1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 1 of 13 E-FILED

Thursday, 08 February, 2018 12:55:09 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION

JOHN DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 18-cv-1057
)
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
METAMORA TOWNSHIP HIGH )
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122; and )
AMY DEFREITAS, MELISSA HEIL, )
DIANE GREBNER, STEFANIE )
MCALLISTER, BLAKE MISHLER, )
JAY SPRINGER, WENDY VOGEL, )
SEAN O’LAUGHLIN, EDWARD LIST, )
TERRY VAUGHN, and PAT RYAN, )
In their individual and official capacities, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COMES Plaintiff, John Doe, a minor, by and through his attorney, Nina R. Gougis,

and as and for his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000d, et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Illinois common law (as to Plaintiff’s

claims of conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

1
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 2 of 13

3. The Central District of Illinois is the proper venue for this action because the

Plaintiff’s claims arose within the geographical boundaries of the Central District of Illinois, within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiff, JOHN DOE (hereinafter the “Plaintiff” of “Doe”) is a minor and a

resident of the State of Illinois. He currently resides in Metamora, Illinois. Doe is a 14-year-old

freshman student at Metamora Township High School (hereinafter “MTHS”).

5. Doe currently is a member of the MTHS freshman football team and is the only

Black student on the team.

6. MTHS, is the only school owned and operated by Defendant, the BOARD OF

EDUCATION OF METAMORA TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122 (hereinafter

the “Board” or “District”). MTHS and the District’s offices both are located at 101 West Madison

Street, Metamora, Illinois 61548.

7. The District is an Illinois public school district and local government entity created

under the laws of the state of Illinois, with the capacity to sue and be sued in this Court, and is

engaged in management of MTHS.

8. The District receives federal funding and, therefore, is subject to Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et. seq.

9. Defendant AMY DEFREITAS (hereinafter “DEFREITAS”) is an adult resident of

the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, DEFREITAS has been a Board of

Education member. DEFREITAS currently is the Board President. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, DEFREITAS acted under color of state law. DEFREITAS is White.

2
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 3 of 13

10. Defendant MELISSA HEIL (hereinafter “HEIL”) is an adult resident of the State

of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, HEIL has been a Board of Education member.

HEIL currently is the Board Vice President and Board Secretary. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, HEIL acted under color of state law. HEIL is White.

11. Defendant DIANE GREBNER (hereinafter “GREBNER”) is an adult resident of

the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, GREBNER has been a Board of

Education member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, GREBNER acted under color of state

law. GREBNER is White.

12. Defendant STEFANIE MCALLISTER (hereinafter “MCALLISTER”) is an adult

resident of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MCALLISTER has been a

Board of Education member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MCALLISTER acted under

color of state law. MCALLISTER is White.

13. Defendant BLAKE MISHLER (hereinafter “MISHLER”) is an adult resident of the

State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MISHLER has been a Board of Education

member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, MISHLER acted under color of state law.

MISHLER is White.

14. Defendant JAY SPRINGER (hereinafter “SPRINGER”) is an adult resident of the

State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SPRINGER has been a Board of Education

member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SPRINGER acted under color of state law.

SPRINGER is White.

15. Defendant WENDY VOGEL (hereinafter “VOGEL”) is an adult resident of the

State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VOGEL has been a Board of Education

3
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 4 of 13

member. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VOGEL acted under color of state law. VOGEL

is White.

16. Defendant SEAN O’LAUGHLIN (hereinafter “O’LAUGHLIN”) is an adult

resident of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, O’LAUGHLIN has been

the Superintendent of the District. At all times relevant to this Complaint, O’LAUGHLIN acted

under color of state law and within the scope of his employment. O’LAUGHLIN is White.

17. Defendant EDWARD LIST (hereinafter “LIST”) is an adult resident of the State of

Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, LIST has been the Principal of MTHS. At all times

relevant to this Complaint, LIST acted under color of state law and within the scope of his

employment. LIST is White.

18. Defendant TERRY VAUGHN (hereinafter “VAUGHN”) is an adult resident of the

State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VAUGHN has been an Assistant Principal

of MTHS. At all times relevant to this Complaint, VAUGHN acted under color of state law and

within the scope of his employment. VAUGHN is White.

