Opinion ID: 9016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the facts alleged in the complaint

Text: At the time of the relevant events, Jane was 13 years old and a student at the School. In May 1993 at her teacher's behest, Jane remained after school for additional academic work. Jane perceived that she would benefit from this additional work and felt compelled to stay after school pursuant to the actual or apparent (and perceived) authority of her instructors. Jane's after-school studies were interrupted by her teacher who asked Jane to go upstairs and retrieve some additional supplies. During this errand, a male custodian (Custodian) employed by the District, chased Jane into an empty classroom, locked the classroom door, and proceeded to assault and rape her. Jane did not disclose these events to anyone until Christmas, when her parents demanded that she explain her physical condition: Jane, it seems, was pregnant. The family went to the police who arrested 4 The members of the Board include Larry Zabcik, James Maass, Teresa Davis, Carol Beyer, Roy Young, Norman Baker, Richard Sewall. 5 This appeal involves the review of a denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. All well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir. 1995). 3 the Custodian. Shortly after his arrest, the Custodian pleaded guilty to rape. Even though Texas law requires school districts to investigate the criminal record of each prospective employee,6 the School Officials did not investigate the criminal histories of any of its prospective employees.7 In 1993, the school year in question, at least one-third of the School's maintenance staff (Staff) had criminal records. The criminal records of the Staff included convictions for murder, armed robbery, unlawful weapons possession, multiple DWIs, drug offenses, failure to ID a fugitive, and cruelty to animals. The Custodian had a criminal record prior to pleading guilty to raping Jane, although the precise contents of his record were unknown at the time the complaint was drafted and filed. Additionally, during the 1993 school year, the School Officials received reports that members of the Staff had sexually abused students at the School. These reports included incidents of 6 The Texas Education Code reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) A school district shall obtain criminal history record information that relates to an applicant to whom an offer of employment is being considered by the district . . . . Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.917 (West 1987 & 1995 Supp.) 7 Doe also alleges, in the alternative, that if the Defendants did check the criminal histories of prospective employees, then they were deliberately indifferent in hiring known criminals for the maintenance staff in a middle school. As we review the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to Doe, we will assume for the purposes of this appeal that the Defendants failed altogether to investigate the criminal histories of prospective employees. 4 fondling students, voyeurism, and the like. The School Officials neither verified nor investigated these reports; instead, the Staff was told to stay away from the little white girls. In his complaint, Doe contends that both the inadequate hiring procedures and the failure to investigate reports of sexual abuse demonstrate the School Officials' deliberate indifference to Jane's constitutional rights. Doe concludes that, as a direct result of the School Officials' acts and omissions, Jane's constitutional right to bodily integrity was violated: The Custodian, an unsupervised criminal with the keys to the schoolhouse, had raped her.