Opinion ID: 3054873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incidents Leading to T.H.’s Complaint

Text: Because T.H. is unable to effectively communicate, the majority of Appellees’ evidence against O’Neill derives from the testimony of Anderson and 1 From the record it is unclear whether T.H. underwent surgery at the age of four [R. 76-2 at 287] or when she was an infant. [R. 79-1 at 1.] The resolution of this factual dispute has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Rather, it is germane for present purposes that O’Neill knew of T.H.’s vulnerability due to her previous surgery. 2 T.H.’s classroom had children who were profoundly mentally handicapped—students with an IQ less than 25— as well as students who were trainably mentally handicapped— students with an IQ between 25 and 50. [R. 76-4 at 418.] 4 Case: 12-10473 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 5 of 21 fellow teacher’s aide, Tamara Cooke (“Cooke”). According to Anderson, O’Neill’s misconduct toward the children under her supervision began to escalate in September or October of 2007. During this period, Mary Pillsbury (“Pillsbury”), the school nurse, grew concerned due to an increased frequency of O’Neill’s children requiring medical care. Pillsbury therefore instructed Anderson and Cooke to document O’Neill’s behavior toward the children. [R. 79-2 at 17.] Below, we detail Anderson and Cooke’s testimony as it relates to specific allegations of abuse perpetrated against T.H. First, Appellees contend that O’Neill “ripped flesh” from T.H.’s lips. At times, T.H. came to school with excess skin peeling from her lip(s). T.H.’s grandmother sent Vaseline and instructions to apply it to T.H.’s lips when they would peel. [R. 79-2 at 22.] Anderson testified in her deposition, however, that O’Neill “would just take the skin and just rip it right off her lip and it would start bleeding.” [Id.] Cooke corroborated Anderson’s testimony stating: One side of [T.H.’s] mouth would like peel, like a half of her mouth . . . and [O’Neill] would just - - if it was hanging out a bit, she would just take it and pull it right off, and sometimes it would bleed and it would drip down onto her tray and on the table. [R. 79-4 at 20–21.] On one occasion, Anderson told O’Neill not to rip the skin off T.H.’s lips, to which O’Neill chuckled and replied: “That’s gross. I don’t want to look at that.” [R. 79-2 at 22–23.] 5 Case: 12-10473 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 6 of 21 Second, Appellees allege that O’Neill was purposefully forceful in feeding T.H., causing T.H.’s mouth to bleed. With regard to the forceful feeding, Cooke testified that O’Neill “would really ram [the spoon] in there really hard, and . . . [it] would like smash into her gums, and her gums would bleed.” [R. 79-4 at 22.] Appellees contend that T.H. did not bleed when she was fed by other individuals. Third, Appellees aver that O’Neill shoved T.H.’s thumb down her own throat in an effort to stop T.H. from sucking her thumb. Cooke explained that O’Neill wanted T.H. to stop sucking on her thumb, so “sometimes [O’Neill] would cram it down [T.H.’s] throat like . . . [y]ou want that, I’ll give it to you.” [R. 79-5 at 122–23.] In response, T.H. would have a gag reflex and let out a “pain cry.” [Id. at 123.] Finally, both Anderson and Cooke testified that they personally witnessed O’Neill strike T.H. with her hand and other objects on numerous occasions. In response to an inquiry of how many times she saw O’Neill strike T.H., Anderson stated: I saw [O’Neill] strike [T.H.] with her own hand in the back of the head - - in the side of the head, but as far as with different objects, I really couldn’t tell you how many times it was; but she would pick up things, you know, if she had a water bottle and, you know, stand there and she would hit her with that or a board[.] 6 Case: 12-10473 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 7 of 21 [R. 79-2 at 23–24.] Cooke largely substantiated Anderson’s testimony, stating that when T.H. would fail to perform an exercise correctly, O’Neill “would hit her over the head with a water bottle or whatever might have been readily available, a book or a magazine or whatever was around at that time.” [R. 79-4 at 16.] The most serious of these strikes came on January 29, 2008, and prompted Anderson and Cooke to report O’Neill to the school’s administration. Anderson and Cooke both allege that O’Neill struck T.H. on the head—at the location where T.H. previously had brain surgery. [R. 79-5 at 63.] In describing the January incident, Cooke explained that it happened as O’Neill became frustrated with T.H.’s inability to perform a feeding exercise. [R. 79-4 at 23.] Attempting to neutralize the situation, Cooke stepped in to assist T.H. T.H. continued to struggle with the exercise, however, “so [O’Neill] took her hand up in the air . . . and just backhanded [T.H.] over the side of the head.” [Id.] Further clarifying what she had seen, Cooke explained that “it was a hit. [O’Neill] hit her.” [R. 83-3 at 89.] 3 O’Neill submits that all of her actions above were done for pedagogical reasons and that they were not inspired by malice. This contention is undercut by Anderson and Cooke’s testimony that O’Neill hit T.H. out of frustration and that 3 As with the other allegations lodged by Anderson and Cooke, O’Neill characterizes her conduct in a different light. Rather than striking or hitting T.H., O’Neill submits that she “bopped” her and lightly “redirected” her. For present purposes, however, we must accept the testimony of Cooke and Anderson. 7 Case: 12-10473 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 8 of 21 she called T.H. derogatory names. For example, Anderson claims that O’Neill referred to T.H. as a “fat-ass” and “tons of fun,” exclaiming that T.H. was “sucking up oxygen.” [R. 79-2 at 30–31.] Likewise, Cooke testified that O’Neill stated that T.H. and another student “were a waste of good air and [re]tards.” [R. 79-4 at 24.] In a similar vein, Cooke claims that O’Neill opined “[w]hat’s it going to matter if they get hurt anyway? They are already retarded.” [Id.] Anderson also avers that O’Neill stated that it didn’t matter that she was striking the students, because they couldn’t do anything about it. [R. 79-2 at 31.] Anderson and Cooke claim that T.H. bled on multiple occasions due to O’Neill’s ripping of her skin and jamming a spoon far into her mouth. Cooke also testified that T.H. expressed pain when O’Neill hit her. [R. 79-4 at 31.] Finally, in reflecting back on this time period, Appellees contend “T.H. was experiencing an increase in bruising, vomiting, unhappiness and just a lack of energy at the end of 2007 and up until [O’Neill] was arrested.” [R. 79-1 ¶ 4.] When O’Neill was removed from T.H.’s classroom T.H.’s “energy and happiness increased, and her vomiting diminished and the bruising stopped.” [Id.] Venice Elementary terminated O’Neill after Anderson and Cooke reported her misconduct. She was also arrested and charged with four counts of aggravated 8 Case: 12-10473 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 Page: 9 of 21 child abuse. After a five day trial, however, O’Neill was found not guilty of all charges. [R. 76-18.]