1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

C.R. and J.R., individually and as Next Friends,

of JOE R., a minor,

Plaintiffs,

v

NOVI COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

VERA WILLIAMS, in her individual capacity, 

STEPHANIE SCHRINER, in her individual 

capacity, ANDREW COMB, in his individual 

capacity, and STEVEN MATTHEWS, in his 

individual capacity, JEAN SOLOMON, an 

individual, and EDUSTAFF, LLC, a Michigan 

limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-14531

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

JURY DEMAND

VIVIANO, PAGANO & HOWLETT PLLC

By: Joseph E. Viviano (P60378)

 Joseph C. Pagano (P57107)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

48 S. Main Street, Suite 2

Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

(586) 469-1580

PLUNKETT COONEY

By: Michael D. Weaver (P43985)

Attorneys for Defendants Novi Community 

School District, Williams, Schriner, Comb 

and Matthews

38505 Woodward, Suite 2000

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

(248) 901-4025

There is no other action between these parties arising out of the 

same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint 

pending in this court, nor has any such action been previously filed 

and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs C.R., J.R., and Joe R., for their Complaint against defendants Novi Community 

School District (the “Novi School District”), Vera Williams (“Williams”), Stephanie Schriner 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.108 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 45
2

(“Schriner”), Andrew Comb (“Comb”), Steven Matthews (“Matthews), Jean Solomon 

(“Solomon”), and Edustaff, LLC (“Edustaff”) state as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs C.R. and J.R. (collectively, the “Parents”), the parents and natural 

guardians of plaintiff Joe R., a minor child, bring this action in their representative capacity as 

next friends on behalf of Joe R. The Parents have at all relevant times resided in Oakland 

County, Michigan. The Parents are plaintiffs as to Count II (Title IX Retaliation) and Count VIII 

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). 

2. Plaintiff Joe R. (“Joe”) is currently 13 years old and at all relevant times, has 

resided with his Parents in Oakland County, Michigan. Plaintiffs are identified by their initials 

to protect Joe’s privacy in light of the sensitive nature of the subject matter of this Complaint. 

Other minor students are also identified by their initials. The identities of the Parents, Joe, and 

the other minor students are well known to the Defendants.

3. Defendant Novi School District is a provider of public education under Michigan 

law, incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan, with the capacity to sue and be sued. 

The Novi School District is a recipient of federal funding.

4. Defendant Williams is an individual residing at 36836 Brittany Hill Drive, 

Farmington Hills, Michigan.

5. Williams is a certified special education teacher employed by the Novi School

District and was Joe’s special education math instructor at Novi Middle School (“NMS”) during 

the 2013-14 school year.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.109 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 45
3

6. Defendant Schriner is an individual residing at 16302 Winchester Drive, 

Northville, Wayne County, Michigan.

7. Schriner has been the Principal of NMS from 2011 – present. As principal, 

Schriner was charged with the administration of NMS.

8. Defendant Comb is an individual residing at 53596 Valleywood Drive, #4, South 

Lyon, Michigan.

9. Comb has been the Assistant Principal of NMS from 2013 - present.

10. Defendant Matthews is an individual residing at 11726 Woodspointe Drive, 

Grand Ledge, Eaton County, Michigan.

11. Matthews has been the Superintendent of the Novi School District from 2011 –

present. As superintendent, Matthews is charged with executive oversight and administration of 

the Novi School District. His duties include, without limitation, implementation of Novi School 

District policies and procedures. 

12. Defendant Solomon is an individual residing at 5324 Fairway Court, West 

Bloomfield, Michigan.

13. Solomon was a substitute teacher in the Novi School District, employed by 

Defendant Edustaff, at all relevant times. The Novi School District and Williams, Matthews, 

Schriner, and Comb (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) filed a notice of non-party fault 

as to Solomon in this matter on December 12, 2014.

14. Defendant Edustaff is a Michigan limited liability company with a principal place 

of business at 3330 Broadmoor Avenue, SE, Suite A, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512. Edustaff 

systematically and continuously does business within the Eastern District of Michigan.

15. The Novi School District and the Individual Defendants filed a notice of nonCase 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.110 Filed 12/22/14 Page 3 of 45
4

party fault as to Edustaff in this matter on December 12, 2014. The notice of non-party fault 

states that “Ms. Solomon was a substitute teacher employed by Edustaff. The contract between 

Edustaff and Novi Community School District indicates that Edustaff is the ‘sole employer’ of 

Supplied Staff. Moreover, the contract indicates that Edustaff would provide qualified 

individuals to act as substitute teachers and would act, at all times, in compliance with federal, 

state, and local laws.” 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants.

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I – V of this Complaint 

under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because they arise under federal law and raise federal questions. The 

Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3).

18. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI – XI of this Complaint

under 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

19. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. The Novi School District operates eight schools, including NMS, and serves over 

6,000 students.

21. NMS is located at 49000 W. 11 Mile Road, Novi, Michigan.

22. NMS serves approximately 1,056 seventh and eighth graders.

23. Joe attended Novi schools from kindergarten – seventh grade and attended NMS

during the 2013-14 school year. 

24. Joe is disabled. He has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.111 Filed 12/22/14 Page 4 of 45
5

25. As confirmed by Novi School District testing, Joe suffers from significant 

impairments and developmental delays in language, communication, comprehension, higher 

level thinking, and social understanding.

26. Joe has had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) through the Novi School 

District since kindergarten.

27. Joe has struggled with great determination to overcome and manage his 

disabilities, spending hours of extra time on homework on a nightly basis and completing

countless hours of disability-related therapy since his early childhood. 

28. His November 2, 2010 Novi School Social Work Annual Report states that “his 

motivation to learn and grow socially is inspiring.”

29. Based on Novi School District testing, Joe has the communication abilities and 

maturity level of a much younger child.

30. Joe is known as a “rule follower” and a “truth-teller,” who is not deceitful and 

lacks the ability to be deceitful. 

31. Like many ASD students, Joe was susceptible to bullying, manipulation, and 

intimidation.

32. The Novi School District was, at all relevant times, aware that Joe had been 

bullied on multiple occasions in the past. For example, at the beginning of the 2013-14 school 

year, the Parents notified NMS of long term, systematic bullying of Joe by a student, M.G. 

33. NMS investigated and substantiated the Parents’ allegations. 

34. In or about September 2013, Joe was targeted by NMS student J.J.

35. J.J. is approximately one foot taller and one hundred pounds heavier than Joe.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.112 Filed 12/22/14 Page 5 of 45
6

36. Upon information and belief, J.J. has an IEP through the Novi Schools due to 

emotional impairments.

37. J.J. was abandoned by both parents at or around the time of his birth and has been 

raised by his grandmother.

38. J.J. has been on medication and in counseling for behavioral problems for years.

39. J.J. suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Unspecified Mood 

Disorder.

40. J.J. spent approximately ten days receiving in-patient services at Havenwyck 

Hospital, a psychiatric hospital, in 2011. According to the Havenwyck website, its in-patient 

services are for adolescents who “[p]resent a danger to themselves or others.” 

41. From public social media accounts and websites, it is evident that J.J. had regular 

access to online content of an inappropriate and sexually explicit nature at all relevant times.

