Richard E. Slezak OSB #862906

res@slezaklaw.com

Richard E Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

503 315-2026 facsimile

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JANE DOE

 

 Plaintiff,

 v

 Case No. 3:14-cv-1527

 

 COMPLAINT

 Personal Injury and 

 Civil Rights claims

 (28 USC § 1331 and 28 USC §1343)

CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE;

and PATRICK L LANNING,

 

 Defendants.

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff’s first two claims for relief against Defendant, Chemeketa 

Community College arise under 42 USC §1983 and 20 USC §1681, respectively. 

Page 1- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120 

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 13
The court has federal question jurisdiction of the action under 28 USC §1331, and 

civil rights jurisdiction under 28 USC §1343. This court has supplemental 

jurisdiction of plaintiff’s state claims under 28 USC §1367.

RELEVANT FACTS

2. At all times material, plaintiff was employed at Chemeketa 

Community College (hereinafter, “Chemeketa”)

3. Defendant, Patrick L Lanning, (hereinafter, Lanning) was 

employed by Defendant, Chemeketa Community College as Campus President 

and Chief Academic Officer of Instruction and Student Services.

4. On or about February 5, 2014, plaintiff and Lanning, among others, 

attended a school-sponsored conference at the Portland Airport Sheraton Hotel, 

(hereinafter, “the hotel”) in Portland, Multnomah County OR. 

5. In the evening hours of February 6, 2014, plaintiff and other 

Chemeketa employees, including Lanning, were socializing and drinking at the 

hotel bar. At some point, Lanning and plaintiff were seated next to each other. 

On one or more occasions, Lanning commented that plaintiff was not drinking 

fast enough and encouraged her to drink more quickly. On two occasions, 

Lanning ordered plaintiff an additional drink without her permission.

Page 2- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 13
6. During the same time and in the same place, Lanning made 

unwanted and unwelcome physical contact with plaintiff, including rubbing her 

back and shoulders, massaging her waist and buttocks, and touching her 

between her legs underneath the table. 

7. After the touching between the legs, plaintiff left the bar visibly 

upset and crying. An executive dean of Chemeketa, Manual Guerra, who was 

also attending the conference, escorted plaintiff to her hotel room.

8. Another dean, Susan Murray, followed, and met Guerra and 

plaintiff at her room.

9. While at plaintiff’s room door, the hotel telephone rang several 

times. Dean Murray suggested that it was likely Lanning; that plaintiff did not 

have to answer it; that she should not be afraid; and asked whether plaintiff 

wanted her (Dean Murray) to stay in plaintiff’s room with her for the night, 

which plaintiff declined. 

10. Thereafter, Lanning entered plaintiff’s hotel room. 

11. At all times material, Lanning was in plaintiff’s hotel room. The 

room was dark, with the curtains drawn, but Plaintiff was aware that Lanning

was on top of her in her bed. Plaintiff sensed Lanning was touching her; that his 

Page 3- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 13
hands were on her skin; that he was caressing her neck; that he was touching her 

sexually; and that he was sexually penetrating her.

12. At the time Lanning entered plaintiff’s hotel room, and thereafter 

while he was in her hotel room, plaintiff was incapacitated, as defined in ORS 

124.100(1)(c) and therefore, vulnerable, as defined in ORS 124.100 (1)(e)(C). 

13. Lanning’s conduct was unwelcome, offensive, unprivileged and 

without plaintiffs consent.

14. Plaintiff awoke the next morning, completely naked, her clothes 

from the night before neatly piled on top of her shoes on the floor. Lanning’s 

eyeglasses were on the nightstand next to plaintiff’s bed.

15. The following day, February 7, 2014, plaintiff went to Silverton 

Hospital Emergency Department where she underwent a forensic “rape kit” 

examination by a forensic nurse in the Emergency Department, during which 

plaintiff identified Lanning as her assailant. 

16. The nurse telephoned Port of Portland Police to report a rape and 

that Patrick Lanning had been identified as the assailant.

17. At all times material, Lanning was an agent of Chemeketa, acting 

within the apparent authority of that agency.

Page 4- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 4 of 13
18. At all times material, Lanning acted with the purpose of serving 

Chemeketa, pursuant to the privileges granted to him by Chemeketa and its 

Board of Trustees.

19. At all times material, Chemeketa permitted Lanning to sexually 

abuse plaintiff by acting or failing to act to protect her from Lanning when 

Chemeketa knew of Lanning’s history of sexual misconduct, including his prior 

sexual harassment of another female employee at Chemeketa in 2012.

20. Pursuant to ORS 30.275, plaintiff timely filed a Tort Claim Notice

advising Chemeketa of her intent to commence this action.

21. Pursuant to ORS 124.100 (6), a copy of this complaint will be served 

on the Oregon Attorney General within 30 days of the date of the date this

complaint is filed. 

22. Pursuant to ORS 124.100 (2)(b), plaintiff is entitled to an amount 

equal to three times her noneconomic damages.

23. Plaintiff is entitled to her reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS 

124.100 (2)(c).

Page 5- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 5 of 13
SEXUAL BATTERY

24. For her first claim for relief against Lanning, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 23 and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that: 

25. Lanning acted intentionally.

26. Lanning subjected plaintiff to harmful or offensive sexual contact.

27. The sexual contact caused plaintiff mental and emotional distress. 

28. As a result of Lanning’s conduct, plaintiff sustained lost income 

and benefits of $30,000; medical and counseling expenses of $12,000; diminished 

future earning capacity of $220,000; and future medical and counseling expenses 

of $120,000, to her economic damages of $382,000, all of which continue and 

which will be finally determined at trial.

