Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01891/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0568n.06

Case No. 15-1891

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PAMELA CAMPBELL, Individually and as 

next friend of JANE DOE, a minor

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DUNDEE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS; WEST 

EDUCATIONAL LEASING; FREDERICK 

AARON CARNER; BRUCE NELSON

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________/

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

Before: MERRITT, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. 

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case on appeal is brought by plaintiff-appellant Pamela 

Campbell, the mother of a middle school student who was the victim of repeated sexual abuse by 

Richard Alan Neff, her school basketball coach. The student, “Jane Doe,” became involved in a 

relationship with Neff beginning in the summer of 2009 and ending on April 23, 2010, when a 

school janitor discovered Doe and Neff engaging in a sex act. The plaintiff filed suit, raising 

claims against Dundee Community Schools, West Educational Leasing, Inc. (d/b/a “Professional 

Contract Management, Inc.” or “PCMI”), Athletic Director Fredrick Aaron Carner, and 

Superintendent Bruce Nelson under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Michigan state law. The 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 1
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 2 -

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants’ motions 

for summary judgment on the Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state law claims. The rest

of the plaintiff’s state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. On appeal, the plaintiff

argues that the district court erred in dismissing the Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.1

The district court correctly dismissed the claims. No reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the plaintiff on either. We AFFIRM the district court’s grants of summary judgment 

to the defendants.

I. Factual Background and Procedural Posture

Jane Doe attended Dundee Middle School as a seventh and eighth grade student during 

the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. Doe was a member of the girls’ basketball team during 

both years. From 2001 to 2010, the girls’ team was coached by Richard Neff, who by 2010 was 

47 years old. Doe’s father, Chris Campbell, was an assistant coach during the two years that Doe 

was on the team. He was in a position to observe the behavior between his daughter and Neff, 

but did not report or suspect an improper relationship.

At the beginning of Doe’s seventh grade season in January 2009, Neff began texting Doe 

and other girls on the team. Initially, Neff’s texts to Doe reflected a typical “student/coach

relationship.” But by the summer of 2009, Neff’s texts to Doe became “excessive” and involved 

topics unrelated to basketball or school. Neff began calling Doe regularly, and at the end of 

June, Neff secretly kissed Doe on the cheek while he visited Doe’s home to watch a hockey 

game with Doe’s father. 

 

1 The plaintiff also appealed the district court dismissal of two of her state law claims: (1) negligent hiring as to 

West Educational Leasing (i.e. PCMI) and (2) violation of Michigan’s Child Protection Law as to Dundee 

Community Schools, Nelson, and Carner. M.C.L. § 722.621. The plaintiff does not raise these claims in her brief, 

and they are waived. Even if they were not waived, this Court agrees with the district court that the claims were 

properly dismissed on the merits.

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 2
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 3 -

Neff secretly began a sexual relationship with Doe during the fall of 2009. Neff would

covertly visit Doe’s family’s property around 6:30 a.m., and Doe would sneak out of the house to 

visit Neff in his car. During these encounters, Neff would hug, touch, and kiss Doe. Neff’s texts 

and phone calls to Doe also became sexual in nature. 

West Educational Leasing, Inc., doing business as Professional Contract Management, 

Inc. (“PCMI”), took over employment responsibilities for the Dundee School District Athletic 

Department in 2010. As part of the arrangement West Educational Leasing did criminal 

background checks on Neff and other Dundee employees, but did not conduct interviews. There 

was no indication of prior criminal activity from Neff’s background check. School District 

Superintendent Bruce Nelson certified that there was no documentation of unprofessional 

conduct in Neff’s personnel file at that time. 

Neff and Doe’s sexual relationship continued during the eighth grade basketball season, 

and from January to April 2010 Neff and Doe had sexual contact “[a]t least 15 times.” Neff had 

sexual contact with Doe in a school equipment room before practices and home games and, on at 

least one occasion, surreptitiously in the back of the team bus returning from a game. Neff 

instructed Doe to keep their relationship secret, and Doe testified that she did not disclose the 

relationship to anyone. There is no witness testimony suggesting anyone knew of the sexual 

relationship while it was ongoing. 