42. At all relevant times, the Novi School District and the individual defendants knew 

that J.J. posed a threat to other students, including Joe. 

43. In January or February 2014, NMS was made aware that J.J. was sexually 

harassing another special needs student, B.S. 

44. B.S. and her parents notified NMS that J.J. had asked B.S. to be his girlfriend and 

that when she refused, J.J. became aggressive and threatening, calling her “bitch” and other 

obscenities verbally and by text message and menacing her at school. 

45. Upon information and belief, J.J. has a long record of aggressive and threatening 

behavior and disciplinary issues in the Novi School District.

46. The Novi School District was well aware of J.J.’s history and propensities, 

including the contemporaneous misconduct involving B.S., at all relevant times, but it was 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.113 Filed 12/22/14 Page 6 of 45
7

deliberately indifferent to this information and Joe’s welfare, without limitation, when it 

repeatedly placed Joe alone in a small room with J.J. during class time; when it ignored multiple 

improper touching incidents; when it disregarded known, relevant information in determining 

J.J.’s culpability; and when it neglected to share all of this information with the Parents. 

47. The Novi School District has failed to take appropriate disciplinary measures 

related to J.J. or to impose serious disciplinary consequences on him.

48. J.J.’s name appears on over 15 police incident reports since 2011, the details of 

some of which are currently unknown.

49. On April 23, 2014, a criminal complaint was filed against J.J. for stealing his 

great-grandmother’s credit card and purchasing numerous items.

50. On June 24, 2014, a criminal complaint was filed against J.J. for picking his 

grandmother up and throwing her to the ground and holding her there.

51. On August 27, 2014, J.J. had another physical confrontation with his 

grandmother, and she was forced to use pepper spray on him.

52. J.J. began the 2014-15 school year at NMS, but based on his uncontrollable, 

assaultive behavior, the Oakland County Circuit Court has placed J.J. in Children’s Village 

juvenile detention facility pending disposition of his criminal matters.

53. Beginning in September 2013 and continuing until February 26, 2014, through 

intimidation, threats, coercion, grooming, and manipulation, J.J. repeatedly and systematically 

sexually abused Joe during classes at NMS.

54. Specifically, JJ touched Joe’s groin area and penis above and below his clothes, 

forced Joe to engage in similar conduct, and engaged in other explicit sexual misconduct and 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.114 Filed 12/22/14 Page 7 of 45
8

sexually assaultive behaviors such as lying on top of Joe, pinning Joe to the ground, and forcing 

Joe to sit on him in a bathroom stall. 

55. J.J. took advantage of Joe’s disabilities and impairments in coercing Joe to do 

what J.J. wanted.

56. J.J. threatened Joe physically; made fun of his impairments; and bullied him by 

doing and threatening things like dumping the contents of his pencil case, getting other students 

to throw things at him and tease him, and telling him that he could get their teachers to give Joe 

extra homework (something that, due to his disabilities, Joe believed and which caused him to 

panic and have severe anxiety).

57. Joe was confused by what was occurring and was terrified of J.J. 

58. J.J. threatened Joe and warned him not to tell anyone what was occurring.

59. The Parents later learned that Joe had been experiencing constant nightmares and 

suicidal thoughts.

60. The Parents later learned that Joe had fantasized about running away from school 

to escape J.J. 

61. The incidents of sexual abuse occurred on multiple occasions during Stacey 

Becker’s special education English Language Arts class, on a virtually daily basis during 

defendant Williams’ special education Math class, and on at least one occasion during Academic 

20.

62. The Parents knew nothing about any of this until they were contacted by NMS 

Assistant Principal Comb on February 27, 2014.

63. Subsequent to that time, the Parents learned that at least five different Novi 

Middle School staff members witnessed or were aware of inappropriate touching between J.J.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.115 Filed 12/22/14 Page 8 of 45
9

and Joe during class time between September 2013 – February 2014 but never informed the 

Parents or gave them the opportunity to protect their son.

64. Joe and J.J. were admonished on several occasions by school staff about holding 

hands and “touching body parts” between September 2013 – February 2014.

65. School Social Worker Nicole Colone was aware that J.J. and Joe had been seen 

holding hands and touching body parts in class by more than one teacher and had been told by 

their teachers that this was not permitted. Colone had also spoken to the two boys about 

inappropriate touching of body parts in class.

66. Defendant Schriner was likewise aware of multiple improper touching incidents.

67. Special Education English teacher Stacey Becker had seen J.J. and Joe holding 

hands on two occasions in her class and physically separated them on both occasions.

68. Special Education Math teacher Williams saw J.J. inappropriately touch Joe in 

September 2013 and admonished him. 

69. She then allegedly saw Joe touch J.J. in February 2014 and was disturbed enough 

to seek the assistance of Colone.

70. Academic 20 teacher Margaret Sheeran saw J.J. and Joe holding hands during 

class.

71. Under numerous Novi School District written policies, including those set forth in 

each student’s school-issued planner and Novi Community School District Bylaws and Policies 

2112, 5780, and 9250, every one of these improper touching incidents should have generated a 

parental contact, but there was no such parental contact.

72. If the Novi School District had notified the Parents when it first learned of this 

behavior, Joe would have been spared months of molestation, abuse, and terror.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.116 Filed 12/22/14 Page 9 of 45
10

73. Further, Novi School District personnel had every reason to know that their prior 

efforts to stop the misconduct were ineffectual, as the touching incidents continued after each 

admonishment.

74. As a prime example of the ineffectual nature of these interventions, on February 

25, 2014, Williams sought the help of Colone in dealing with a touching incident that had 

occurred in Math class that day. 

75. Colone again admonished J.J. and Joe on February 26, 2014. 

76. Later that same day, on February 26, 2014, the English class sexual abuse incident 

that brought everything to light occurred.

77. On or about February 13, 2014, Joe tearfully asked Becker to stop J.J. from 

“conquering” him. 

78. Becker took no steps to assist him and did not notify his parents.

79. The first notification by NMS to the Parents regarding the improper touching 

occurred on February 27, 2014, when Assistant Principal Comb called J.R. and told her that there 

had been an incident in special education English class with a substitute teacher, Jean Solomon.

80. Consistent with the policy and established practice of the Novi School District, 

the special education English class took place in a classroom that is much smaller than a general 

education classroom.

81. The special education English class had only four students.

82. During the February 26, 2014 English class, J.J. touched Joe’s groin area for over 

four minutes, while another student, J.P., videotaped the entire incident.

83. Based on the small size of the classroom, the fact that the incident lasted at least 

four minutes, and the fact that three out of four students were involved in the incident, upon 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.117 Filed 12/22/14 Page 10 of 45
11

information and belief, Solomon saw what was happening and took no steps to stop it. 

84. Alternatively, at the very minimum, Solomon acted with reckless disregard and

was grossly derelict in her duties.

85. NMS claimed it was unaware of the incident until the following day, when 

students were passing around the video.

86. Upon information and belief, NMS confiscated all of the cell phones with the 

video, or any portion of it, and placed them in a school safe.

