## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1936 J ANE D OE - 2, et al., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. M C L EA N C O UN TY U NIT D IS TR ICT N O . 5 B OARD O F D IRECTO RS, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08 C2169

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 22, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, Cir cu i t Judg e. Fr om 20 02 to 2007, J on W hi te w as an ele m en ta ry sc h oo lte ac h er in t w o c en tr al Illino is schoo l d istr i cts, fi rs t the M cLean County S choolDis tr i ct and then the U rba na S c h oo l D i str i ct. Duri ng tha t t i m e, he se xuall y abused sev er alfem al e s tu d en ts i n both dis

tricts. I n thi s appe al, we addr es s th e l i ab i l i tyo fthe M cL ean Cou nt y Sch ool D istri ct for al low ing W hite’s2 N o. 09

- 1936 ab us e to o cc ur . The c ase is mor e co m pl i ca te d, tho ug h, b e c a us e i tdo e s n o ti nv o l v e the McL e a n Co un ty S chool Dist ri ct’ s f ai l ure to prot ect it s o w n students f ro m W hi te; i nstea d, w e co nsi der whe th er t he Di str i ct m ay be li ab l e f o r W hi te ’ s ab us e o fa n Urba na s tu den t afte r he l eft M cLean County. J a n e D o e - 2 ( “ D o e - 2 ” ) , o n e o fth e U rb a n a s t u d e n t s v i c t i mi zed by W hi te, sued the M cLean County S chool D ist ric t a n d va riou s M c L ea n C ou n ty s c h oo l offic ials und er Tit l e I X of the Ed ucati on A m endm ents of 197 2, 20 U
. S. C. § 1681 ( a) , and I l l i noi s tor t l aw . Doe- 2 alle ge d that these defendants knew thatW hi te sexual l y har ass ed M cLe anCo unty s tu d ent s but, r athe r tha n s o und the al ar m , a l l o wed W hi te to qui et l y r es i g n a nd o bt ain a new j ob i n U rba na. Doe- 2 cl ai m ed that thi s in ac tion am ounted to a “del iber ate i nd i ffer ence” to W hi te’ s har ass m en t ac ti o nabl e unde r Ti tl e I X, a s wel l a s wi l l fula nd wa n t o n mi s c o n d u c ta c t i o n a b l e u n d e r I l l i no i s t o r tl a w. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d D oe- 2’ s co m pla i nt under F e d

. R
. C i v . P
. 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o r f a i l u r e to st a t e a c l a i m. We co nc l ude tha t, a t th e ti m e W hi te ab us ed Doe

- 2, th e defen dants l acke d the requ i si te contr olo verW hi te to es tabl i shde l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce l i ab i l i tyunde r Ti tl e I X; they al so owed n o d u ty to Doe- 2 e nfo rce abl e under I l l i n o i s t o r tl a w. F o r th e s e r e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und Doe- 2’ s co m pla i nt descr ibes th e f acts l eadi ng to Whi t e ’ s h a r a s s me n to fh e r i n Urb a n a , f a c ts th a twe acc ep t as true in th is ap p eal from th e d ism issal of Doe-2’sN o. 09

- 1936 3

com pla i nt f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl aim
. S h a rp Ele cs . Corp. v. M e t ro. Li f eIns . Co. , 57 8 F
. 3d 505, 51 0 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 9)
. Fr om 2002 to 20 05, W hi te w as an el em en ta ry scho ol tea cher i n M cLean County, I l l

. Duri ng tha t t i m e, he s exually hara sse d his fem ale students thro ugh m etho ds that i ncl ud ed huggi ng stud ents an d h ol ding them o n hi s l eg, havi ng stud ents m ass age hi m and w ra p thei r l egs ar ound him , sho w i ng stud ents sexual l y s ugges ti ve photogr aphs, and com m enti ng o n students’ s ex ual at tr acti veness. Easi l y the m ostdi sturbi ng f or m of abuse w as w hat D oe -2’ s c om p lain t d es c r i b e s a s a “t as te te st ga m e,” in w hi ch W hi te w oul d blin dfo l d students and then pla ce foo d s in th e i r m o u th s u sin g a ba n an a, h is h an d , or h is penis
. D oe -2 id en tifie s se ve ra l M c L ea n C ou n ty sc h oo l offic ials w ho were aw ar e, atl eas t at som e l eve l, o fW hi te’ s har ass m ent: Ji m B ra ksi ck and E dw ar d H ei nem ann, pri nci pal s o f th e e lem en ta r y s c h oo l w h er e W h ite w or ke d ; D ale H ei dbr ede r, a ss i st an t pr i nc i pal ; Al anChapm an, s upe r i nte nde nt o f th e M cLe an Co unty S ch o o l Di st r i ct; and J ohn Pye, the a ssi sta nt super i ntendent. These defe nd ants al l ege dly knew o f seve ra l com pla i nts f ro m st u dents and parents r el ati ng to i napp ro pri ate to uching between W hi te a nd hi s femal e stud ent s, i nc l udi ngW hi te ’ s ha ving s t u d e n t s ma s s a g e h i m a n d w r a p th e i r l e g s a r o u n d h i m. A n ot h er c om p lain t re lat ed to W h ite ’s s h ow in g a se x u ally su g g es ti ve phot o g r apht o a s tu den t an d c o m m en ting on herappeara nce. T h e M c L ea n C ou n ty Sc h oo l D ist ric t d ec id ed to ge t r id o f W hi te but di dn’ t fi r e hi m o ut r i ght

