MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Legal Newsline) - School-board members can be sued over allegations they failed to fire a principal who was later convicted of sexual harassment, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled, finding there was enough evidence for a jury to conclude the board members knew or should have known of the principal’s propensity for misconduct.
In a case that included allegations of payoffs, political influence and embezzlement, the court held that a plaintiff identified only as Jane Doe could proceed with her lawsuit against five board members in their individual capacities, even if they were otherwise protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Doe sued the Wilcox County Board of Education and individual board members after she was attacked in 2010 by James Thomas, then the principal of Wilcox County Central High School. Thomas was later convicted of calling Doe into her office and kissing and touching her, after which the board fired him.
Thomas also served in the Alabama House of Representatives and witnesses for Doe accused some of the board members of knowing about previous episodes of sexual misconduct and even accepting bribes to vote against an earlier effort to fire him.
A trial court rejected the school board’s plea to dismiss the lawsuit under sovereign immunity and the board sought a writ of mandamus from the Alabama Supreme Court reversing the ruling. The court agreed sovereign immunity applied to the board members acting in their official capacity, rejecting claims they violated school district rules by failing to report previous allegations of sexual misconduct. Those rules apply only to school officials, the court ruled.
There was enough evidence to try claims some of the board members were involved in a “corrupt scheme” in which they agreed to turn a blind eye to “Thomas's purported persistent sexual misconduct at the school in return for cash payments,” the court ruled. Doe also presented testimony from a witness who said Thomas was removed from overseeing athletic fundraisers after tens of thousands of dollars went missing from his care.
“We recognize that these are serious allegations of corruption and impropriety, which, if proven, would almost certainly fall within the exception” from sovereign immunity, the court concluded.