During Doe’s eighth grade season, Aaron Carner, the school district’s athletic director, 

received complaints from parents that Neff was sitting in the back of the bus when the team 

traveled and was calling and texting students on the team. A teammate’s parent, Jessica Burd,

complained about Neff and Doe’s relationship in late February 2010 to the school’s vice 

principal, along with Neff and Carner. Burd complained that Doe was “in love” with Neff, that 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 3
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 4 -

Neff favored Doe during practice, that Doe’s infatuation was causing friction among team 

members, and that school administrators should “put a stop to” the problem. But Burd never saw 

Doe’s “crush” reciprocated by Neff. Indeed, Burd’s concern was that Doe’s behavior was “odd” 

and negatively affecting the “team dynamic,” and that Neff “was not doing enough to stop it.” 

Burd expressed shock to learn of the sexual relationship after Neff was caught. 

Carner discussed the parent complaints with Neff, and instructed him to stop texting 

players and to no longer sit with players in the back of the bus. According to Carner, the 

parents’ complaints did not lead him to believe Neff was acting inappropriately, and the central 

purpose of his discussion with Neff was to “protect [Neff] at the time” and to respect “normal 

protocol.” 

On April 23, 2010, school janitor Robert Kominek observed Neff and Doe engaging in

sexual contact in a janitor’s closet after school hours. Kominek promptly reported the incident to 

Athletic Director Carner, who in turn called District Superintendent Nelson. Acting on Nelson’s 

instructions, Carner called both the police and Child Protective Services. Neff was arrested, 

prosecuted, and convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of 

second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of soliciting a child for immoral purposes. 

He is currently incarcerated. 

Pamela Campbell, Jane Doe’s mother, filed suit against Neff, Carner, Nelson, Dundee 

Community Schools, and West Educational Leasing, asserting Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

Michigan state law claims. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment with respect to Title IX, § 1983, and various state law claims. The district court denied 

the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims for (1) violation of 

the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.402(a), against Dundee Community Schools, 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 4
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 5 -

Nelson, and Carner; and (2) vicarious liability for Dundee Community Schools for Neff’s 

negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, because the district court had granted 

dismissals for all the federal law claims, it dismissed the remaining state claims without 

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff now appeals to this Court seeking reversal of the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment on her Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. 

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission v. University of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331, 334 (6th Cir. 1990). Summary 

judgment is proper only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact 

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In 

reviewing a summary judgment motion, we view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). 

II. Title IX Claim

The plaintiff Campbell appeals the dismissals of the Title IX actions against Nelson, 

Carner, West Educational Leasing, and Dundee Community Schools. “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). Title IX actions for monetary damages are available 

to students subjected to sexual harassment or abuse by a teacher. See Williams ex rel. Hart v. 

Paint Valley Local Sch. Dist., 400 F.3d 360, 367 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Only recipients of federal funds may be liable under Title IX. Soper v. Hoben, 195 F.3d 

845, 854 (6th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the government’s enforcement power may only be 

exercised against the funding recipient itself, and damages liability under Title IX has not 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 5
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 6 -

extended damages liability to parties outside the scope of this power). Title IX does not permit 

individual liability against school officials for sexual harassment as only recipients of federal 

funds can be held liable under Title IX. See id. Accordingly, Nelson and Carner cannot be held 

individually liable, and the actions against them were properly dismissed. 

Similarly, Title IX does not extend liability to West Educational Leasing since it did not 

receive federal funds. It is not enough that an entity “benefit economically from federal 

assistance.” National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 468 (1999). A fund 

recipient’s damages liability for sexual harassment under Title IX is limited to circumstances 

where the recipient has substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the 

known harassment occurs. Davis v. Monroe Cty Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 645 (1999). West 

Educational Leasing had neither. The Title IX action against West Education Leasing, Inc. was 

therefore correctly dismissed.

Dundee Community Schools does not contest that it is a recipient of federal funds for 

purposes of Title IX, nor does it contest that its employee sexually abused Doe. A school 

district’s liability under Title IX for sexual harassment of a student requires a plaintiff to show

“an official of the school district who at a minimum has authority to institute corrective measures 

on the district’s behalf has actual notice of, and is deliberately indifferent to, the teacher’s 

misconduct.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 277 (1998). While 

Superintendent Nelson and Athletic Director Carner are school officials who have the authority 

to institute corrective measures against sexual harassment, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient 

evidence that either had actual notice or showed deliberate indifference. 

