Lawsuit claims Marion County Schools lack of safe environment led to student's sexual assault
FAIRMONT — The Marion County Board of Education faces allegations it failed to provide a safe environment on a Marion County school bus after an elementary school student was sexually assaulted by two older students.
The parent of the student filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education last year in May. A motion hearing between the Board and the plaintiff is scheduled for next week. The lawsuit alleges the assault took place in 2023 and states the bus driver did not intervene or take any action to stop the assault. It also states students of the victim's age are required to sit in the first three rows, however, the bus driver did not direct the child to do so. The Marion County Sheriff's Department opened an investigation into the incident.
'When Plaintiff and her partner contacted the Principal of Blackshere Elementary to inquire about the results of the investigation, they were simply told that minor [redacted] 'wouldn't have to see them [the students who attacked him] anymore,' the civil complaint states.
The complaint goes on to state the plaintiff and her partner were prohibited from knowing the names of the two perpetrators, and the school didn't divulge any information as to whether they were disciplined after the assault.
The lawsuit states the Board of Education owed the student a duty of care to keep him free of harassment, assault and intimidation while on a school bus. The suit accuses the board of failing to properly train its staff to appropriately supervise the students of Marion County Schools. The complaint states the child has suffered permanent psychological injury as a result of the attack. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages from the board.
The Board of Education filed its answer to the complaint in August of last year. The Board's answer states the plaintiff's complaint didn't properly make a claim upon which relief can be granted. The board denied the bus driver was aware of the conduct and denied the plaintiff's characterization of the incident. However, the board admits that something did occur. The board also responded to the claims the plaintiff made about not receiving information from the school about the attackers.
'Defendant Board of Education admits it did not provide confidential student information to the parents as alleged in paragraph 26 of the complaint,' the document states. 'But the Board of Education has fully cooperated with law enforcement.'
The board also argued that the damages the child suffered, if any, were caused by persons other than the Board of Education. It denied all other allegations and argued it acted at all times in good faith and on the basis of reasonable and legitimate factors. The board also claimed immunity against claims of any alleged failure to enact a policy or rule under the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act. The attorney for the board also argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages because the alleged damages are speculative.
'[The minor's] alleged damages, if any, were caused by superseding, intervening causes over which Defendant Board of Education had no control and for which Defendant Board of Education cannot be liable,' the Board stated in its response to the filing.
The Board of Education is represented by Attorney Susan Deniker of Steptoe & Johnson, which has an office in Bridgeport. The plaintiff is represented by Charleston-based Attorney Robert Wagner of Warner Law Offices. School Superintendent Donna Heston said the bus driver is deceased, but declined to comment if the board took any action regarding her employment before she passed. Heston said Marion County Schools cannot comment on pending litigation.
Wagner did not return a phone call by press time.
The board is asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed, while the plaintiff demands trial by jury.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The name of the plaintiff has been withheld in order to protect the victim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oshkosh school board votes not to renew contract of ex-Vel Phillips dean involved in January student restraint
OSHKOSH – Christopher Willems is not returning to the Oshkosh Area School District. OASD's Board of Education upheld the district's decision to not renew the Vel Phillips Middle School Dean of Students' contract after his role in a Jan. 10 incident that led to a 13-year-old being handcuffed and pinned under a school resource officer for more than two minutes. Records obtained by the Oshkosh Northwestern from an executive session of a special board meeting May 6 showed the board voted 5-2 to approve the non-renewal of Willems' contract — with Kelly DeWitt and Timothy Hess casting the dissenting votes. Willems was initially placed on a five-day suspension in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 10 incident, with plans of reassigning him to Jacob Shapiro Elementary. But the district eventually informed Willems he was being placed a non-disciplinary administrative leave with pay for the remainder of the 2024-25 school year on Feb. 26 — the same day the Northwestern published two articles about the Jan. 10 incident. One of the articles referenced his prior involvement with students of color within the district, where Black and biracial students were expelled from the former Merrill Middle School following a fight with a white pupil in a Donald Trump costume. The white student went unpunished. Willems was seen in body camera footage speaking with police after the incident saying, 'I'm not sure what happened ahead of time, but before the dance he had been grabbed by a bunch of students and thrown to the ground.' The ACLU of Wisconsin, in a civil rights complaint against the district, claimed the white student harassed and threw water on three Black and biracial students. Read more: OASD Assistant Superintendent Julie Conrad-Peters accepts offer to become superintendent in Florida Wisconsin Education Association Council Region 5 director John Horn accused the district of scapegoating Willems, saying OASD was concerned with public opinion. 'What changed in the several weeks between when the district administration signed this agreement and when it reversed itself and placed the employee on indefinite leave is that members of the Oshkosh news media showed interest in the incident and filed information requests,' Horn wrote in a public statement. 'The school district's policy and personnel decisions should be based on facts and what is in the best educational interests of students, not on public opinion.' The situation stemmed from Willems' role in the Jan. 10 incident, during which he called for a school resource officer's assistance to assist with a student who refused to hand his cell phone to another teacher. OASD Board Policy 5136 only references law enforcement with regards to cell phones if 'the violation involves an illegal activity' or the device is used to transmit things of a threatening, obscene, disruptive, sexually explicit or harassment nature. The SRO's body camera footage shows Willems shoving the kid through a door several minutes before he pushes that student up against a wall and assists the SRO in restraining the child after the kid shouted a number of expletives. Wisconsin Statute 118.305 prohibits "covered individuals" such as school staff from using techniques on students that 'cause chest compression by placing pressure or weight on the pupil's chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, back, or abdomen' or 'place the pupil in a prone position.' Read more: Oshkosh school district holding one final brick giveaway from Merrill Elementary June 10 In the district's investigation records, Willems said he didn't believe