. I ns te ad , the4 N o. 09

- 1936 Dist ri ct t oo k a seri es ofacti ons that Doe- 2 char acte ri zes as “pa ss i ng ” W hi te t o Urb an a. I n Apr i l 2 00 5, the Di st r i cta nd W hi te en te r ed i nt o a se ve r an ce ag r ee m en t th at, a cc o r di ng to D oe-2’s com p lai nt, “inten tion all y con cealed ” W hite’s se xua l ha r as smento fhi s stude nt s. Hei ne m ann, Cha pm an, a nd Py e al s o p r o v i d e d a “ f a l s e l y p o s i t i v e l e t t e r o fr e c o mm endati on” f orW hi te, wh i ch ag ai n m ade no m enti on ofW hi te’ s s exual har ass m ent. I n A ugust 2 005, the U rba na S c hoolDis tr i ct hi re d W hi te to tea ch se cond gr ade ato ne of it s el em entar y s chool s. A t a ro und thatti m e, the Dist rict sent a Ver i fi cati on o f Teachi ng Exp er i ence f or m to the M cLean County S chool Di st r i ct
. A ssi st an t S upe r i nt en den t Py e co m pl et ed th e f o r m a nd r e po r t e d tha t W hi t e t a ught i n hi s di s t r i c t f or th r ee c o m pl et e sc ho o l y ears, 20 02 t o 2 00 5. The Urb an a Scho olDis tr i ct r ecei ved the f or m fro m Pye o n A ugust 2 9. W hi l e tea chi ng i n U rba na f ro m 2005 to 2007, W h i te sexual l y har ass ed sev er alo fhi s fem al e s tudents, i ncl ud i ng Doe- 2, usi ng m etho ds sim i l arto tho se he used i n M cLean County. Fo l l owing hi s a rr estby U rba na p oli ce i n F e b r ua r y 2 0 0 7, Whi t e p l e a de d gui l t y t o a g g r a v a t ed crim in al s ex u al a b u se of tw o of h is M cLean Cou nty stude nt s an d ei g ht o f hi s Urb an a stude nt s, i ncl ud i ng Doe- 2. Doe- 2, thro ugh her m othe r, J uli e Doe- 2, sued the M cLean County SchoolDis tr i ct a nd the fi ve i nd i vi du alscho ol offici als nam ed above for f ailing to disclose W hite’s sex ua l ha rassm en t before he cou ld assa ul t Do e-2. Do e-2 al s o s u e d th e Urb a n a S c h o o l D i s t r i c ta n d s e v e r a l Urba na schoo l o ffi ci al s, but these U rba na defe nd ants have set tl edN o. 09

- 1936 5

w ith D oe-2 and are no longer p arties i n th is case. D oe-2 ass er ted a Til e I X cl ai m ag ai nst the M cLean County S ch o o l Di st r i ct, a ll eg i ngtha t th e Di st r i ct ’ s co nc ea l m en t of W hi te’ s sexual hara ssm ent am ounted to a d el iber ate ind ifferenc e to th e safety of th e stu d en ts in U rban a. D oe-2 al so ra ised supplem entalI l l i noi s t or t l aw cl ai m s a gai nst al l o fthe M cLe anCounty defen dan ts
. She c l ai m ed th atthe d efe n d an ts vio lat ed th eir ob liga tio n s u n d e r t h e Illino is A bused and N egl ecte d C hi l d Reporting Ab use Act (“A N C R A ”), 325 I L C S 5 /4, by fai li ng to report W hite’s se x u al h ar as sm en t t o s ta te au th or itie s, an d th at th is A N CR A vi ol at ion cause d D oe- 2 t o sufferW hi te’ s abuse. Doe- 2 a l so cl aim ed that the defe nd ants acte d w i th wi l l fula nd wan to n di sr eg ar d f o r he r sa fety byc o nc ea l i ng W h ite ’s s ex u al h ar as sm en t a n d th er e b y a llow in g h im to obt ai n a j ob i n U rba na. The dis tr i ct c ourtdism issed al l o fDoe- 2’ s cl ai m s under F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 2(b) ( 6)
. The c o ur t r ea son ed th atthe M cLean County S choolDis tr i ct c oul d n ot b e li abl e under T itle IX fo r W h ite ’s s ex u al h a r a s s m e n t o f D oe -2 in Urbana, s i nc e th atha r as smento cc ur r ed o ut si de o fthe D istri ct’ s c ont rol. A s for D oe-2’s tort cl aim s, th e cou rt concl ud ed that Do e- 2, an Urbana s tudent, f ai l ed to i denti fy a ny duty that the M cLean C ou nty defendants o we d t o h e r u n d e r I l l i n o i s t o r tl a w.