The plaintiff argues that actual notice of a substantial risk of sexual harassment or abuse

was provided to school officials in a number of ways. These indications include: Neff’s habit of 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 6
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 7 -

sitting in the back of the bus with the girls on the team; Neff texting and calling the girls on their 

cell phones; Jane Doe’s “crush” on Neff; and the school custodian having a “weird feeling”

about Neff and Doe’s relationship, which the custodian did not report until after the relationship 

was discovered. Director Carner spoke to Neff about the behavior after receiving parent 

complaints, but neither the complaints nor Carner’s talk with Neff show any indication that there 

was a risk of a sexual relationship between Neff and Doe. The complaints were related to 

preserving the “team dynamic” by not showing favoritism. Under the actual notice standard, the 

plaintiff must be able to show that the authority figures were on notice of a substantial risk of the 

actual type of harassment that occurred. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 654. “Communications at odd 

hours, inappropriate counseling, unchaperoned off-campus activities, and inappropriate 

interactions with team members” do not provide notice that sexual harassment is occurring.

Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schools, 469 F.3d 479, 490 (6th Cir. 2006). Doe and Neff 

intended to keep the relationship secret, and did so successfully until they were caught. Even 

Doe’s father, who was also coaching the team, was fooled. This fact gives rise to the inference 

that the other observers with more distant relationships to Doe were not at fault when they did 

not take action to remedy or report the unknown sexual activity. The custodian’s later reporting 

that he had a completely internal and undiscussed “weird feeling” is not a basis for liability. 

Nor was Dundee Community Schools deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment or 

abuse. “A [federal assistance] recipient is liable for damages only where the recipient itself 

intentionally acted in clear violation of Title IX by remaining deliberately indifferent to known 

acts of harassment.” Vance v. Spencer Cty. Public School Dist., 231 F.3d 253, 260 (6th Cir. 

2000). “The deliberate indifference must, at a minimum, ‘cause [students] to undergo’ 

harassment or ‘make them liable or vulnerable’ to it.” Id. (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 654). If 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 7
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 8 -

there was no notice to school officials of a risk of sexual harassment occurring, then there was no 

deliberate indifference toward the risk. 

The plaintiff contends that Director Carner’s testimony showed his indifference when he 

advised Neff to stop sitting in the back of the bus. Carner stated that, “the conversation was to 

protect [Neff] at the time. It wasn’t a red flag for me as far as, you know, is he doing anything 

inappropriate or not” and “I felt like [Neff was] putting himself in a situation that was not good 

for him as far as sitting in the back of the bus [in] the dark with kids, more importantly, girls.” 

While the plaintiff claims that these statements prove that Carner was aware of and covering up 

Neff’s behavior, the statements show just the opposite. Carner’s concern was that Neff should 

follow protocol, not that there was a substantial risk that Neff was engaged in a sexual 

relationship with Doe. There is no evidence that any school official, or even any other person,

was aware of the risk. Accordingly Dundee Community Schools did not intentionally disregard 

such a risk. The grant of summary judgment for Dundee Community Schools was proper.

III. § 1983 Claim

The plaintiff Campbell also appeals the grants of summary judgment for Superintendent

Nelson and Athletic Director Carner, as well as Dundee Community Schools, for her claims 

based on §1983. In order to hold Dundee Community Schools liable under § 1983, the plaintiff 

must overcome the requirements of Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 

(1978). Under Monell the plaintiff may not base her claim on a theory of respondeat superior, 

but must show that the schools’ officials were acting according to a “policy” or “custom” within 

the system that leads to or results in the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right of bodily 

integrity, specifically the right not to be sexually molested by her coach. Id. at 694. The plaintiff 

does not seem to assert that the sexual abuse resulted from an officially enacted policy or a 

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 8
Case No. 15-1891

Campbell v. Dundee Cmty Schools

- 9 -

custom that is “so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or a usage with the force 

of law.” Id. at 691. A lack of knowledge of the sexual misconduct that was successfully 

concealed for almost a year is not a “custom” of Dundee Community Schools.

As to Nelson and Carner, the plaintiff must show that the officials’ conduct violated a 

constitutional right and that the right is “clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 

201-02 (2001). The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the officials are not entitled to 

qualified immunity. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 647 (6th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff must 

show that the supervisory officials “at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly 

acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate.” Bellamy v. Bradley, 

729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). In this case the individual defendants had no reason to 

believe that Doe was being sexually assaulted or molested by Neff because she and Neff 

successfully hid their relationship. Apparently not even Doe’s own father, who also coached the 

basketball team, had any suspicion that the relationship was occurring. Moreover, the mother, 

plaintiff Campbell, apparently had no suspicion either, even though Neff was a friend and visitor 

to the Campbell home and the daughter sometimes sneaked out of the house to meet Neff. There 

are no facts of the slightest kind indicating guilty knowledge, negligence, or deliberate 

indifference on the part of the school supervisory officials.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-1891 Document: 56-2 Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 9