it was a law enforcement matter, adding he felt partially responsible for the student ending up in handcuffs. But Willems said he was 'following practices that have been accepted by leadership' in the same investigation and contended that he was 'unaware there was a MOU with the SRO.' The district investigation took issue with Willems on four separate issues during the incident, prompting administration to recommend two forms of discipline: suspending Willems without pay for five days or terminating Willems. After finding 'no previous discipline' on Willems' employee file, the district opted for the five-day suspension on Jan. 24, according to the records, before Willems signed a disciplinary agreement that would see him suspended Jan. 27-31. However, OASD reversed course on Feb. 26, writing to Willems that his reassignment 'will most likely be met with disruption by those not satisfied with the disciplinary outcome' considering 'the race component of the prior incident.' Willems' status between Jan. 31, the end of his five-day suspension, and Johnson's letter Feb. 26 is unclear. The student involved in the Jan. 10 incident was immediately allowed to return to Vel Phillips. The Oshkosh Police Department referred him on charges of resisting/obstructing and threats to a law enforcement officer but Winnebago County Juvenile Intake recommended closing the case, saying the situation was managed at the school level. Contact Justin Marville at jmarville@ and follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @justinmarville. This article originally appeared on Oshkosh Northwestern: Oshkosh school board votes not to renew contract of ex-dean involved in student restraint
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Audit criticizes Arkansas Board of Corrections' hiring of outside counsel in dispute with governor
Arkansas Board of Corrections member Lee Watson, right, answers questions from the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee on Friday, June 6, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate) An Arkansas legislative committee filed a report Friday detailing a requested audit into the Board of Corrections' 2023 hiring of a Little Rock attorney, a move that raised concerns from lawmakers about the board's procurement practices. The nonpartisan Arkansas Legislative Audit began the probe a year ago at the request of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee, which heard the report Friday and continued to express frustrations about attorney Abtin Mehdizadegan's contract with the prison board. Mehdizadegan has been representing the Board of Corrections in both its legal challenge against two 2023 state laws and Attorney General Tim Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the Freedom of Information Act in Mehdizadegan's hiring. Griffin's office usually represents state agencies in legal cases, but Arkansas law allows special counsel to be appointed in disputes between the attorney general and constitutional officers. Board member Lee Watson, who was the panel's secretary at the time it began working with Mehdizadegan, reiterated this to the committee Friday. Watson said the circumstances surrounding the board's November 2023 dispute with Griffin, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then-Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri required special action. The board and the executive branch officials clashed over who has ultimate authority over Arkansas' prison system, including the expansion of facilities. Lawmakers criticize Arkansas Board of Corrections members, attorney over altered contract 'Our governor and our secretary were moving forward with moving prisoners into overcrowded facilities,' Watson said. 'Based upon our collective experience, we believed that that would endanger the people in that facility and the general public nearby.' He repeated past statements to lawmakers that Profiri's and Sanders' actions justified hiring Mehdizadegan after an executive session at a brief meeting in December 2023. The Joint Performance Review Committee spent three April 2024 meetings discussing and questioning Mehdizadegan's hiring and contract, and the panel voted to recommend that the Arkansas Legislative Council not review the contract. The audit report found that Mehdizadegan was present and spoke at several Board of Corrections meetings, but this was not reflected in the meeting minutes. The report also took issue with the board signing 'engagement agreements' with Mehdizadegan 'without establishing how the Board would pay for these services, as the Board has no appropriation or funding.' The engagement agreements also did not include the contract length or cost. Mehdizadegan's relationship with the board began when Watson informally contacted him as the board's legal liaison, Watson previously told lawmakers, but auditors 'were unable to verify' his appointment as liaison until after Mehdizadegan's hiring. Additionally, Mehdizadegan has submitted invoices totaling $230,138 to the board for his legal work, but those invoices were unpaid as of Feb. 11, the report states. Auditors recommended in the report that the Board of Corrections make the following changes: Making all board business public Amending the board's bylaws to include liaison appointments in required public business Including all relevant details in proposed contracts Consulting with state procurement officials before procuring goods or services Making sure all information submitted to state procurement officials is 'complete and accurate' BOC special audit report Mehdizadegan wrote the board's 30-page response to the audit findings, recommending that auditors revise the report 'and find that the Board acted lawfully, reasonably and appropriately in its selection of special counsel.' Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said he was 'disappointed' in the board's response. 'All I was looking for in response was, 'Hey, we were in uncharted territory, we didn't know what we were doing, and you know what? We should have followed the procurement process,'' he said. Mehdizadegan and Board of Corrections Chairman Benny Magness were present at Friday's committee meeting but did not face questions from lawmakers. Less than a week after being hired, Mehdizadegan filed the board's lawsuit against Sanders, Profiri and then-Secretary of State John Thurston, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and Act 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from the executive or legislative branches of government. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Patricia James granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Griffin appealed. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court The Arkansas Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to continue Thursday when it dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and dismiss the case as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify Mehdizadegan from further participation in proceedings before the court. Last month, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of Griffin's suit against the board for allegedly violating the FOIA to hire outside counsel. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox gave Griffin 30 days to work with the corrections board on an agreement with an outside attorney to represent it. Fox dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2024, ruling Griffin's office failed to make an effort to initiate the statutory procedure that allows special counsel to represent state officials and entities. Griffin moved to vacate the circuit court's order, arguing his office could not certify special counsel until the board asked for legal representation. The Supreme Court agreed and sent the case back to Fox. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