II. A n alysis D oe -2 a p p ea ls t h e d ism iss al of b ot h h er T itle IX c laim and he r sta te- l aw w i l l ful and wanton m i sco nd uc t c laim s. W e review de novo th e d istri ct cou rt’s dis m issal of a6 N o. 09

- 1936

com pla i nt under F ed. R. Ci v. P
. 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ure to sta te a c laim , ac c ep tin g a s t ru e a ll of th e c om p lain t’ s w ellp lea d ed fac tu al a lleg at ion s. Sh a rp E le cs . Co rp. v . M et ro. Lif e Ins . Co. , 57 8 F
. 3d 505, 51 0 ( 7th Cir. 2 009). To s urvi ve a m o ti on t o di smi ss , the c o m pl aint ’ s f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns need not be det ai led b u t m ust be suffi ci ent t o “st ate a cl ai m to rel i efthat is p l ausibl e o n i ts f ace. ” Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 12 9 S. Ct. 19 37, 19 49 ( 2009 ) ( quoti ng Be l l At l

. Corp. v. Tw om bly, 550 U
. S. 544, 570 (2007 ))
.
A . T itle IX Tit l e I X ofthe Ed ucati on Am endm ents of19 72 p r o v i d e s th a t, wi th e x c e p t i o n s n o tre l ev a n th e r e , “ No perso n i n the U ni ted S tat es shal l, on t h e b asi s o fse x, be ex clud ed from pa rtici p ation in, be d en ied th e ben efi ts of, or b e s ubj e c t e d t o di s c r i mi na t i o n un de r a nye du c a t i on prog ra m or acti vi ty re c eiv in g F ed er al fin an c ial as si st an ce . . . . ” 20 U. S

. C. § 1 68 1( a)
. I n e na cting Ti tl e I X, Congre ss soughtto pre vent federa l l y fu nd ed educati onal in st itu tio n s fro m d isc rim in at in g o n t h e b as is of s ex . See C anno n v. U niv. of Chi. , 44 1 U.S

. 677, 7 04 ( 1979 )
. A l though th e o n ly re m ed y e x p re ss ly a u th or ize d by th e s ta tu te is the t er m i nati on o fthe re ci pie nt’ s federa l fund i ng, 20 U .S.C . § 1 68 2, th e Su p re m e C ou rth as h eld th at T itle IX conta i ns a n i mpl i e d p r i v a t e r i g hto fa c t i o n f o r money d am ag es , Cannon , 441 U .S. at 7 17 ; Franklin v. Gw innet t County Pub

. Sc h. , 503 U
. S. 60, 76 (1992). Ti tl e I X’ s i m pl i ed r i g hto fa ct i o n a l l o ws a stude ntwho suffer s s exual har ass m ent b y a te acherto reco verN o. 09

- 1936 7 damag es a g ains t he r s chool d is tr i ct, b uto nl y i fthe sc ho o l distri cta ct s wi th“ del ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce ” to the h ar as sm en t. G eb se r v. Lago Vist a Indep. S ch

. D is t. , 524 U
. S. 274, 2 90 ( 19 98 )
. To di spl ayde l ib er at e i ndi ffer en ce , the sc ho o l di st r i ct m us t fi r st ha ve “a ctua l k no wl edge” ofthe sexualhar ass m ent. Id

. I n additi on t o actualkno w l edge, the s chooldi str i ct m ust hav e “ substan ti alco ntro lo ver b o th th e h a r a s s e r a n d th e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h th e k n o wn hara ssm ent o ccurs . ” D avi s ex re l

. La Shon da D. v. M onroe C ounty B d. of Ed uc. , 52 6 U.S. 629, 64 5 ( 1999 )
. Thi s s ubsta nt i a l c o nt r o l e l e men ti s e s s e nt i a l f o r T i t l e I X l i a b i l i ty bec au se a sch ool d istri ct can not be li able for its ind if

feren ce t o hara ssm ent that i t l acks the author i ty to preve n t. Id. at64 4. H er e, the se M cLe anCo untyde fen dan ts l acke d the re q u isit e c on tr ol ov er W h ite ’s h ar as sm en t o f D oe -2 in Urb a n a . W hi t e h a r a s s e d D o e - 2 a ft e r h e e n d e d h i s e mpl o y m en t wi ththe M cLe anCo unty S ch o o l Distric t, a nd th is harassm en t occu rred in an U rban a elem en tary sch o o l wher e th e defen dan ts ha d no s upe r vi so r y a uthori ty. S in c e the defendants “l ack[ ed] the a uthor i ty to tak e re m edi alact i on” i n U rba na, W hi te’ s har as sm ent di d not “tak e pl ace i n a c onte xt subj ect to [ th eir] co ntro l

. ” Id. at 644- 45. T h e E igh th C irc u it d ea lt w ith a sim ilar T itle IX cla im arisi ng out of a school d istri ct’s agreem en t to let a teac he rhara sse r quie tl y r esi gn, afterwh i ch the tea cherm ove d on to a n ew s c h oo l d ist ric t an d co n tin u ed h is s ex u al a b u se . See Shrum ex re l. Kelly v. K luck, 249 F.3d 773 , 775-77 (8th C ir. 2001 )
. The co urt concl ud ed that th e defendant schoo l8 N o. 09

- 1936 d istri ct lacked the n eces sary con tr o l o v er the tea ch er’s ab u se in th e ne w d ist ric t to in c u r T itle IX li a b ility

. Id. at 782. The sc hool dist ri ct’ s a l l ege d conceal m ent o fpri or student co m pla i nts o fse xual abuse w as “i nsuffi ci ent t o cre ate a dir ect l i nk be tw een the abuse and [ the di stric t’ s] sco pe ofco ntro l

