Opinion ID: 4561258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Connie Nickson

Text: Plaintiff contends that Defendant Nickson, the principal of Gardner at the time Duvall abused C.G., demonstrated deliberate indifference to the possibility of Duvall’s future abuse by failing to act on evidence suggesting he had thrown a student into a bookcase, failing to speak with Duvall about this incident, failing to inquire into Duvall’s history of physical abuse, failing to ensure that Duvall was properly trained on using physical force with students, failing to develop an improvement plan for Duvall, and by actively encouraging his misconduct. Again, Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Nickson bore supervisory liability for Duvall’s abuse of C.G. Like Alwardt and Caamal Canul, Defendant Nickson possessed information showing Duvall’s widespread pattern of abusing children well before October 2014. Specifically, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence suggests she had heard about Duvall’s historical “issues with [being] hands on” with students as of when he was transferred to Gardner, (Nickson Dep., R. 112-30 at PageID ##3178–79); the February 2014 report about Duvall throwing a student into a bookcase; other reports of Duvall throwing students that came out in the investigation of the February 2014 incident; and that a student had been pulled from Duvall’s classroom in May 2014 because the student’s mother perceived it to be an unsafe environment. Again, these include multiple specific reports of abuse—some substantiated—over a short period No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 28 of time soon before Duvall’s abuse of C.G. While investigations concluded that there was insufficient evidence of some of these allegations, again none were considered unfounded, nor was Duvall exonerated in any of them. This is enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nickson possessed information about a widespread pattern of abuse. Defendants argue that Nickson notified HR about any reports of abuse that she received. But Nickson could not confirm any of the specifics of her reports to HR—whom she spoke to, when, or how she made that notification—instead only speaking to what she “would have” done. (Id. at ##3176–77, 3180–81.) Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this raises a question of whether Nickson notified HR at all. Similarly, Nickson could not confirm that she notified the parents of the victims or law enforcement, as required, or that she conducted any additional investigation of the incidents. Nickson also could not recall speaking with Duvall about the February 2014 incident and, when asked if she did anything to prevent future incidents like this, she said that she simply “assumed he was okay to work” based on HR’s word. (Id. at #3179.) The record further allows the reasonable inference that Nickson actively encouraged Duvall’s misconduct and abuse of children. Despite finding Duvall’s history of abuse concerning, (id. at ##3179, 3181), Nickson consistently provided strong positive reviews of Duvall, (see, e.g., Alwardt Dep., R. 112-24 at PageID #2890 (noting that Nickson said Duvall was “an excellent teacher,” “a team player willing to take on tasks, and help out in any way,” and “good for the building”)). In conducting Duvall’s performance review after the February 2014 incident, Nickson gave him a perfect score on classroom management. This conduct also raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nickson condoned Duvall’s alleged behavior. Together, the record evidence more than suffices to allow Plaintiff’s claim that Nickson bore supervisory liability for C.G.’s abuse to stand. The district court erred in concluding otherwise.