87. Incredibly, Schriner and Comb then required J.P. to delete the only complete copy 

of the video, which contained material evidence of a criminal act, in their presence, without 

providing it to the police or the Parents.

88. This destruction and spoliation of material evidence requires the presumption that 

the video evidence supports Joe’s allegations.

89. NMS notified the Parents that it would not be inviting back Solomon as a 

substitute teacher, but upon information and belief, she continues to be certified as a substitute 

teacher in the Novi School District.

90. Solomon did not return multiple calls from the Novi Police and has likewise 

failed to return numerous messages from the Parents’ investigator. 

91. J.P. advised Schriner that he had taken the video because kids on his bus had 

accused him of lying when he had told them that this type of contact had been occurring during 

English class. 

92. This statement gave Schriner notice that there had been other incidents of sexual 

misconduct during English class, but neither Schriner nor any other person at NMS or the Novi 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.118 Filed 12/22/14 Page 11 of 45
12

School District followed up on this statement or investigated whether other similar incidents had 

occurred in English class.

93. J.P. later advised the Parents’ investigator that he has seen the exact same thing 

happening during Becker’s English class on multiple prior occasions.

94. During their investigation of the February 26 incident, Schriner and Comb learned 

that J.J. had told Joe, “Let’s do that thing we do” prior to the incident, and according to Comb, 

Joe explained to Comb that this meant “body parts touching other body parts.”

95. These statements gave Schriner, Comb, and NMS additional notice that the 

February 26 incident was not an isolated occurrence, but neither they nor any other 

representative of the Novi School District took any steps to investigate this statement or other 

incidents.

96. Joe told Comb that the touching made him “uncomfortable.” 

97. Without following up on the statement or doing any additional investigation, 

Comb ridiculously concluded that Joe must have meant he was uncomfortable because he and 

J.J. had been caught.

98. Upon discussion with Joe, the Parents learned that virtually every day during 

Williams’ 4-student, special education Math class, Williams had placed J.J. and Joe, alone and 

with no adult supervision, in a small office connected to the Math classroom (which was itself 

substantially smaller than a general education classroom), where J.J. repeatedly sexually abused 

Joe over a period of several months.

99. The Parents further learned that, on at least one occasion during Math class, J.J. 

and Joe had exited the Math office through a back door leading directly to the hallway, during 

Math class, and had gone to a bathroom where J.J. sexually assaulted Joe.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.119 Filed 12/22/14 Page 12 of 45
13

100. The Parents further learned that Williams used the office to warehouse special 

education students and had strict rules that students had to be quiet and that she could not be 

disturbed or spoken to during class, as she worked at her computer.

101. The layout of Williams’ Math classroom and the adjoining office are fully 

consistent with and corroborate Joe’s allegations.

102. The Math class office is a de facto seclusion room (the “Seclusion Room”) and is 

subject to specific rules under Michigan and federal law.

103. Such regulations require that the Seclusion Room only be used under 

“emergency” circumstances, that any students placed in it be under “continuous observation,” 

and that it not be used for the “convenience of staff” or as a “substitute for an educational 

program.”

104. Williams’ and the Novi School District’s misuse of the Seclusion Room violated 

all of these rules.

105. Under its established custom, policy, and practice, the Novi School District 

secluded and separated out special needs children in the Seclusion Room and other unusually 

small class rooms.

106. This custom, policy, and practice was known to, condoned by, and executed by, 

Matthews, Schriner, Comb, and Williams.

107. The Novi School District outfitted the Seclusion Room with desks and computers 

and otherwise directed its use for special education students.

108. Upon information and belief, Matthews, Schriner, and Comb knew that Williams 

was placing Joe and J.J. into the Seclusion Room during class time.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.120 Filed 12/22/14 Page 13 of 45
14

109. The Parents filed a police report on February 28, 2014 and, among other things,

notified the Novi Police of the serial molestation of Joe during Math class. 

110. The Novi Police provided contemporaneous notice of the police report to NMS.

111. After not initially punishing Joe for the English class incident, after it became 

aware of the police report, NMS suspended Joe for the English class incident. 

112. The Novi Police conducted a cursory investigation that was focused almost solely 

on the English class incident, before declining to recommend charges.

113. The Novi Police’s investigation was hampered by misstatements of Novi School 

District personnel to the police and the Novi School District’s destruction of material evidence.

114. The Novi Police advised the Parents that all the prosecutor would see was two 

special needs students touching each other and that Joe could also be prosecuted if they pushed 

the matter.

115. The Novi Police did not conduct any meaningful investigation of Joe’s Math class 

allegations. 

116. Even after the Parents provided heart-wrenching, detailed accounts of what 

happened to Joe in a March 7, 2014 letter, a March 12, 2014 e-mail, and at a March 18 meeting 

with Matthews and Schriner, on March 21, 2014, Schriner advised the Parents that NMS had 

been “cleared to investigate” by the Novi Police but could not investigate what happened in 

Math class without “specific information” from the Parents. 

117. This statement was an admission that, as of March 21, 2014, the Novi School 

District had conducted no investigation of the Math class incidents.

118. Under Title IX and Office of Civil Rights guidance, a school district is not 

permitted to use the existence of a police investigation as an excuse to delay or fail to perform 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.121 Filed 12/22/14 Page 14 of 45
15

its own independent investigation or as an excuse for failure to take steps to prevent recurrence

of sexual abuse.

119. Under Title IX and Office of Civil Rights guidance, a school district is required to 

conduct a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation of allegations of sexual abuse, 

notwithstanding the existence of a police investigation.

120. On March 31, 2014, ten days later, without conducting any investigation, Schriner 

sent an e-mail to the Parents callously notifying them that the Novi School District’s 

“investigation did not reveal any evidence that Joe has been subjected to repeated sexual 

molestation as you allege.”

121. The Novi School District took no disciplinary actions, issued no sanctions, and 

offered Joe no remedial action related to the Math class incidents.

122. The only step the Novi Police or the Novi School District took was briefly to 

question Williams, who denied that J.J. and Joe had ever been in the Math office together on 

even a single occasion. 

123. The Novi Police and Novi School District closed their “investigations” of Joe’s

allegations based on this statement.

124. At no time up until the present date has the School District investigated the Math 

class allegations or done anything other than blindly accept Williams’ unsupported, 

demonstrably false statement that J.J. and Joe were never in the Math office together.

125. Based solely on Williams’ statement, Schriner, Comb, Matthews, and the Novi 

School District concluded that Joe was lying about what occurred in Math class.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.122 Filed 12/22/14 Page 15 of 45
16

126. Rather than properly investigate the systematic sexual abuse of a special needs 

student occurring in its classrooms, shortly after it became aware of Joe’s police report, the 

School District suspended Joe for his involvement in the February 26, 2014 incident.

127. While the suspension was later removed from Joe’s record after the Parents

retained legal counsel and demanded that it be removed, the Novi School District still maintains 

an electronic record of “inappropriate sexual contact” under Joe’s Unique Identification Code.

128. At Joe’s April 2014 IEP, school staff, including Director of Student Services 

Shailee Patel, coldly told the Parents that they were proceeding on the basis of “two different 

versions of the facts,” with the Parents believing Joe and the School District believing Williams.