. ” Id. A s i n Shr um , the M cLe anCo untyde fen dan ts no longer con troll ed W hite by t h e tim e he h arasse d Do e-2 in U rban a. R ecogn iz in g this fact, D oe-2 peg s her th eory o fde l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce t o the l atest po i ntwhenthe defe nd ants did co ntrolW hi te, the A pri l 20 05 seve ra nce agr eem ent. Even tho ugh the defe nd ants couldn’t contr ol W hi te’ s a cti ons i n U rba na, theyco uld co ntro l the ir ow n d ec i sio n to co n c ea l W h ite ’s s u sp ec te d ab u se w h ile l e t t i n g h im qu iet ly re sig n . A c c or d in g t o D oe -2, th is d ec isi on di spla ys a del iber ate i nd i ffer ence to the r i sk that W hite w oul d m ove o n to ano therscho oldi str i ct l i ke U rba na and continue hi s s exual har ass m ent. Bu t e ven a ssum i ng tha t the defendants had actual knowle dge o fa ri sk that W hi te w ou l d sexual l y abuse U rba na stud ents, theyst i l ll acked t h e r equi si te contr ol ove r such har ass m ent t o i ncur Ti tl e I X liab il i ty. W hi te ha r as se d Do e- 2 i n Urba na s ev er almonths a fte r he l eft the M cLean County S choo l D istr i ct, m eani ng tha t these M cLean County defendants l acke d “author i ty to tak e re m edi al ac tion. ” D avis , 526 U .S. at 6 44 ; cf

. D e lgado v. Stegall , 36 7 F
. 3d 668, 67 2 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 4) (opi ni ng tha t a uni ve r si tyc o ul d b e del ibe r at ely i ndi ffer en t fo r f ai l i ng t o p r o te cti t s c u r r e n ts t u d e n t s fr o m th e r i s ko fa kn o wn hara sse r)
. S i nce the M cLean Co u n ty Scho olDis tr i ctN o. 09

- 1936 9 didn’tco ntro l the U rba na “ c on text” o fW hi te’ s har ass men to fDo e - 2 , Do e - 2 c a nn o tr e c o v e r fr o m t he Dis tr i ct u n d er T itle IX’s im p l i e d righ t o f ac tio n . D avis , 526 U
. S. at 645. Perhaps expand i ng Ti tl e I X’s i m pli ed ri ght o fac tio n to incl u d e a sch ool d istri ct’s fai lure to exp ose a teac he rhara ss erno l onge r w i thi n i ts contr olwould have a posi ti ve effec t, d i sco urag i ng sc hoolo ffi ci al s fro m quie tl y s huffl i ng ab usi ve tea cher s on to ano therdi str i ct. N onethel ess , gi ven the S up re m e Cour t’ s r el uctance to expand st atuto ryr em edi es thro ugh i m pli ed ri ghts of ac tio n, s e eSmartv. Int ’ l Bhd. of El e c. Worke rs , Lo ca l 70 2 , 31 5 F. 3d 721, 72 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , we are co nstr ai ned to f ol l ow th e sp eci fi c l i m i tat i ons that the Cour t has pl aced on Ti tl e I X’s i m pli ed p riv ate r em edy. One such l i m i tat i on i s that the kno w n acts o fse xual hara ssm ent b e s ubj ect to t h e s c h oo l d ist ric t’s co n tr ol, D avis , 52 6 U .S. at 6 44 , a con trol th at th e M cL ean C ou nt y Sch ool D istri ct d id n’t have ove r W hi te’ s har ass m ent o fDoe- 2 i n U rba na.

B. W i l l f ul a nd W anto n M i scondu ct

U nd erI l l i nois Law M o vingt o Do e- 2’ s I l l i no i s to r t claim s, we b eg i n wi tha com m en t on su bj ect m atter j urisd iction. T he district cou rt had supp l em entalj uri sdic ti on o verDoe- 2’ s s tat e- l aw claim s un d er 28 U
. S. C

. § 1367(a), since th ese claim s w ere p a r t o ft h e s am e “ c as e o r c on tr ov er sy ” a s D oe -2’ s T itle IX cl ai m o ve r whi ch th e co ur t ha d o r i g i na l j urisdi ct i o n. Ordinar i l y, wh en a dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse s the federa l cl ai m c o nfer r i ng o r i g i na l j ur i sdi ct i o n b efo r e tr i al, i t r el i n-10 N o. 09

- 1936 quis hes s up ple m entalj u ris dict i on o verany sta te- l aw c laim s u n d er 2 8 U .S.C . § 13 67 (c )(3)
. Hans e n v . Bd. of Trs . of Ham i l t on Se
. Sc h. Corp. , 551 F.3d 599 , 607 (7th C ir. 2008). H er e, follow in g t h e d ism iss al of D o e - 2 ’s T itle IX c laim und e r R ul e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , n o thingi nd i c a t e s tha tthe di str i ct cour t o r th e par ti es thought ofdi sm i ssi ng Doe- 2’ s s tat el aw cl ai m s without prej ud i ce forthe Ill i noi s co urts to resolve. G iven th e relati vel y n o v el i ssu es of I ll inois tort l a w pr e s e n t e d b y D o e - 2 ’ s c a s e , i tw o u l d h a v e b e e n a pp ro p ria te to co n sid er su c h a d ism iss al. See id

