by Alison Cancilliari. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5) (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c), 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service, 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 54 MOTION to Dismiss , 56 MOTION to Dismiss , 75 MOTION for Sanctions and Brief in Support. Motion Hearing RESET for 8/5/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
76 RESPONSE to 75 MOTION for Sanctions and Brief in Support filed by All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
77 NOTICE of Appearance by Roy Hulme on behalf of Van Buren Public Schools. (Hulme, Roy) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 8/5/2015 is Cancelled re Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings (MVer) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
78 NOTICE OF HEARING on 71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c), 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service, 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 54 MOTION to Dismiss , 56 MOTION to Dismiss , 75 MOTION for Sanctions and Brief in Support. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 19 of 22

08/12/2015 08/13/2015
08/13/2015 08/21/2015
08/25/2015 09/04/2015 10/01/2015 10/20/2015 10/21/2015 11/05/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/19/2015
11/20/2015 11/25/2015 12/01/2015

79 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Hudson on behalf of Kevin English, Sherry Frazier, Kathy Kovach, Karen Mida, Brent Mikulski, Kelly Owen, Scott Russell, Martha Toth, Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools, Michael Van Tassel, Robert Wilkerson. (Hudson, David) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
80 NOTICE OF HEARING on 71 MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6) and 12(c), 49 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support and Proof of Service, 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 54 MOTION to Dismiss , 56 MOTION to Dismiss , 75 MOTION for Sanctions and Brief in Support. Motion Hearing IS RESCHEDULED for 10/7/2015 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 9/3/2015 is Cancelled re 78 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (MVer) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
81 [DOCKET ERROR − WRONG EVENT USED DOCUMENT IS A MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR VAN BUREN DEFENDANTS] ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION for Kevin English, Sherry Frazier, Kathy Kovach, Karen Mida, Brent Mikulski, Kelly Owen, Scott Russell, Martha Toth, Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools, Michael Van Tassel, Robert Wilkerson: Roy Hulme added. (Hulme, Roy) Modified on 8/21/2015 (LGra). (Entered: 08/21/2015)
82 ORDER granting motion for substitution of counsel for Van Buren Public School defendants. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (DPer) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 10/7/2015 is Cancelled. Counsel going to facilitation on September 28, 2015. The court is to be updated with a status by October 1, 2015. (SCha) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 10/7/2015 is Cancelled re 80 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, (MVer) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
83 STIPULATION and Order Allowing Plaintiff To File A Second Amended Complaint by Kimberly Tooley (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
84 STIPULATED ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.15 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
85 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand SECOND AMENDED filed by All Plaintiffs against All Plaintiffs. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
86 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Carmen Dorris appearing on behalf of Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District (Dorris, Carmen) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
87 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: George P. Butler, III appearing on behalf of Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District (Butler, George) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
88 ANSWER to 85 Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Reliance on Jury Demand (Second Amended Complaint) by Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Jason Krajewski, Stephanie Miello, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
89 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Complaint by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B − 1st Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C−2nd Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit D−3rd Amended Complaint) (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
90 RESPONSE to 85 Amended Complaint by Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Catherine Griffin. (Furton, Joseph) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
91 RESPONSE to 85 Amended Complaint by Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District. (Dorris, Carmen) (Entered: 12/01/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 20 of 22

12/02/2015 12/04/2015 12/10/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/07/2016 01/22/2016
02/23/2016 02/29/2016 03/23/2016 04/07/2016
04/11/2016 04/18/2016 04/21/2016 05/02/2016

92 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 1/6/2016 10:00 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
93 RESPONSE to 89 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Complaint filed by Alison Cancilliari. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4) (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
94 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Van Buren Public Schools. (Hulme, Roy) Modified on 12/11/2015 (LHos). (Entered: 12/10/2015)
95 ANSWER to Complaint Second by Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
96 ANSWER to 85 Amended Complaint Second by Alison Cancilliari. (Johnston, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
97 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan R. Marko on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Avern Cohn: Status Conference held on 1/6/2016 (MVer) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
98 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
99 PRETRIAL AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 7/7/2016 Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 8/8/2016 Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/8/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Refer to image for additional dates) (MVer) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
100 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand Amendment To Second Amended Complaint filed by All Plaintiffs against All Plaintiffs. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Rasor, James) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
101 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Jeffrey L Bartold, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Claudia Portscheller, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) Modified on 1/25/2016 (DTyl).[ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT] (Entered: 01/22/2016)
102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by All Defendants. (Sutton, Kevin) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
103 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney James B. Rasor. Bounced NEF for 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (SSch) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
104 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO APRIL 7, 2016 re 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
105 RESPONSE to 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's Amendment to Second Amended Complaint) (Thomas, Sarah) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
106 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney James B. Rasor. Bounced NEF for 104 Stipulation and Order, 105 Response to Motion,. (SSch) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
107 NOTICE OF HEARING on 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing set for 8/10/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
108 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney James B. Rasor. Bounced NEF for 107 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (SSch) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
109 REPLY to Response re 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) jointly filed by All Defendants. (Schindler, Robert) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 21 of 22