129. Patel also told the Parents that the Math office was “never really used for 

students” and was “used for storage most of the school year” and repeatedly suggested that Joe 

had been a “willing participant” in any sexual contact.

130. Williams’ statements to the Novi Police regarding use of the Math office were

knowingly and demonstrably false.

131. Neither the Novi Police nor anyone from the Novi School District interviewed the 

other students in Math class regarding Joe’s Math class allegations.

132. The Math class allegations are not even mentioned in the School Incident Report, 

which was requested by the Parents on March 7 but not provided until April 22.

133. The Math class allegations are barely mentioned in the Novi Police Report, which 

is almost exclusively about the February 26, 2014 English class incident.

134. The Parents’ investigator interviewed J.J. and students Ja.P. and M.L. regarding 

Math class. 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.123 Filed 12/22/14 Page 16 of 45
17

135. These three students, with Joe constitute all of the students who were in Math 

class from the beginning of the school year through February 26, 2014.

136. Like Joe, J.J. stated that Williams placed J.J. and Joe into the office nearly every 

day.

137. J.J. also admitted that inappropriate sexual contact occurred between him and Joe 

nearly every day.

138. J.J. also made clear that the Novi Police had not bothered to ask him virtually 

anything about Math class.

139. The Novi School District also never bothered to speak to J.J. about Math class.

140. Another student, Ja.P. also confirmed that Williams routinely placed J.J. and Joe 

into the Math office; he was aware that there was improper touching between the two; and he 

was aware that Joe was afraid of J.J.

141. Another student, M.L., was aware of Williams placing Joe and J.J. into the Math 

office on “one or two” occasions, but he could not say more because he put his head down and 

slept every single day in Math class, yet another indication of Williams’ total lack of supervision. 

142. All of the students in Math class from the beginning of the year contradicted 

Williams’ claim that J.J. and Joe were never in the Math office together.

143. For his safety, based on the strong recommendation of his therapist and the total 

lack of any acknowledgement of what had occurred by the Novi School District, let alone 

remedial action, the Parents did not return Joe to NMS after February 27, 2014.

144. During March and April 2014, while undertaking no investigation of Joe’s 

allegations or taking any disciplinary action against J.J. related to them or implementing any 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.124 Filed 12/22/14 Page 17 of 45
18

safety measures, Schriner, Comb, Matthews, and Patel repeatedly pressured the Parents to return 

Joe to school and to classes with J.J.

145. During March 2014, while undertaking no investigation of Joe’s allegations or 

taking any disciplinary action against J.J. related to them or implementing any safety measures, 

Schriner, Comb, and Matthews repeatedly assured the Parents that NMS could keep Joe safe.

146. Instead of investigating his allegations, the School District retaliated against Joe 

for making the allegations by suspending Joe, threatening the Parents that an investigation could 

lead to additional punishment of Joe, and marking Joe as “unexcused absent.”

147. At a March 4 meeting with Comb, a March 18 meeting with Matthews and 

Schriner, at Joe’s April 2014 IEP, and by reviewing the Incident Report and Police Report, the 

Parents learned, among other things:

a. The School District provided no training to Comb or Schriner regarding autism or 

communicating with an autistic child.

b. As a matter of policy, the School District did not consider Joe’s autism, 

communication difficulties, lack of social understanding, and developmental 

delays in determining what happened or what to do about it. In fact, Schriner 

crudely told the Parents that Joe, who has undergone countless hours of disabilityrelated therapy since early childhood and whose IEP sets forth his social deficits

and developmental delays, “is not any more awkward than any other middleschooler.”

c. As a matter of policy, the School District did not consider the disciplinary 

histories and past behavior of J.J. or Joe in determining what happened or what to 

do about it.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.125 Filed 12/22/14 Page 18 of 45
19

d. Although it clearly violates the School District’s written policies regarding 

parental contact and parent rights, and although Williams, Becker, and Colone all 

admonished the activity, Schriner, Matthews, and Comb defended the failure of 

the School District to notify the Parents regarding the numerous known, in-class

touching incidents with the superficial and completely beside-the-point

observation that the school cannot “judge sexual orientation.”

e. Comb acknowledged that he had received no training on recognizing the signs of 

sexual abuse. Based on their statements, it is apparent that Matthews, Schriner, 

Williams, and the others likewise had no such training or that any such training 

was woefully inadequate.

f. The School District reached the bizarre conclusion that Joe, a 13-year-old autistic 

child who had been terrorized by the far larger J.J. for months, “consented” to the 

English class touching.

g. In a series of coordinated statements, Comb, Schriner, and Williams tried to 

bolster their strange “consent” theory by claiming that Joe was the kind of student 

who “spoke up” when something was wrong, absurdly implying that his failure to 

speak up meant that he “welcomed” the touching. Schriner and Comb made these 

statements despite the fact that they had each had only one interaction with Joe 

prior to this incident and did not know him at all.

148. Throughout these discussions, the Parents expressed their concerns that NMS had 

not made proper accommodations for Joe’s disabilities and delays, did not understand them, and 

were making no provision in their “investigation” for them. 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.126 Filed 12/22/14 Page 19 of 45
20

149. As a matter of Novi School District established custom and practice, Joe did not 

attend his weekly sessions with School Social Worker Colone by himself. J.J. was there with 

him.

150. As a matter of Novi School District policy, as recited in Novi Community School 

District Policy and Bylaw 9250, the Novi School District has “in loco parentis” duties and 

obligations: “With regard to student behavior, during school hours, the Board, through its 

administrators, acts in loco parentis or in the place of the parents.” 

151. As a matter of Novi School District established custom and practice the Novi 

School District places together in special education classes children who are emotionally 

impaired and likely to act out with students on the autism spectrum who are likely to be bullied 

and harassed.

152. School District personnel, including Patel, have intentionally blocked, delayed, 

and failed to comply with the Parents’ lawful requests for information in Joe’s Novi School

District file.

153. Due to the conduct described herein, school became an unsafe and hostile 

environment for Joe. He was afraid to go to school and has suffered from suicidal thoughts,

self-hatred, fright and shock, denial of social pleasures and enjoyments, shame, feelings of 

despair, helplessness, isolation, dislocation, and severe anxiety.

154. Joe has been in weekly therapy with Marie-Therese Hocott since March 2014.

155. The Parents have incurred and will incur medical expenses related to the care of 

Joe and the Parents.

156. Ms. Hocott reports that:

a. Joe is angry, anxious, afraid, and confused about what happened.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.127 Filed 12/22/14 Page 20 of 45
21

b. Joe sees J.J. as a perpetrator who “tricked and threatened him.”

c. Joe was “disgusted” by the touching.

d. Joe was subjected to threats and intimidation by J.J. and was and remains terrified 

of J.J. to this day, even worrying that he might walk through the door during 

therapy or otherwise show up unexpectedly in his life.

e. While this was happening, Joe would sit in his bed afraid to close his eyes 

because he was plagued by constant nightmares.

f. Joe felt trapped, helpless, and without hope.