29. As a further result of Lanning’s conduct, plaintiff experienced and 

still experiences mental and emotional suffering, much of which may be 

permanent in nature, including fright, anguish, night terrors, fear, shock, 

humiliation, embarrassment, and a general loss of enjoyment of life, to her 

noneconomic damages of $4,500,000.

Page 6- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 6 of 13
30. Lanning’s conduct was done with a wanton disregard for plaintiff’s 

health and safety, constituting an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of 

socially tolerable conduct, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

31. For her second claim for relief against Lanning, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30, and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

32. Lanning intended to inflict severe emotional distress on plaintiff.

33. Lanning’s acts were the cause of plaintiff’s severe emotional 

distress.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

34. For her third claim for relief against Lanning, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30, and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

35. Lanning’s conduct was an intentional physical and mental 

intrusion into a place where plaintiff had secluded herself.

36. Lanning knew of should have known that the intrusion was highly 

offensive to a reasonable person.

Page 7- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 7 of 13
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH

ECONOMIC RELATIONS

37. For her fourth claim for relief against Lanning, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30 and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

38. Lanning was not a party to plaintiff’s employment relationship 

with the college.

39. Lanning intended to interfere with plaintiff’s relationship with the 

college, or knew that such interference was substantially certain to occur from his 

conduct.

40. Plaintiff resigned her employment with the college, June 30, 2014.

41. Lanning interfered through improper means or for an improper 

purpose with plaintiff’s economic relationship with the college.

CIVIL RIGHTS

(42 USC § 1983)

42. For her first claim for relief against Chemeketa, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30, and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

43. Plaintiff had a liberty interest in being free from discrimination:

a. on the basis of her sex; 

Page 8- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 8 of 13
b. that results in sexual abuse; 

c. that results in the deprivation of plaintiff’s right to privacy; 

d. that results in the deprivation of plaintiff’s right to her good 

reputation; and

e. that results in the deprivation of her right to pursue her livelihood. 

39. At all times material, Lanning’s conduct deprived plaintiff of her 

rights under the United States and Oregon Constitutions, as specifically 

described above.

40. The college was a local government entity under 42 USC § 1983. 

41. Lanning was an official of the college, with final policymaking 

authority; thus his conduct constituted official government policy.

42. Lanning’s conduct was made in deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s 

rights protected by the United States and Oregon Constitutions, and laws of the 

United States and Oregon.

43. Lanning’s conduct was made under color of state law, while acting 

in his official capacity with the college.

44. Lanning was aware of a specific risk of harm to plaintiff that could 

have befallen her, and did, in fact, befall her, as a result of Lanning’s conduct. 

45. Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney fees under 42 USC §1988(b).

Page 9- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 9 of 13
46. Plaintiff entitled to punitive damages under 42 USC §1983.

TITLE IX

(20 USC §1681)

47. For her second claim for relief against Chemeketa, plaintiff 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 30, and 43 through 46, and incorporates them by 

this reference. She further alleges that:

48. Chemeketa receives federal financial assistance for education 

programs and activities under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in 

employment, under any education program or activity of recipients without 

limitation. 

49. Chemeketa unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff on the basis 

of her sex.

NEGLIGENCE

(Special Relationship)

50. For her third claim for relief against Chemeketa, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30 and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

51. There was a special relationship between Chemeketa and plaintiff 

that created a duty of supervision to not unreasonably expose plaintiff to a 

foreseeable risk of harm;

Page 10- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 10 of 13
52. Chemeketa’s conduct in failing to protect plaintiff from Lanning 

posed a foreseeable risk of harm to plaintiff to be free of sexual assault or abuse 

of the kind that befell her;

53. Chemeketa’s conduct in light of this risk was unreasonable; and

54. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons and her injury was 

within the general type of potential incidents and injuries that made 

Chemeketa’s conduct negligent.

NEGLIGENCE

(Foreseeability)

55. In the alternative to her fourth claim for relief, and for her fifth 

claim for relief against Chemeketa, plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 30

and incorporates them by this reference. She further alleges that:

56. Chemeketa was negligent in the following:

a. failing to use reasonable care in investigating and granting Lanning 

privileges to work at Chemeketa;

b. in failing to properly supervise Lanning during the conference at

the hotel; and

c. in concealing Lanning’s prior instances of sexual harassment of his 

subordinate employees;

Page 11- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 11 of 13
VICARIOUS LIABILITY

57. For her fourth claim against Chemeketa, plaintiff realleges 

paragraphs 1 through 30, and incorporates them by this reference. She further 

alleges that:

58. Lanning’s position with Chemeketa provided him with the 

opportunity to sexually assault plaintiff. Lanning’s acts were substantially within 

the time and space limits authorized by his employment; were motivated, at least 

in part, by a purpose to serve Chemeketa; and was of a kind that Lanning was 

hired to perform. 

59. Lanning’s rank was sufficiently high so as to make him 

Chemeketa’s proxy, and Lanning’s negligence is imputed to Chemeketa.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

60. Plaintiff demands a jury trial. 

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of 

them, as follows:

a. Against both defendants, for her economic damages of $382,000; 

her noneconomic damages of $4,500,000; and her costs and disbursements;

b. Against both defendants for her reasonable attorney fees;

c. Against both defendants for triple the noneconomic damages; and

Page 12- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 12 of 13
d. Against Lanning for plaintiff’s punitive damages.

DATED: this __24th _ day of September, 2014

/s/ Richard E. Slezak

Richard E. Slezak OSB #862906

res@slezaklaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

20674 complaint doe/ech

Page 13- COMPLAINT

Richard E. Slezak PC

6446 Fairway Ave SE Suite 120

Salem OR 97306

503 315-2022

Case 3:14-cv-01527-KI Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 13 of 13