19. Defendant PAT RYAN (hereinafter “RYAN”) is an adult resident of the State of

Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, RYAN has been the head coach of the MTHS

varsity football team, supervisor for the MTHS freshman and varsity football teams, and physical

education teacher at MTHS. At all times relevant to this Complaint, RYAN acted under color of

state law and within the scope of his employment. RYAN is White.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. On or about September 23, 2017, four members of the MTHS football team

(hereinafter “Student” or the “Students”) – all minors and all White – recorded a video at one

of the Student’s residences. In the video, the Students can be heard making/taking several

4
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 5 of 13

derogatory, racist, and inflammatory remarks and actions, including without limitation the

following:

a. “I used to own you back in the day,” then when questioned by another

Student as to what he used to own, the Student then responded, “Black

people,” while pointing a toy gun and making shooting motions toward the

camera;

b. “Go back where you came from” – apparently referencing Black people

going to Africa;

c. Raising up a stuffed monkey, one Student stated, “This is a Black person,

right here,” then forcefully threw the stuffed monkey to the floor and

forcefully threw/slammed several items on top of the stuffed monkey;

d. Referring to the stuffed monkey specifically by Plaintiff’s name;

e. Requesting one Student to sing the “Alabama Black person song”;

f. Singing, “I’m an Alabama n***er and I’m born to be free”, and “I’m a porch

monkey and I’m born to be free”;

g. Making numerous references to “porch monkey”, “n***er”, and “stupid

n***er”;

h. Stating that “Back in Nam, all our troops were White people. We didn’t

have no n***ers in the squad”, apparently referencing troops who served

during the Vietnam War; and

i. Referencing Plaintiff specifically by name.

5
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 6 of 13

21. On or about September 23, 2017, one of the Students also sent the video to the

Plaintiff via text message. The Plaintiff notified his father, Willie Williams (hereinafter

“Williams”), of the video on September 25, 2017.

22. Williams discussed the incident with VAUGHN on September 25, 2017.

23. On September 26, 2017, VAUGHN informed Williams that the Students involved

would receive a one-game suspension for the incident; however, the Students only missed one day

of football practice and were not suspended for one game.

24. On September 27, 2017, Williams discussed the discipline issued to the Students.

Williams told VAUGHN that the discipline imposed was not strict enough. Furthermore, Willia ms

informed VAUGHN that the Students were not suspended for one game; rather, the Students

missed one day of football practice. Williams then requested to speak with LIST concerning the

September 23, 2017 incident and the discipline imposed.

25. On or around September 27, 2017, Williams spoke with LIST about the incident.

LIST indicated that he had not had a chance to view the entire video. Williams then requested a

meeting with the Students and their parents. LIST responded that he would set up a meeting later,

as he and the other MTHS administrators were busy with homecoming activities.

26. Williams discussed the incident with O’LAUGHLIN and LIST on

September 28, 2017. At that time, O’LAUGHLIN stated that the discipline Williams requested –

banning the Students from football for the remainder of the football season and banning the

Students from all extracurricular activities for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year – was

too harsh. O’LAUGLIN told Williams that he would get back to him with further punishment and

that the Students would not be playing in the September 29, 2017 football game.

6
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 7 of 13

27. On September 29, 2017, three of the Students were not allowed to play in the

football game, but were allowed to stand on the sidelines. The fourth Student was allowed to play

in the game.

28. Williams complained about the incident and the District’s refusal to take adequate

action on his Facebook profile on September 30, 2017. Only then did the MTHS administra tio n

arrange for a meeting with the Students and their parents.

29. On October 1, 2017, the Board held a special meeting to discuss the

September 23, 2017 incident and the discipline imposed. During the meeting, the Board decided

to suspend the Students involved for two football games. VOGEL indicated that the Board refused

to issue harsher discipline to the Students because that is what RYAN wanted and because RYAN

wanted the Students to feel like they are part of the team.

30. On or around November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff witnessed two MTHS students –

one biracial student and one White student – repeatedly referring to each other as “n***er” while

walking down the hallway. The Plaintiff reported the incident to the O’LAUGHLIN.

31. After the Plaintiff reported the November 14, 2017 incident, one of the students

posted on his Facebook profile that he was going to jump the Plaintiff for reporting the incident to

O’LAUGHLIN. Williams requested that the student be disciplined for threatening to retaliate

against the Plaintiff and that the student be removed from Plaintiff’s math class to minimize any

future threat to the Plaintiff. However, O’LAUGHLIN and the District administration refused to

take any further action in response to the threat.

32. The Board, District and the other Defendants have a long-standing history of

refusing to investigate and take appropriate action in response to bullying, especially bullying

based on race and other legally-protected categories. Specific examples include, but are not limited

7
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 8 of 13

to, the Defendants’ refusal to investigate and take appropriate action regarding the following

allegations that were brought to the attention of one or more of the Defendants:

a. Repeated racism toward and mistreatment of Black freshman football

players, going back several years;

b. Repeated racial slurs and taunting directed toward a student during the

2017-2018 school year (done by three of the four Students involved in the

September 23, 2017 incident);

c. Incessant bullying of a female student based on her gender in 2011;

d. The rape of a former female MTHS student by former male members of the

MTHS football team approximately four years ago (specifically, the District

promised to institute annual District-wide training on the issue of sexual

harassment and rape, but later declined to hold the training); and

e. The incessant bullying of an Asian-American student based on his race

approximately three years ago.