157. Due to the Novi School District’s superficial rejection of his allegations; the 

absence of any sanctions, disciplinary measures, or remedial measures related to the Math class 

incidents; the ongoing danger to his safety; and the prospect of being forced to attended one or 

more classes with J.J., Joe was forced to leave NMS and currently attends private school. 

COUNT I: TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq (Novi School District)

158. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

159. The sexual harassment and abuse of Joe was so severe, pervasive, and objectively 

offensive that it could be said to deprive Joe of access to the educational opportunities or benefits 

provided by NMS.

160. Responsible persons within the Novi School District had actual knowledge of the 

sexual harassment, without limitation, as follows:

a. The Novi School District had actual knowledge of J.J.’s propensity and likelihood 

to commit acts of aggression and abuse.

b. The Novi School District had actual knowledge of numerous incidents of 

improper “touching of body parts” and hand-holding involving Joe and J.J.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.128 Filed 12/22/14 Page 21 of 45
22

c. The Novi School District had actual knowledge of the videotaped English class 

incident and other incidents of sexual abuse in English class.

d. The Novi School District had actual knowledge of the serial molestation and 

abuse of Joe during Math class and on other occasions during classes and in the 

school building. 

161. The Novi School District was deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment 

and abuse of Joe based, without limitation, on the following:

a. The Novi School District’s failure to appropriately train its responsible employees 

regarding how to recognize signs of sexual abuse and how to investigate and how 

to address allegations of sexual abuse.

b. The Novi School District’s failure to appropriately train its employees regarding 

how to recognize signs of sexual abuse of a special needs minor and how to 

investigate and how to address allegations of sexual abuse involving a special 

needs minor.

c. The Novi School District policy of ignoring the history, impairments, and 

propensities of students when investigating allegations of sexual abuse and 

determining appropriate remedial action. 

d. The Novi School District policy of delaying and not conducting investigations of 

allegations of sexual abuse during police investigations and deferring to police 

investigations in violation of its independent duties under Title IX.

e. The Novi School District’s failure to take effective measures to stop the “touching 

of body parts” and hand-holding incidents that were known to its responsible 

employees. 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.129 Filed 12/22/14 Page 22 of 45
23

f. The Novi School District’s failure to notify the Parents regarding the “touching of 

body parts” and hand-holding incidents that were known to its responsible

employees, in violation of Novi School District policy regarding parental contact 

and communication.

g. The Novi School District’s failure to effectively monitor and supervise J.J., 

despite its knowledge of his propensity and likelihood to commit acts of 

aggression and abuse.

h. The Novi School District’s destruction of material evidence.

i. The Novi School District’s incredibly inappropriate attempt to inject the issues of 

“consent” and “failure to speak up” into its investigation of the February 26, 2014 

English class incident.

j. The standing by and doing nothing of Novi School District substitute teacher Jean 

Solomon, while Joe was sexually abused in her presence, while another student 

videotaped the incident. 

k. The Novi School District’s suspension of Joe and blaming of the victim.

l. The Novi School District’s failure to follow up on obvious leads regarding other 

instances of sexual abuse, such as, without limitation, J.P.’s statement regarding 

prior similar acts in English class and J.J.’s statement, “let’s do that thing we do.”

m. The Novi School District’s policy and practice of using undersized classrooms 

and the Seclusion Room for special needs students in violation of Michigan and 

federal law and regulations.

n. The Novi School District’s placement of Joe with J.J. in the Seclusion Room,

without supervision, despite its knowledge of J.J.’s propensities.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.130 Filed 12/22/14 Page 23 of 45
24

o. The Novi School District’s failure to conduct any investigation regarding Joe’s 

allegations of serial molestation in Math class and allegations regarding Academic 

20.

p. The fact that Novi School District Title IX Coordinator R.J. Weber, though he 

was notified of Joe’s allegations of systemic sexual abuse on March 7, 2014, at 

the latest, and though he is charged by federal law with a duty to investigate, did 

nothing whatsoever to investigate Joe’s allegations. 

q. The pressuring by Schriner, Comb, Matthews, and Patel of Joe to return to NMS 

and the marking of Joe’s absences as “unexcused,” despite the lack of 

investigation of his allegations and the clear and ongoing danger that J.J. posed to 

Joe.

r. Schriner’s claim that the “district * * * investigation into this matter is now 

complete” and statement that “the investigation did not reveal any evidence that 

Joe has been subjected to repeated sexual molestation as you allege” despite the 

lack of investigation of his allegations.

s. The misstatements of Novi School District employee Williams to the Novi Police.

t. The Novi School District’s failure to take any disciplinary or remedial measures 

regarding the Math class incidents and failure to take any effective or appropriate 

disciplinary or remedial measures of any kind.

u. The Novi School District’s delay, improper redaction, and failure to comply with 

its duties to respond to the Parents’ legitimate requests for information and 

documentation to which they are entitled under Michigan law and Novi School 

District policy.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.131 Filed 12/22/14 Page 24 of 45
25

162. Based on the foregoing, the Novi School District has violated Title IX and caused 

substantial damages to Joe as alleged herein, including without limitation severe and permanent 

psychological damage, physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Novi School District in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled 

and including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees under 42 

U.S.C. §1988(b), all costs incurred in this action, and any additional relief the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT II: TITLE IX RETALIATION (Novi School District)

163. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

164. By reporting the sexual harassment and abuse of J.J., Joe and the Parents were

engaging in a statutorily and constitutionally (including First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, 

and Fourteenth Amendment) protected activity.

165. As a result of their advocacy efforts, Joe suffered one or more adverse actions, 

including without limitation:

a. Suspension;

b. The threat that investigation of his allegations could lead to additional suspension 

or punishment; 

c. Having an “improper sexual contact” notation placed on his electronic file; and,

d. Being marked “unexcused absent.”

166. There was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse actions that 

give rise to an inference of retaliation.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.132 Filed 12/22/14 Page 25 of 45
26

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in plaintiffs’

favor and against the Novi School District in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled 

and including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees under 42 

U.S.C. §1988(b), and all costs incurred in this action, and any additional relief the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT III: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Novi School District)

167. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

168. Joe has been subjected to a deprivation of clearly established, constitutionally 

protected rights, privileges secured by the Constitution of the United States, including:

a. His 14th Amendment due process right to liberty, including the right to personal 

security and bodily integrity and right to be free from fear, harm, and sexual 

assault of his person in his school; 

b. His 14th Amendment right to equal protection due to intentional discrimination 

against Joe based on his membership in a protected class, persons who are 

disabled and suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder; and,

c. His right to a safe, public education in a non-hostile learning environment.

