FRANKFORT, Ky. (Legal Newsline) - A mother who sued her son’s school district over an assistant principal’s attempts to control a hallway fight will get another chance to win damages after a Kentucky appeals court reversed a dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.
Shontai Tudor sued the Jefferson County Public Schools and Brian Raho after her son, identified only as J.T., got in a fight with another boy school officials had considered to be his close friend. Raho tried to separate the boys but got punched himself, suffering blows to the head and face and a concussion that required treatment at the local hospital.
Raho radioed for help and J.T. was placed in Raho’s office with a security officer while Raho attempted to calm the other boy in the hallway. J.T. was determined to continue the fight, however, later testifying he went back to finish what he’d started “because I was like – I mean, if I’m going to get suspended, I’m going to get suspended for something I really did.”
Raho rushed back into his office as officers struggled with J.T. Raho said he placed his foot on J.T.’s buttocks to help keep him on the floor as he fought with the officers. Deputy Sheriff Rhonda Rattler testified Raho repeatedly kicked the boy, however, and swore out a warrant for assault.
Raho was removed briefly from his position but returned to school without being disciplined after the principal filed a “coaching report” noting that “using one’s foot on a child’s behind to keep him down, and others safe, should always be done as a last resort.”
Tudor sued Raho and the school district on behalf of her son, saying they caused him “great and irreparable physical, mental and emotional stress, strain, and humiliation.” The school district said Raho was acting in the course of his employment and the court concluded he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals, in a Dec. 10 opinion, reversed that finding.
The appeals court noted that qualified immunity is designed to protect officials, and ultimately, taxpayers, from lawsuits over acts made in good faith while exercising judgment. The doctrine shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove the official acted in bad faith.
In this case the trial court concluded Raho “placed his foot on J.T.’s backsidce to control an explosive situation.”
All credible evidence demonstrates that he was attempting to calm an out-of-control situation and was not acting to disregard J.T.’s protected rights,” the trial judge said. “J.T. had no protected right to continue to fight physically another classmate and cause risk of harm to himself and others.”
The appeals court disagreed, saying there was a “clear question of fact” as to whether Raho was pushing down on J.T.’s backside or violently kicking him, as the deputy claimed.
“The ’protected right that is at issue here is not the right of the juvenile to continue to fight,” the appeals court said. “Rather, in this instance, it is the juvenile’s right to be free from an assault or other crime that may have been committed against him by school authorities.”
The appeals court rejected Tudor’s argument her lawyers should have had access to the prosecutor’s report about the investigation into possible criminal charges against Raho. That file was properly withheld as containing the prosecutor’s “mental impressions” and likely wouldn’t have helped her case.