06/03/2016
06/06/2016 06/07/2016
06/28/2016
07/22/2016 07/22/2016 07/26/2016
09/19/2016 09/22/2016 11/02/2016 11/03/2016 11/15/2016 11/23/2016 01/24/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

110 STIPULATED ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS: SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH DISTRICT, ALISON CANCILLIARI, ALEX CHAPMAN, RIA COLE, CATHERINE GRIFFIN AND SUMMIT ACADEMY NORTH BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
111 NOTICE by Seth Tooley (Marko, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
112 STIPULATED ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO THEIR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A BRIEF IN RESPONSE. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
113 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 27 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D) (Rasor, James) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 8/10/2016 is Cancelled re 107 Notice of Hearing on Motion (MVer) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
114 NOTICE OF HEARING on 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing IS RESCHEDULED for 9/21/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
115 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Jeffrey L Bartold, Kathryn Bedikian, Viktor Brown, Dana Browning, Christopher C. Calvin, Alison Cancilliari, Alex Chapman, Ria Cole, Dearborn Heights Public Schools, Kevin English, Sherry Frazier, Catherine Griffin, Carla Harding, Robert Kirby, Kathy Kovach, Jason Krajewski, Karen Mida, Stephanie Miello, Brent Mikulski, Kelly Owen, Claudia Portscheller, Scott Russell, Summit Academy Board of Directors, Summit Academy North District, Maria Sutka, Patrick Sutka, Michael Swiecki, Martha Toth, Van Buren Board of Education, Van Buren Public Schools, Michael Van Tassel, Robert Wilkerson, Wyandotte Board of Education, Wyandotte Public Schools, Jon Znamerowski. (Mullins, Timothy) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Hearing on 9/21/2016 is Cancelled re 114 Notice of Hearing on Motion (MVer) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
116 NOTICE OF HEARING on 102 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing IS RESCHEDULED for 10/24/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Final Pretrial Conference on 11/8/2016 is Cancelled re 99 Scheduling Order, (MVer) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
117 MOTION to Strike /to terminate lien of Jonathan Marko by All Plaintiffs. (Lennon, Edward) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
118 RESPONSE to 117 MOTION to Strike /to terminate lien of Jonathan Marko filed by Jonathan R Marko. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Ernst, Kevin) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
119 REPLY to Response re 117 MOTION to Strike /to terminate lien of Jonathan Marko filed by All Plaintiffs. (Lennon, Edward) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
120 NOTICE TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE: Status Conference set for 2/2/2017 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
121 MOTION for Costs & Attorney Fees and Approval of Settlement by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Rasor, James) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Avern Cohn: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/2/2017 (MVer) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
122 NOTICE OF HEARING on 121 MOTION for Costs & Attorney Fees and Approval of Settlement, 117 MOTION to Strike /to terminate lien of Jonathan Marko. Motion

Case: 2:14-cv-13466-AC-DRG As of: 02/10/2019 09:52 PM EST 22 of 22

02/02/2017 03/08/2017 03/08/2017
03/09/2017 03/09/2017

Hearing set for 3/8/2017 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Final Pretrial Conference on 2/7/2017 is Cancelled (MVer) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
123 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Order Approving Settlement by All Plaintiffs (Rasor, James) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Avern Cohn: Motion Hearing held on 3/8/2017 re 117 MOTION to Strike /to terminate lien of Jonathan Marko filed by Seth Tooley, Kimberly Tooley, 121 MOTION for Costs & Attorney Fees and Approval of Settlement filed by Seth Tooley, Kimberly Tooley Disposition: Motion taken under advisement (Court Reporter: Sheri Ward) (MVer) Modified on 3/9/2017 (MVer). (Entered: 03/09/2017)
124 ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
125 JUDGMENT Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 03/09/2017)