169. The foregoing rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. 

170. The deprivations were caused by the customs, policies, and established and 

tolerated practices of the Novi School District, acting under color of its statutory and legal 

authority, including without limitation:

a. The failure to train NMS personnel regarding how to recognize signs of sexual 

abuse and how to investigate and how to address allegations of sexual abuse.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.133 Filed 12/22/14 Page 26 of 45
27

b. The failure to train NMS personnel regarding how to recognize the signs of sexual 

abuse of a special needs minor and how to investigate and how to address 

allegations of sexual abuse involving a special needs minor; 

c. The failure to train NMS personnel regarding how to communicate with autistic 

children and how to make allowances for communication and social delays.

d. The Novi School District policy of ignoring the history, impairments, and 

propensities of students when investigating improper touching and allegations of 

sexual abuse and determining appropriate remedial action. 

e. The Novi School District policy of using substantially smaller classrooms for 

special education classes, in violation of Rule 340.1733 of the Michigan 

Administrative Rules for Special Education.

f. The Novi School District’s established practice and policy of maintaining and 

using the Seclusion Room for special needs children and separating special needs 

students from their peers.

g. The Novi School District established practice and policy of placing emotionally 

impaired students with a history of acting out in classes with autism spectrum 

disorder students who are particularly vulnerable to harassment and abuse.

h. The Novi School District’s established practice of not notifying parents regarding 

improper touching between or among special education students.

i. The Novi School District’s established practice of having group, and not 

individual, sessions with the school social worker, which meant in this case that 

Joe attended his sessions with J.J. and never had the opportunity to speak to 

Colone alone.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.134 Filed 12/22/14 Page 27 of 45
28

j. The Novi School District policy of deferring investigation of sexual abuse until 

police investigation is complete, in violation of federal Title IX guidelines and 

requirements.

k. The established practice of the School District’s Title IX coordinator in failing to 

investigate detailed allegations of sexual abuse.

l. The Novi School District’s established custom and practice of failing to enforce 

its own policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and bullying.

171. The Novi School District stands in a special relationship to Joe due to its officially 

adopted in loco parentis responsibilities and Joe’s known disabilities and need for special 

consideration and protection. 

172. The Novi School District is responsible for the deprivations under the statecreated danger theory because its official policies and use of the Seclusion Room for special 

needs children and other policies increased the danger and risk that Joe would be sexually 

abused. 

173. The Novi School District took one or more affirmative act that created or 

increased the risk of harm to Joe, as alleged herein, including without limitation, maintaining, 

outfitting, and using a Seclusion Room in the special education Math classroom, with deliberate 

indifference to Joe’s safety and welfare, and thereby giving J.J. repeated opportunities to 

sexually assault Joe during class time and creating a special danger to Joe, a special education 

student with autism spectrum disorder, as distinguished from the public at large.

174. The foregoing violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 caused substantial damages to Joe as 

alleged herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological damage, 

physical harm, and emotional distress.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.135 Filed 12/22/14 Page 28 of 45
29

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Novi School District in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled 

and including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees under 42 

U.S.C. §1988(b), and all costs incurred in this action, and any additional relief the Court deems 

appropriate.

COUNT IV: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Williams, Schriner, Comb, Matthews, collectively the 

“Individual Defendants,” in their Individual Capacities)

175. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations

176. Joe has been subjected to a deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, 

privileges secured by the Constitution of the United States, including his:

a. His 14th Amendment due process right to liberty, including the right to personal 

security and bodily integrity and right to be free from fear, harm, and sexual 

assault of his person in his school; 

b. His 14th Amendment right to equal protection due to intentional discrimination 

against Joe based on his membership in a protected class, persons who are 

disabled and suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder; and,

c. His right to a safe, public education in a non-hostile learning environment.

177. The foregoing rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. 

178. The Individual Defendants directly participated in and/or knowingly acquiesced

in the deprivations of Joe’s constitutional rights.

179. Williams, without limitation:

a. With knowledge that J.J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

class, repeatedly placed J.J. and Joe in the Seclusion Room together and failed to 

supervise them.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.136 Filed 12/22/14 Page 29 of 45
30

b. With knowledge that J. J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

class, failed to notify the Parents.

c. With knowledge of J.J.’s propensities and Joe’s disabilities repeatedly placed J.J. 

and Joe in the Seclusion Room together and failed to supervise them.

d. Used the Seclusion Room, which is a tiny fraction of the size of a regular 

education classroom, to warehouse Joe and as a substitute for proper instruction, 

in violation of applicable regulations.

e. Deliberately misled the Novi Police investigation of the abuse with the patently 

false claims that she rarely used the Seclusion Room and that Joe and J.J. were 

never placed in the Seclusion Room together. 

180. Matthews, without limitation:

a. Directed the placement of special education students in substantially smaller 

classrooms and work areas than general education students, including the 

Seclusion Room, in violation of applicable regulations.

b. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on several occasions 

during English class, conducted no investigation beyond the February 26, 2014 

incident. 

c. Delayed the investigation of Joe’s allegations in violation of federal guidelines.

d. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on a repeated basis during 

Math class, undertook no investigation of the claims and personally pressured Joe 

to return to classes without any investigation, discipline, or remedial measures.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.137 Filed 12/22/14 Page 30 of 45
31

e. With knowledge of Joe’s disabilities and IEP, intentionally and deliberately 

ignored Joe’s communication delays and social deficits during the Novi School 

District’s “investigation.”

f. Deliberately withheld relevant information known to Matthews and pertinent to 

the investigation, including J.J.’s sexually aggressive actions towards B.S. 

approximately one month prior to the February 26 incident and other incidents 

involving J.J.

g. Treated Joe’s allegations differently than he would have treated similar 

allegations from a non-disabled student.

h. Threatened additional punishment if the Parents continued their attempts to get 

NMS to investigate additional incidents.

i. Failed to conduct any investigation of the Math class and other allegations, failed 

to issue any sanctions or take any disciplinary measures, and failed to take any 

remedial measures.

j. Failed to provide required documentation in response to the Parents’ legitimate, 

lawful requests for information and documentation.

181. Schriner, without limitation:

a. Directed the placement of special education students in substantially smaller 

classrooms and work areas than general education students, including the 

Seclusion Room, in violation of applicable regulations.

b. With knowledge that J.J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

classes, failed to notify the Parents and directed her subordinates that such lack of 

notification was appropriate.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.138 Filed 12/22/14 Page 31 of 45
32

c. With knowledge that J.J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

classes, knowingly acquiesced in and directed the use of the Seclusion Room and 

undersized classrooms.

d. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on several occasions 

during English class, conducted no investigation beyond the February 26, 2014 

incident. 

e. Directed the suspension of Joe.

f. Directed the destruction of material evidence.

g. Delayed the investigation of Joe’s allegations in violation of federal guidelines.

h. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on a repeated basis during 

Math class, undertook no investigation of the claims; personally pressured Joe to 

return to classes without any investigation, discipline, or remedial measures; and 

ten days after admitting that she had conducted no investigation, told the Parents

that the “investigation” was over and there was “no evidence” that Joe had been 

sexually abused.

i. With knowledge of Joe’s disabilities and IEP, intentionally and deliberately 

ignored Joe’s communication delays and social deficits, and informed his parents 

that she undertook her investigation under the assumption that he was “not any 

more awkward than any other middle-schooler.”

j. Treated Joe’s allegations differently than she would have treated similar 

allegations from a non-disabled student.

k. Deliberately withheld relevant information known to her and pertinent to the 

investigation, including past incidents involving J.J., including J.J.’s sexually 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.139 Filed 12/22/14 Page 32 of 45
33

aggressive actions towards B.S. approximately one month prior to the February 

26 incident.

l. While withholding pertinent evidence, propagated the false narrative that the 

February 26, 2014 incident was “consensual” and that Joe would have “spoken 

up” if something were wrong.

m. Threatened additional punishment if the Parents continued their attempts to get 

NMS to investigate additional incidents.

n. Failed to conduct any investigation of the Math class and other allegations, failed 

to issue any sanctions or take any disciplinary measures, and failed to take any 

remedial measures.

