Costello v. Mitchell Public School District 79
266 F.3d 916 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Nebraska law, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. A teacher's verbal harassment of a student, while unprofessional and intemperate, does not necessarily meet this high standard.
Facts:
- Sadonya Costello, a seventh-grade student, had previously received special education services, but her disability was not properly 'verified' under Nebraska law with current medical documentation.
- Upon enrolling at Mitchell High School, officials reviewed Sadonya's records and determined she was not eligible for special education services without updated medical reports, which they requested from her parents, the Costellos.
- Sadonya's band teacher, Roger Kercher, allegedly called her 'retarded,' 'stupid,' and 'dumb' on a daily basis in front of her classmates.
- During one class, Kercher, after belittling Sadonya for a poor grade, threw her notebook at her, striking her in the face.
- Kercher informed Sadonya that she could no longer participate in the band because she was 'too stupid,' a statement he later confirmed to her mother.
- Sadonya was subsequently removed from band and placed into a music appreciation class, also taught by Kercher, where the verbal harassment allegedly continued.
- As a result of her experiences at school, Sadonya suffered from severe depression and suicidal thoughts, ultimately leading her to withdraw from Mitchell High School to be home-schooled.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Jamie Costello, on behalf of their daughter Sadonya, sued the Mitchell Public School District and several school officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution (Due Process and Equal Protection), federal statutes (IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act), and state law (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to the individual defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity and dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on its merits.
- The district court later granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on all other claims, effectively dismissing the entire case without a trial.
- The Costellos (appellants) appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a teacher's conduct, which includes repeatedly calling a student 'stupid' and 'retarded,' throwing a notebook at her, and removing her from band class, rise to the level of 'outrageous' conduct required to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law?
Opinions:
Majority - Wollman
No. A teacher's conduct, which includes repeatedly calling a student 'stupid' and 'retarded,' throwing a notebook at her, and removing her from band class, does not rise to the level of 'outrageous' conduct required to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law. The court held that while Kercher's actions were 'unprofessional, intemperate, and unworthy,' they did not meet the extremely high standard of being 'so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.' The court also rejected the other claims, finding that the conduct did not 'shock the conscience' for a substantive due process violation, that the school did not violate the IDEA because Sadonya's disability was unverified and the parents failed to provide necessary medical updates, and that Sadonya did not qualify as disabled under the ADA because her impairment did not 'substantially limit' the major life activity of learning.
Dissenting - Hamilton
Yes. A reasonable jury could find the teacher's conduct was outrageous enough to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The dissent argued that the majority failed to properly consider the context, specifically the abuse of a power relationship between a teacher and a vulnerable, 13-year-old student whom the teacher knew was struggling. Given Kercher's position of authority and Sadonya's susceptibility, his sustained public humiliation of her could lead an average member of the community to exclaim 'Outrageous!' and therefore the claim should have been decided by a jury, not dismissed on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the formidable legal standard for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and substantive due process violations based on verbal harassment, even in a school setting. It establishes that conduct which a court may describe as 'singularly unprofessional' can still fall short of the 'outrageous' or 'conscience-shocking' threshold required for legal action. The case also reinforces the strict procedural and substantive requirements of disability law, showing that a school's failure to provide services may be excused if parents do not supply the necessary verification of a disability. The dissent signals a competing judicial view that would give more weight to the power dynamics and vulnerability inherent in the teacher-student relationship when evaluating such claims.
Unlock the full brief for Costello v. Mitchell Public School District 79