. at 608 (ob se rv in g th at th e su p p lem en ta l c laim s d id n ot“e n ta n gle th e federa l cou rts in difficult i ssu es of state l aw ”). St i l l, the f ai l ure bel ow to c onsi der th e p oss ibi l i ty of di s mi s s i ngDo e - 2 ’ s su pp l e men t a l cl a i ms do e s no tp r e c l ud e our re vi ew . A l though a di str i ct c ourtm ay re l i nquish su p p lem en t al jur isd ict ion follow in g t h e d ism iss al of a ll federal cl ai m s, i t i s no t r equi r ed to do s o , unl es s th e fede r alc l ai m s ar e f r i vo l o us a nd s o do no t en gag e th e j u ris d ict ion o f th e fe d er al c ou rt s. C ropLifeAm
. , Inc. v. City o f M adi s on , 4 3 2 F
. 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. We ha ve concl ud ed that Doe- 2’ s federal cl ai m under Ti tl e I X w as prop er l y di sm i sse d, but thi s cl ai m was not so w eakas to be fri vol ous. Fu rt h er, the f actualbas i s f orDoe- 2’ s s tat elaw cla im s w as ind ist in gu ish ab le fro m t h e as se rt ed ba sis f orher fe d er alcl ai m , and the dist ri ct j ud ge had devote d su bs ta nt i alc o ur t ti m e an d r es o ur ce s to a na l y zing th e co m pl aint ’ s f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns bef o r e addr es singthe st at e-la w th eo rie s. A n d fina lly, D oe -2 c h os e t o b rin g a ll o fhe r c l ai m s i n fede r alc ou rt a nd ne ve r r eque st ed th e al ter nati ve dispos i ti on o fa § 1 367( c) ( 3) di sm issal o f h er st at e-la w c laim s sh ou ld h er T itle IX c laim fa il. SeeN o. 09

- 1936 11 Nig h t i n g a l eHo meHe a l t h c a r e, In c . v . A n o dy n eTh e r a p y, L L C, N o . 0 9

- 2 5 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 8 9 4 2 4 2 , a t * 1 ( 7 th Ci r . Dec. 21 , 2009 ) (resolvi ng sup p lem e n t al cl aim s on ap p eal w he re no par ty ar gued f orr el i nquishm ent); C ropLife, 43 2 F
. 3d at 734 ( sam e)
. A ccor dingl y, we w i l l ta ke up the m er i ts of Doe- 2’ s I l l i noi s t or t cl ai m s. UnderI l l i no i s l aw, a pl aint i ffpl ea di ngwi l l fula nd w an to n m isc on d u c t m u st e s t ab lish th e s am e b as ic el em ents of a negl i gence cl ai m , wh i ch ar e the exi ste nce o f a d u ty, br each o fthatduty, and an i nj ury proxi m ately re su ltin g fro m t h e b re ac h

. Kry win v. Chi

. Tr ans i tAut h. , 90 9 N
. E.2 d 887, 89 0 ( I l l. A p p . Ct. 20 09)
. A wil l ful and w anton cl ai m has the a dd i ti onalr equi re m ent that the br each b e not m erel y neg l i gent, but w i th “co nsci ous di sr ega rd f or the w elfa re o fthe pla i nti ff

. ” O r t ega- Piron ex re l

. D oev. C hi. Bd

. of Educ. , 820 N
. E
. 2d 418, 423 (I ll

. 2004). I n tr yi ng to i denti fy a d u ty thatthe defe nd ants owed to her, Doe- 2 r uns i nt o th e f am i l i arrule thata perso n or dinar i l y “ has no duty t o act affi rm ati ve ly to prot ect anothe r f ro m cr i m i nal at tackby a thi rd per son. ” Iseberg v. G ross , 8 79 N. E. 2d 27 8, 2 84 ( I l l

. 2 00 7) ( ci tingRe st at ement ( Se cond) ofTor ts § 3 14 ( 1965 ) )
. T h e d i re ct s ourc e o fDoe2’s inju ry w as a c r i m i n al s ex u al a ss au lt b y Jon W h ite , a thi rd party whom thes e M cLean Co u n ty defe nd ants di dn ’t con tr o l a t th e ti m e o fthe a ss au l t. S o e ve n i fthe defe nd ants knew that W h ite w as a s exual har ass er w ho l i kel y would a ssa ultDoe- 2 or other U rba na stud ents, these f acts al one w oul d no t cre ate a du ty und erIl lin ois com m on l aw to pro tectDoe- 2. T h a t i s s o e ve n th ou gh Il lin ois st at u to ry law w ou ld re quir e the defendants to act
. U nd ert h e I l l i noi s Abu sed12 N o. 09

- 1936

an d Neg l ec te d Chi l d Re po r tingAbus e Ac t, “ sc ho o l pe r so nne l ” who ha ve “r ea so nabl e ca us e to be l i ev e” th ata s tu den t ha s su ffer ed abus e m us t no ti fy the I l l i no i s Depa r tment o fChi l dr ena nd Fa m il y S er vi ce s. 3 25 I LCS 5/4. But A N CR A ’ s m andate t o re portchi l d abuse doe s no t cr eat e an y d u ty to th e a b u se d ch ild en for c ea b le u n d er Il lin ois to rtlaw . In C uy ler v. U nited Sta tes , 36 2 F
. 3d 949, 95 2- 53 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , we explained that an A N CR A vi ol ati on does not gi ve ri se to a pri vate t ort a cti on unl ess the vi ol ati on a l so bre aches a co m m on l aw duty o fcare o w ed to th e pl aint if f. The I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t si m i l ar l y c o nc lu d ed inTanya S. ex rel. D oe1 v. N
. Ce nt
. Be havi or al Health Sys. , Inc. , 81 6 N
. E.2 d 4, 7- 8 ( I l l