182. Comb, without limitation:

a. With knowledge that J.J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

classes, failed to notify the Parents and directed his subordinates that such lack of 

notification was appropriate.

b. With knowledge that J.J. and Joe had been involved in improper touching during 

classes, knowingly acquiesced in and directed the use of the Seclusion Room and 

undersized classrooms.

c. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on several occasions 

during English class, conducted no investigation beyond the February 26, 2014 

incident. 

d. Directed the suspension of Joe.

e. Directed the destruction of material evidence.

f. Delayed the investigation of Joe’s allegations in violation of federal guidelines.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.140 Filed 12/22/14 Page 33 of 45
34

g. With knowledge that Joe had been improperly touched on a repeated basis during 

Math class, undertook no investigation of the claims and personally pressured Joe 

to return to classes without any investigation, discipline, or remedial measures.

h. With knowledge of Joe’s disabilities and IEP, intentionally and deliberately 

ignored Joe’s communication delays and social deficits.

i. Treated Joe’s allegations differently than he would have treated similar 

allegations from a non-disabled student.

j. Deliberately withheld relevant information known to him and pertinent to the 

investigation, including past incidents involving J.J., including J.J.’s sexually 

aggressive actions towards B.S. approximately one month prior to the February 

26 incident.

k. While withholding pertinent evidence, propagated the false narrative that the 

February 26, 2014 incident was “consensual” and that Joe would have “spoken 

up” if something were wrong.

l. Failed to conduct any investigation of the Math class and other allegations, failed 

to issue any sanctions or take any disciplinary measures, and failed to take any 

remedial measures.

183. The Individual Defendants stand in a special relationship to Joe due to their in 

loco parentis responsibilities and Joe’s known disabilities and need for special consideration and 

protection. 

184. The Individual Defendants are responsible for the deprivations under the statecreated danger theory because its official policies and use of the Seclusion Room for special 

needs children increased the danger and risk that Joe would be sexually abused. 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.141 Filed 12/22/14 Page 34 of 45
35

185. The Individual Defendants took one or more affirmative act and/or knowingly 

acquiesced in affirmative acts that created or increased the risk of harm to Joe, as alleged herein, 

including without limitation, maintaining, outfitting, using, and/or encouraging the use of a 

Seclusion Room in the special education Math classroom, with deliberate indifference to Joe’s 

safety and welfare, and thereby giving J.J. repeated opportunities to sexually assault Joe during 

class time and creating a special danger to Joe, a special education student with autism spectrum 

disorder, as distinguished from the public at large.

186. The foregoing violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 caused substantial damages to Joe as 

alleged herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological damage, 

physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Individual Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount he is 

determined to be entitled and including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages, 

interest, attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), and all costs incurred in this action, and any 

additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V: SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 

1973/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq

(Novi School District)

187. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

188. At all relevant times, Joe was and is disabled within the meaning of the 

Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit exclusion from 

participation from school programs, denial of benefits, or being subject to discrimination on the 

basis of disability.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.142 Filed 12/22/14 Page 35 of 45
36

189. Joe has a mental impairment that limits one or more of his major life activities, 

has a record of such impairment, and is regarded as having such impairment under the law.

190. At all relevant times, Joe was and is otherwise qualified to participate in the 

general and special education program of the Novi School District, which accepts federal 

funding and is subject to the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

191. Joe was excluded and is being excluded from participation in the programs by 

reason of his disability, and the Novi School District denied him equal and fair access to the 

educational programs, benefits, and opportunities.

192. The Novi School District’s conduct violated several provisions of 28 C.F.R. 

§35.130(a) and §35.130(b). 

193. Without limitation:

a. Joe was required to attend classes in rooms that were far smaller than general 

education classrooms in violation of applicable regulations.

b. Contrary to practices with general education students, Joe was removed from his 

math class and was placed in the Seclusion Room, separate from his peers, with 

no teacher instruction and no adult supervision.

c. Contrary to practices with general education students, due to his Autism Spectrum 

Disorder, based on Novi School District Policy, Joe was placed in classes and in 

the Seclusion Room with an emotionally impaired, far larger student, J.J., who 

had a history of aggression.

d. Contrary to practices with general education students, Joe was removed from 

student instruction and received no instruction during math class.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.143 Filed 12/22/14 Page 36 of 45
37

e. The Novi School District did not treat Joe’s allegations in the same manner that it 

treats similar allegations from non-disabled students.

f. The Novi School District provided no training to the responsible parties regarding 

the sexual abuse of special needs children or the communication issues of autistic 

children and made no accommodations for Joe’s language and social 

impairments.

194. Joe was harassed by J.J. based on his disabilities.

195. The harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it altered the condition of 

his education and created a hostile and abusive educational environment.

196. The Novi School District knew about the harassment.

197. The Novi School District was deliberately indifferent to the harassment and acted 

in bad faith.

198. The treatment of Joe was not rationally related to any legitimate governmental 

purpose.

199. Joe has been damaged by the discrimination against him based on his disability as 

alleged herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological damage, 

physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Novi School District in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled 

and including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages, interest, and all costs and 

attorney fees incurred in this action, as provided by statute or otherwise, and any additional relief 

the Court deems appropriate.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.144 Filed 12/22/14 Page 37 of 45
38

COUNT VI: MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(Novi School District, Williams, Schriner, Comb, Matthews)

200. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

201. Defendant Novi School District is a place of accommodation and educational 

institution under MCL 37.2301.

202. “Educational institution” is defined to include agents of an educational institution 

under MCL 37.2401.

203. Defendants Williams, Schriner, Comb, and Matthews are agents of the Novi 

School District.

204. Under MCL 37.2402, an educational institution shall not:

a. “Discriminate against an individual in the full utilization of or benefit from the 

institution, or the services, activities, or programs provided by the institution 

because of religion, race, color, national origin, or sex.

b. “Exclude, expel, limit, or otherwise discriminate against an individual seeking 

admission as a student or an individual enrolled as a student in the terms, 

conditions, or privileges of the institution, because of religion, race, color, 

national origin, or sex.”

205. J.J. intentionally and repeatedly sexually harassed and abused Joe over a period of 

several months and thereby created a sexually abusive and discriminatory educational 

environment. 

206. The sexual abuse of Joe was sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively 

offensive as to systematically deprive Joe of equal access to the educational programs and 

activities of the Novi School District.

207. By its actions and omissions, as alleged herein, the Defendants were party to the 

harassment, knowingly acquiesced in the creation of a hostile educational environment, and 

failed to take required remedial measures, in violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.145 Filed 12/22/14 Page 38 of 45
39

208. Joe has been damaged by the sex-based discrimination against him as alleged 

herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological damage, physical harm, 

and emotional distress.

