If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Mazzo v. Town of Fairfield, the parents of a bullied student sued the Fairfield School Board and its employees for injuries resulting from the child’s subjection to bullying, including ridicule, harassment, humiliation, intimidation, and violence by a number of students.

From September 24-27, 2011, the student had difficulty at lunch. The board of education maintain that she was feeling unwelcome at her lunch table, faculty members intervened and found a different place for her to sit, and the situation was resolved. The student’s parents maintain that she suffered from harassment and exclusion by the students, and was placed with another student who had previously pretended to be her friend, but who was a negative influence on her. The next incident occurred on the bus during fall of 2011. The parents argue that their daughter stopped taking the bus due to teasing and fear for her safety. On December 9, 2011, a fight occurred involving the bullied student and another student. The parents claim that this incident was a group of female students grabbing their daughter’s hair and repeatedly slamming her head into a locker. Multiple incidents occurred on December 22, 2011, culminating in the fight which forms the primary basis for this action. During the December 22, 2011 lunch period, a student threw a piece of bread at the bullied student for comments that she had made. Later, a student told the daughter she had “better watch out." The board of education treated the December 22, 2011 incident as the first incident of bullying and began the process of developing a plan to address it.

The school filed a motion for summary judgment. In law, summary judgment is a preemptive decision by the court in favor of one party over the other. It is predicated on the claim that the case lacks any actual dispute of material fact, and can therefore be determined by the court without need for trial. In the case at hand, the board of education argues they are entitled to judgment on negligence and recklessness counts due to governmental immunity. In law, negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. In order to succeed in this claim, the student must prove that (1) the school board and its employees owed a duty of care to the student, (2) the school board breached that duty and, (3) the breach of duty was a direct cause of the student’s (4) real and compensable injury. Recklessness entails that the person knew or should have known that his or her action was likely to cause harm. Generally, a school board, as an extension of a municipality, is entitled to governmental immunity. This usually protects the state and its agents from liability when acting in the furtherance of their duties. However, the town may not be protected if they violate or fail to perform a specific duty or directive that results in injury.

The court granted a majority of the board’s request for summary judgment. The court dismissed claims of alleged recklessness against the board, because they were sued in their official capacities and the board is not responsible for the wanton or reckless behavior of its employees. However, their request for summary judgment on the parent’s negligence claims was not granted. The parents argued that their child fell within the “imminent harm” exception for governmental immunity. This exception will hold a town liable for injuries that result from a town’s negligent care for an identifiable person to whom the board owes a duty of care. The bullied student, being a school student at school during mandatory school hours, met this exception.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Mazzo v. Town of Fairfield, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 570 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2015)