33. The Defendants have repeatedly refused to investigate allegations of bullying and

have failed to take appropriate action to deter students from bullying on the basis of race and other

legally-protected categories. The Defendants’ actions and lack thereof allowed and encouraged a

climate to flourish in which students were frequently bullied, harassed, and victimized on the basis

of their race and other legally-protected categories and in which students were emboldened to

retaliate against anyone who reported incidents of racism, bullying, and harassment to District and

MTHS administration.

8
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 9 of 13

34. The Students involved in the September 23, 2017 incident, seeing the Defendants’

lack of action or concern regarding prior allegations of bullying, were emboldened in their bullying

and harassment of the Plaintiff.

35. The student who threatened to retaliate against Plaintiff for reporting the

November 14, 2017 incident, seeing the Defendants’ lack of action regarding incidents of racism,

bullying, harassment, and retaliation, was emboldened in his harassment and threatened retaliatio n

of the Plaintiff via social media.

36. The discipline imposed and efforts taken by the Defendants for the

September 23, 2017 incident and threats of retaliation made after Plaintiff reported the

November 14, 2017 incident are insufficient to deter MTHS students from engaging in similar

conduct in the future.

37. Further, the Defendants, by failing to take appropriate action in response to the

above incidents, intentionally failed to protect Doe.

38. The Defendants, through their failure to adequately address the bullying and

harassment of Plaintiff and other MTHS students, have established District practices that are

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

39. The Defendants’ actions were motivated by the Plaintiff’s race, the race of

Plaintiff’s abusers, or both.

40. The Defendants had actual knowledge of and were deliberately indifferent to

above-described bullying and harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive

that it deprived Plaintiff of access to educational benefits and opportunities provided by MTHS

and the District.

9
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 10 of 13

41. By virtue of the Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, the Plaintiff has suffered

severe emotional distress, for which he is receiving counseling and therapy. Plaintiff’s family has

incurred the cost of mental health treatment as a result.

COUNT I
EQUAL PROTECTION – DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. § 1981

42. The foregoing paragraphs 1-41 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

43. The Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, violated Plaintiff’s right to equal

protection of the laws guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

44. It was a custom in the District to respond with inaction or lack of adequate action

with regard to bullying and harassment of students based on race.

COUNT II
EQUAL PROTECTION - DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. § 1983

45. The foregoing paragraphs 1-41 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

46. The Defendants’ actions, as described above, violated Plaintiff’s right to equal

protection of the laws guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

47. It was a custom in the District to respond with inaction or lack of adequate action

with regard to bullying or harassment of students based on race.

COUNT III
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et. seq.

48. The foregoing paragraphs 1-47 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

49. The above conduct constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et. seq.

10
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 11 of 13

COUNT IV
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983

50. The foregoing paragraphs 1-49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

51. Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his equal protection and due process

rights, as well as his rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981

and 1983.

COUNT V
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Illinois Common Law

52. The foregoing paragraphs 1-51 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

53. Defendants knowingly and voluntarily participated in the above-referenced

common scheme to commit an unlawful act and/or a lawful act in an unlawful manner.

COUNT VI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Illinois Common Law)

54. The foregoing paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

55. The Defendants have intentionally acted in an extreme and outrageous manner.

56. The Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff emotional distress so severe that no

reasonable person – much less a 14-year-old child – should be expected to endure it.

COUNT VII
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Illinois Common Law)

57. The foregoing paragraphs 1-53 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.

58. The Defendants have acted in an extreme, outrageous, and grossly neglige nt

manner.

11
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 12 of 13

59. The Defendants, through their negligence, have caused Plaintiff emotional distress

so severe that no reasonable person – much less a 14-year-old child – should be expected to endure

it.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, requests that Court award him the following

relief:

(a) That the Defendants, upon trial by jury, be adjudicated to have violated the

Plaintiff’s rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,

et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Illinois common law (as to

Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress);

(b) Equitable relief ordering the Board to take appropriate measures to deter future

incidents of bullying and racism toward Plaintiff and other MTHS students;

(c) That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, and all other

benefits, and/or other appropriate relief to which he is entitled by virtue of

Defendants’ violations;

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest on the above damages;

(e) That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and litigation expenses

incurred in this lawsuit, with interest thereon; and

(f) That Plaintiff be awarded any such other and further relief deemed just.

12
 1:18-cv-01057-JES-JEH # 1 Page 13 of 13

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,

By: /s/ Nina R. Gougis

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Nina R. Gougis

P.O. Box 5693
Peoria, Illinois 61601
Phone: (309) 282-6325
Fax: (309) 279-5214
Email: ninagougislaw@gmail.com

13