209. Due to the Defendants’ deliberate indifference and callous disregard, Joe is 

entitled to exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Novi School District and the Individual Defendants, jointly and severally,

in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled and including compensatory and exemplary 

damages, interest, and all costs and attorney fees incurred in this action, as provided by statute or 

otherwise, and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VII: MICHIGAN PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

(Novi School District, Williams, Schriner, Comb, Matthews)

210. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

211. Defendant Novi School District is a place of accommodation and educational 

institution under MCL 37.1402. 

212. “Educational institution” is defined to include agents of an educational institution 

under MCL 37.1401.

213. Defendants Williams, Schriner, Comb, and Matthews are agents of the Novi 

School District.

214. Under MCL 37.1402, an educational institution shall not:

a. “Discriminate in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from the 

institution, or the services provided and rendered by the institution to an 

individual because of a disability that is unrelated to the individual’s ability to 

utilize and benefit from the institution or its services * * *.

b. “Exclude, expel, limit, or otherwise discriminate against an individual * * * 

enrolled as a student in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the institution, 

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.146 Filed 12/22/14 Page 39 of 45
40

because of a disability that is unrelated to the individual’s ability to utilize and 

benefit from the institution * * *.” 

215. Defendants discriminated against Joe and excluded him from participation in the 

programs by reason of his disability and denied him equal and fair access to the educational 

programs, benefits, and opportunities.

216. Joe has been damaged by the discrimination against him based on his disability as 

alleged herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological damage, 

physical harm, and emotional distress.

217. Due to the Defendants’ deliberate indifference and callous disregard, Joe is 

entitled to exemplary damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against the Novi School District and the Individual Defendants, jointly and severally,

in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled and including compensatory and exemplary 

damages, interest, attorney fees, and all costs incurred in this action, and any additional relief the 

Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VIII: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Matthews, Schriner, Comb, Williams)

218. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

219. The conduct of the Individual Defendants towards the Parents was extreme, 

outrageous and recklessly and intentionally calculated to cause the Parents extreme emotional 

distress.

220. Specifically and without limitation, the Individual Defendants, in an attempt to 

cover up the sexual abuse of Joe and to avoid liability:

a. Failed to notify the Parents regarding the repeated improper touching incidents, 

during class, involving Joe and J.J.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.147 Filed 12/22/14 Page 40 of 45
41

b. Destroyed material evidence.

c. Made misrepresentations to the police.

d. Suspended Joe, the victim of systemic sexual abuse at NMS.

e. Failed to investigate Joe’s allegations, while at the same time telling the Parents

the investigation had been “completed.”

f. Knowingly misrepresented to the Parents that there was “no evidence” that the 

sexual abuse of Joe had occurred.

g. Told the Parents their special needs, minor son had “consented” to the touching.

h. Told the Parents that their special needs son, who is autistic and has an IEP and 

has been through thousands of hours of therapy since early childhood, is “no more 

awkward” than any other student at NMS.

i. Repeatedly placed Joe in a Seclusion Room, with J.J., without regard to J.J.’s 

known propensities and Joe’s disability-based vulnerability.

j. Told the Parents that Joe could be suspended or subject to additional punishment 

if his allegations were investigated.

k. In violation of Michigan law and Novi School District policies, delayed 

production of, or completely failed to produce, or only produced with extensive 

and improper redactions, material information and records requested by the 

Parents.

221. As a direct result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, the Parents

have suffered extreme emotional distress necessitating family therapy.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in the Parents’ 

favor and against the Individual Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount they are

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.148 Filed 12/22/14 Page 41 of 45
42

determined to be entitled and including compensatory and exemplary damages, interest, attorney 

fees, and all costs incurred in this action and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IX: GROSS NEGLIGENCE (Williams)

222. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

223. As his teacher, Williams owed Joe in loco parentis duties, the duty not to act in a 

grossly negligent manner, and the special duty to protect Joe and to use reasonable care to aid 

Joe and to provide for Joe’s safety.

224. With full knowledge of J.J.’s propensities and emotional impairments, Joe’s 

vulnerability and disabilities, and past improper touching incidents between Joe and J.J., 

Williams willfully and wantonly breached her duties by recklessly and repeatedly placing J.J. 

and Joe alone in the Seclusion Room, without supervision, demonstrating a complete lack of 

concern for Joe’s safety.

225. Because Williams’ conduct constitutes gross negligence, the defense of 

governmental immunity is not applicable under Michigan law.

226. As a direct and proximate result of Williams’ gross negligence, J.J. repeatedly 

sexually abused Joe on a daily basis over a period of months. 

227. As a direct and proximate result of Williams’ gross negligence, Joe has suffered 

damages as stated herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological 

damage, physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against Williams, in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled and including 

compensatory and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees, and all costs incurred in this 

action and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.149 Filed 12/22/14 Page 42 of 45
43

COUNT X: NEGLIGENCE (Solomon)

228. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

229. As alleged herein, while teaching a 4-person special education English class on or 

about February 26, 2014, Solomon permitted J.J. to sexually abuse Joe for at least four minutes, 

during class time, while another student videotaped the incident.

230. Solomon did nothing to prevent or to stop the incident or to protect Joe.

231. Solomon’s conduct constitutes gross negligence and reckless disregard for Joe’s 

safety and welfare.

232. As his teacher, Solomon owed Joe in loco parentis duties, the duty not to act in a 

negligent manner, and the special duty to protect Joe and to use reasonable care to aid Joe and to 

provide for Joe’s safety.

233. Solomon breached her duties as alleged herein.

234. As a direct and proximate result of Solomon’s gross negligence, J.J. sexually 

abused Joe. 

235. As a direct and proximate result of Solomon’s gross negligence, Joe has suffered 

damages as stated herein, including without limitation severe and permanent psychological 

damage, physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against Solomon, in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled and including 

compensatory and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees, and all costs incurred in this 

action and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.150 Filed 12/22/14 Page 43 of 45
44

COUNT XI: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (Edustaff)

236. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations.

237. At all relevant times, Solomon was solely employed by Edustaff and was acting in 

the course of her employment as a substitute teacher.

238. Under Michigan law, Edustaff is vicariously liable for the negligence of its 

employee, acting within the scope of her employment.

239. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Edustaff’s 

employee, Solomon, Joe has suffered damages as stated herein, including without limitation 

severe and permanent psychological damage, physical harm, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter Judgment in Joe’s 

favor and against Edustaff, in whatever amount he is determined to be entitled and including 

compensatory and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees, and all costs incurred in this 

action and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Joseph E. Viviano

VIVIANO, PAGANO & HOWLETT PLLC

Joseph E. Viviano (P60378)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

48 S. Main Street, Suite 2

Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

(586) 469-1580

joe@vivianolaw.com

December 22, 2014 (P60378)

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.151 Filed 12/22/14 Page 44 of 45
45

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims triable to a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Joseph E. Viviano

VIVIANO, PAGANO & HOWLETT PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

48 S. Main Street, Suite 2

Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

(586) 469-1580

joe@vivianolaw.com

December 22, 2014 (P60378)

Case 4:14-cv-14531-TGB-RSW ECF No. 12, PageID.152 Filed 12/22/14 Page 45 of 45