L.R. v. Philadelphia School District
2016 WL 4608133, 836 F.3d 235, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16344 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state actor violates a child's clearly established Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under the state-created danger theory when they affirmatively use their authority in a conscience-shocking manner to place the child in a foreseeably dangerous situation, such as releasing a young student from a safe environment to an unidentified stranger.
Facts:
- N.R. ('Jane') was a kindergarten student in Reginald Littlejohn's class at W.C. Bryant Elementary School in Philadelphia.
- An adult, Christina Regusters, entered the school and proceeded directly to Jane's classroom.
- Littlejohn asked Regusters to produce identification and verification that she had permission to take Jane from school.
- Regusters failed to provide any identification or verification.
- Despite this failure, Littlejohn permitted Jane to leave the classroom with Regusters.
- Later that same day, Regusters sexually assaulted Jane off school premises.
Procedural Posture:
- L.R., Jane's parent, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Reginald Littlejohn, the School District of Philadelphia, and the School Reform Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to allege a constitutional violation and that Littlejohn was entitled to qualified immunity.
- The District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the District Court's denial of qualified immunity for Littlejohn.
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 public school teacher who releases a kindergarten student to an unidentified and unverified adult affirmatively create a danger that violates the student's clearly established Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, thereby precluding the teacher's defense of qualified immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuentes, J.
Yes. A public school teacher who releases a kindergarten student to an unidentified adult creates a danger that violates the student's clearly established Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. Littlejohn's action was not a mere failure to protect but an affirmative misuse of his authority that changed the status quo from a safe classroom to a dangerous situation. Applying the four-part state-created danger test, the court found: (1) the harm was foreseeable as a matter of common sense; (2) Littlejohn's conduct showed deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, which shocks the conscience; (3) Jane was a foreseeable victim of the action; and (4) Littlejohn affirmatively used his authority as a 'gatekeeper' to create the danger. The right not to be removed from a safe environment and placed into a clearly dangerous one was clearly established by a consensus of cases, providing fair warning that such conduct was unconstitutional, thus defeating his claim for qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the state-created danger doctrine within the public school context, particularly for very young and vulnerable students. The court's reasoning distinguishes between a passive failure to act and an affirmative misuse of authority, classifying a teacher's release of a student as the latter. By holding that the foreseeability of harm can be established by 'common sense' and that such an act 'shocks the conscience,' the decision potentially lowers the pleading standard for plaintiffs in future cases involving egregious conduct by school officials. This precedent reinforces the constitutional duty of care for state actors entrusted with children and limits the scope of qualified immunity for those who place them in obvious peril.