. A pp . C t. 20 04) , that A N C R A did n o t p r o v ide a p rivate cau se of action for a psy ch o l o g y c l i ni c’ s f ai l ur e to rep or t se xua l abus e byo ne o fi ts pa ti en ts
. The co ur t f o und “ no e vi den ce tha t th e sta tute w as desi gned to

. . . im p os e ci vi l l i abi l i ty on those w ho f ai l to r epor t. ” Id. at 8. Fr om th is au th or ity it f ol l ows that Doe- 2 ca nnot r el y o n the defendants’ al l ege d vi ol ati on o fA N CR A ’ s r epo r t i ng r e qu i r e ments to s u p p o r th e r p r i v a t e t o r tc l a i ms ; s h e mu s ti d e n t i fy a c o mm on l aw duty o w ed to herby the defe nd ants. One com m on l aw duty t o pr otect aga i nst thi rd- party at ta ck s a r i se s wher e the de fen dan t ha s a “s pec i alr el at i o nsh ip ” w ith th e p lain tiff. Iseberg, 879 N .E .2d a t 2 8 4. Illino is cour ts have re cog n ized thatso m e r el ati onshi ps bet w een pu bl i c sc hooldi str i cts and thei r st u d en ts cre ate a du ty to p ro te c t, bu t o n ly u n d er ce rt ain circ u m st an c es . A sc ho o l di st r i ctdo es no t ha ve a duty t o pr o te cti ts s tu den t body a t l ar ge aga i nst the g en er al r i sk ofcr i m i nal at tack, eve n i fthe att acke r i s a notherstud ent s u b j ec t to the di s-N o. 09

- 1936 13
tr ict ’s a u th or ity
. SeeLaw son v. City of C hi. , 662 N
. E.2 d 1377, 1389 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 96) (d ism iss in g a n eg lige n c e c laim ar i singo uto fa sc hool boa r d’ s f ai l ur e to pr ev en t o ne student fro m sho oting ano ther, wh er e the boar d l acke d kn ow led ge that the s hoot erhad a gun orthatthe vi ctim w as in p ar tic u lar d an ge r); Tham es v. Bd

. of Educ. , 64 5 N
. E.2 d 4 4 5 , 4 4 9

- 5 0 ( I l l

. App
. Ct

. 1 9 9 4 ) ( s a me)
. Onthe o the r h a nd , a sc hooldi str i ct with unique know l edge that o ne o fi ts tea cher s o r students pos es a par ti cul arthr eatto ano th er st u d en t m ay ac q u ire a d u ty t o p ro te c t. Se eO r t ega- Piron , 820 N
. E.2 d at 4 23- 24 ( re cogn izin g a wil l ful and w anton c l a i m f o r th e s c h o o l b o a r d’ s f a i l u r e t o p r e v e n ta kn o wn s e x u a l l y a g g r e s s i v e s t u d e n tfr o m a s s a u l t i n ga kn o wn m en tally d isabled stud en t); Gree n v. Ca rl invil le C m ty. U nit Sc h. D ist. N o . 1 , 88 7 N
. E.2 d 451, 45 6 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 08) ( ho l di ngtha ta s c ho o l di s t r i c to we d the h i g he s tde gr ee ofcar e t o a s tudent on a scho olbus, such that the di st rict co u l d b e l i ab l e f o r th e s e x u a l a b u s e o f th e s t u d e n t b y t he sch ool bu s d river) ; D oev. D i m ovs ki, 783 N .E .2d 19 3, 20 0 (Ill. A p p . Ct

. 2003) (find ing all egation s tha t the sch ool board kn ew of a t ea c h er ’s s ex u al m isc on d u c t w ith on e fe m ale student suffi ci ent t o show a co nsci ous di sr eg ar d fo r th e safety of oth er fem ale stud en ts). H er e, D oe - 2 h a s n otalleg ed a sp ec ial re lat ion sh ip th atw o u l d t r i g g e r a d u t y t o p r o t e c to n th e p a r to fthe M cLe an Cou nty defen dan ts
. Doe

- 2 was an U rba na stu d en t not su bj ect to th ese d efend an ts’ cont rol, and Do e-2 m ak es no a l l eg at i o n tha t th e d efenda nt s ha d a ny conta ct with herbefor e thi s l aw sui t. Doe- 2 does notci te, and w e a re notaware of, any I l l i noi s ca se i m posi ng a du ty to protect unde r the se c i r cumst an ce s, wher e bo ththe14 N o. 09

- 1936 stude nt
- vi ct i m a nd the pl ac e o fi nj ur y a r e o ut si de o fthe d ef e n d an t s c h oo l’s a u th or ity
. Cf. D i m ovs ki, 78 3 N
. E.2 d at 200 ( re cogni zi ng the school boar d’s potenti all i abi l i ty to seve ra l o fi ts fem al e s tudents with w hom the abusive te ac h er h ad d aily co n ta c t); P es ek v. D is cepolo , 47 5 N
. E.2 d 3, 5 ( I l l

