School law principles and applications

SOPER v. HOBEN

CAUSE of ACTION: In the case of Soper v. Hoben (Renee Soper as the main plaintiff and Christine a. Hoben and the Huron Valley School District/Board of Education as defendants), argued before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of the state of Michigan in Detroit on April 23, 1999, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit alleged that Renee Soper, "a mentally-retarded adopted foster child" with severe learning abilities, was harassed, sexually molested and raped by three of her classmates at Muir Middle School and while on a school bus owned and operated by the Huron Valley School District. The foundation of this lawsuit was to determine if anyone involved in the molestation and rape of Renee Soper "may be held liable for (her) injuries under federal or state law" ("United States Court of Appeals," 2007, Internet).

FACTS of the CASE: Judge Siler, the presiding judge for the Circuit Court, did grant the plaintiffs "a summary judgment (against) the defendants... For negligence and gross negligence" under the laws of the state of Michigan and as outlined in the United States Code (42 U.S.C., 1983 and 20 U.S.C., 1681). However, in accordance with specific laws in the state of Michigan, the court decided that the defendants had "absolute immunity" from all suits for ordinary negligence, due to being employees of the state of Michigan. Also, after considering Soper's argument that the school district failed to provide a policy to protect at-risk students, failed to supervise Renee while at school and failed to place a para-professional in the classroom, the court decided that the defendants were shielded "from the Soper's state tort claims by government immunity... because their conduct was not grossly negligent as a matter of (state) law" ("United States Court of Appeals," 2007, Internet).

ISSUES: Since the defendants in this case were found not to be liable for negligence and gross negligence, the pivotal question is who should be held liable for the harassment, molestation and rape of Renee Soper? In the view of the court, there was indeed evidence "to support the Soper's assertion that Renee was raped and sexually abused and harassed" which under state law "qualifies as being severe, pervasive and objectively offensive sexual harassment." However, since the defendants "did not have actual knowledge of the harassment until after the fact" and did everything in their power to prevent any and all future harassment by "contacting the proper authorities, investigating the incident themselves," installing "windows in the doors of special education classrooms," placing an aide in the classroom and creating special counseling sessions for all students, the court found that the defendants could not be held liable for Renee's tribulations regarding being raped, molested and harassed ("United States Court of Appeals," 2007, Internet).

RULINGS: Although the court did find that the defendants were not liable for negligence and gross negligence in this case, Circuit Judge Karen Moore dissented. In her view, even though the majority asserted "as a matter of law... that the actions of the defendants did not amount to gross negligence under Michigan law," the teacher at the center of the suit "was warned specifically about the conduct" of the three boys who allegedly raped and molested Renee Soper. Thus, Judge Moore concluded that the actions of this teacher "is a question of fact for the jury," meaning that if the boys are ever brought to trial, the teacher may be found to be partially responsible for Renee's tribulations ("United States Court of Appeals," 2007, Internet).