. App. Ct

. 1 9 8 5 ) ( di s mi s s i ng a c l a i m a g a i ns t a schoo l f orf ai l i ng to pre vent one ofi ts students fro m sexual l y a ssa ult i ng a m em bero f t h e p ubl i c o ffscho ol grou nd s). The defe nd ants did co m ple te U rba na’ s Ver i fi cati on ofTeachi ng Exp er i ence f or m o n behal fo fW hi te at ar ound the ti m e that the Urbana Scho olDis tr i ct hi re d hi m , so we m ay as su m e that they s uspected thatW hi te w ou ld co m e in to co n ta c t w ith U rb an a s tu d e n ts . Still, f o r es ee ab i l i tyo fa ri sk th atW hi te woul d ha r as s Urb an a stude nt s i s note no ug h t o c r ea te a duty t o pr o te ct, abs en t a s p e c ial re lat ion sh ip
. See Iseberg, 8 7 9 N. E. 2 d a t2 8 8

- 89 ( dec l i ni ngt o aba ndo n the s pec i alr el at i o ns hi p do ct r i ne in fav or of an aff i r m a tiv e d u ty to p re ve n t re as on ab ly foreseeable inj uries). A lthou g h t h e d efend an ts ha d no d ut y to prote ct D oe-2 from W hite’s third -party attac k, a n oth er pos sible tort th eor y i s that i t was the defendants’ o w n acti ons that i nj ured Doe- 2. I l l i noi s co m m on l aw i m poses a du ty of “r ea sonab l e ca re to avo i d i nj uri ng o therpeopl e. ” C uy ler, 362 F. 3d at 953. W h il e per sons gener al l y hav e no duty to prot ect aga i nst dange rs cr ea ted bythi rd part i es, they d o h av e a d u ty to p ro te c t aga in st h ar m s cre a t e d b y th eir ow n c o n d u c t. Se ei d. ; Rest ate m ent ( Se cond) ofTor ts § 3 14 cmt. d ( 19 65 ) ( The r ul e th ata n ac to r o r di na r i l y ha s noN o. 09

- 1936 15 d u ty to p ro te c t o th er s “ ap p lie s on ly w h er e t h e p er il in w hi chthe a ct o r kno ws tha t th e o th eri s pl ac ed i s no t due to an y active force w h ic h i s un d er the ac tor’s control.”) ; cf. Tha m es, 64 5 N
. E. 2d at4 51 ( obs er vingtha t th e stud en t had notal l ege d that s choolo ffi ci al s “ cre ate d th e po siti on of peril th at w as u lti m ately i njurious”). I t i s no t en ti rel y i m pl au sibl e to c ha r ac te r i ze the de fen d an ts’ actions, rather th an W hite’s, as th e sou rce of Doe-2’s i nj ur y . Do e - 2 a r g ue s tha tthe de fe nd a nt s t o o kde l ib e r a te st e p s t o s e c u r e a n e w p o s i t i o n f o r Wh i t e i n th e Urba na S c h o o l D i s t r i c t, a l l wh i l e c o n c e a l i n gWh i te ’ s kn o wn hi sto ryo fse xual hara ssm en t. By dir ecting W hi te toward U rba na stud ents i n thi s m an n er, the defe nd ants c re at ed th e ris k t h at W h it e w o u ld h ar as s D oe -2 a n d , in so d oing, assu m ed a du ty to prot ect h er. U l ti m ate l y, how eve r, w e concl ud e that Doe- 2’ s alleg ati o ns do n o ts up po r tthe the o r y tha tthe de fe nd a nts cre ate d the r i s ktha tWhi t e wo ul d inj ur e h e r . Al tho ugh Doe- 2 cl ai m s that the defendants ca re full y o rche str ate d W hi te’ s t ra nsferto U rba na, none of the a l l ege d fa cts i ndi ca te s th atthe de fen dan ts e nc o ur ag ed th e Urb an a Sc h oo l D ist ric t t o h ire W h ite or ot h e r w i se p ro m ot ed h is e mp l o y men t th e r e . O n th e c o n t r a r y, D o e - 2 ’ s o wnc o mpla i nt char ges thatthe U rb an a S choolDis tr i ct ne ver bo th er ed to p er f o r m the min i st er i ala cto fc he ck i ng W hi te’ s e m p l oym ent r eco rd fro m the M cLean County S c h o o l D i s t r i c tb e f o r e h i r i n gh i m. A s no ted, the defe nd ants did c o mpl e t e Urb a na ’ s Ver i fi cat i o n o fT e a c h i n gE x p e r i e n c e f o r m a n d a l e t t e r o fr e c o mm en dat i o n o n b eh al fo fW hi te , ne i th ero fw hi chmen-16 N o. 09

- 1936 ti oned W hi te’ s s exual h ar assm ent. Doe- 2 m ake s m uch of th e ver i fi cati on f or m , and i n part i cul ar, the defe nd ants’ al l ege d m i sr ep re senta ti on o n the f or m thatW hi te taught f ora full“1 80 days” du rin g the 20 04- 05 schoo l year, even th ou gh th e d efend an ts en tered into t h e se v eran ce a g r ee m en t w i thW hi te i n Apr i l 2 00 5, b efo r e th e en d of the sch ool year. Y et even i f t h e d efend an ts d id m isrepres en t W hite’s empl o y m en t r ec o r d i n th eirc o r r es po nde nc e to the U rb an a S c h oo l D ist ric t, D oe -2 f ails to ex p lain h ow th is m isr ep re se n ta tio n w ou ld br ea c h an y d u ty ow ed to h er . A re fer ring em plo yer m ay be l i abl e f or f ai l i ng to d isc los e a f or m erem plo yee ’ s m i sco nd uct, i fthe em p l oye r has a sp ecial orfidu ciary relationsh ip w ith th e plaintiff th at rais es a d u ty to sp ea k. N eptun o Tr e uhan d- U nd Verwalt ungs gesellsc haf tM b h v

. Ar b or, 69 2 N
. E.2 d 812, 81 7- 18 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 98)
. A s we have disc ussed, Doe- 2 has n otalleg ed a sp ec ial re lat ion sh ip

— i nd eed, “no pri or re l ati onshi p ofany ki nd , ” i d. at81 7

— w i th the defendants that w oul d tri gge r a duty t o speak. P er h aps M cLean C o u n ty ’ s p u r p o r t e d mi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o fWh i t e ’ s e mplo ym ent r eco rd would be m ate ri al to a m i sr epres entat i o n c l a i m b r o u g h tb y th e U rb a n a S c h o o lD i s t r i c t
. ( We express no opi ni on o n the m er i ts ofsuch a claim .) A s f or Doe

- 2, the de fen dan ts ne ve r s ai d a ny th i ngt o h er abo ut W h ite , so w e c an n o t s ee h ow an y m isr ep re se n ta tio n s in the r eco m m endati on l ett ero r ver ificati on f or m se nt to U rb an a w ou ld ad va n c e D oe -2’ s t or t c laim s. Se eSa s sak v. City of Park Ri dge, 43 1 F
. S up p. 2d 81 0, 81 9 (N .D . I l l

. 20 06) (rej ec tin g a b u se d arr es te es ’ m isr ep re se n ta tio n cla im ag ains t a f o r m ere m pl o y erwh o c oncea l ed th e ab us i ngN o. 09

- 1936 17 offi cer ’ s m i sco nd uct o n the gr ound that the ar re ste es ne ver learned of th e m isrepres en tation). I n s um , a l th o ug h Do e- 2 woul d h ave us i nfertha t th e d efe n d an ts ac tiv ely fac i l i ta te d th e p lac em en t o f W h ite in he r U rban a classroom , the alleged f acts do n ot su p p o rt that c o nc l us i o n. T he e s s e nc e o fDo e - 2 ’ s c o mpl a i nti s that th e d efe n d an ts sh ou ld h av e t o l d U rb an a s c h oo l offic ials and otherautho ri ti es about W hi te’ s s uspected har ass m ent. Thei r f ai l ure to do so d i d not bre ach any d uty o w ed to Doe- 2. N o doubt the defe nd ants’ al l ege d non-di scl osur e o f W hi te’ s s exual har ass m ent i s t ro ubl i ng, and w e ho pe that sc ho o l o ffi c i a l s wo u l d b e mo r e p r o a c t i v e i n p r o t e c t i ng s t ud e nt s , e v e n tho s e o ut s i de o f the i r o wn di s t r i c t s , f ro m abusi ve tea cher s. I n that re gar d, w e em phasize that nothingi n o urde c i s i o n t o da y s ho ul d s ug g e s ttha ts c ho ol di st r i ct s ca n qu ie tly s huffl e ab us i ve t ea ch er s o n t o the next di str i ct with i m pu n ity
. A N CR A i m poses cr i m i nal penal ti es f orwil l ful vi ol ati ons ofi ts re p or ti ng r equi re m ents, 32 5 I LC S 5/4- 5/4. 02, w hi ch w e t rustwil l gi ve I l l i no i s s c ho o l o ffi c i a l s a n e xt r a i nc e nt i v e ( i fthe y n e e ded one) to di scl ose thei r teachers ’ kno w n acts o fse xual hara ssm ent. Ou r deci si on a lso does not l eave stud ent v i cti m s l i ke D oe-2 w ithou t a rem ed y for th eir sch ool d istri cts’ fai lure to re sp ond to hara ssm ent b y t eacher s. A s m enti oned ab o ve , Do e- 2 ha s a l r ea dy se tt l ed wi ththe Urb an a defen dants wh o em plo yed W hi te at the ti m e o fDoe- 2’ s inj ury. W e a l so note , but re ser ve com m ent o n, anot h er cas e pend i ng ag ai nst these M cLean County defendants18 N o. 09

- 1936 bro ught byM cLean County s tud en ts abuse d by W hi te. D oe ex re l. D oe v. W

hite, 6 27 F. Sup p . 2 d 9 05 (C.D

. I ll

. 2009).

I I I . Concl usio n The M cLean Coun ty SchoolDis tr i ct l acke d the co ntro l ove r Doe- 2’ s inj ury that coul d gi ve ri se to Tit l e I X l i abi l i ty, an d th e d efe n d an ts b re ac h ed n o d u ty to D oe -2 e n for c ea b le und erI l l i noi s t or t l aw . W e A FFIRM the d istri ct cou rt’s d i s mi s s a l o fD o e - 2 ’ s c o mp l a i n tf o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m.

1- 22- 10