School Board Sued For Failure to Adhere to CT Bullying Policy

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 Antalik v. Thomaston Board of Education, a student’s parent, sued a board of education, a town, a superintendent, and a principal, alleging negligence and failure to comply with the state-mandated bullying policy. The board and its employees moved to strike the negligence counts on grounds of governmental immunity, to strike the breach of state policy counts on grounds of sovereign immunity, and to strike the counts against the town because no claim was asserted against it.

In procedural law, a motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of the legal allegations of any complaint for which relief is requested. Negligence is the allegation of a 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. 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 parent alleged that the board, superintendent, and principal knew his child had been harassed at school; that they failed to protect her from a another child who kicked her during recess; that their conduct was negligent; and that they failed to comply with state bullying policy. The court held that as no cause of action had been alleged against the town, the claims against it had to be stricken. The complaint failed to allege facts showing that the harm was imminent and that it should have been apparent to defendants that their conduct likely subjected the student to the alleged harm. The harm could have potentially occurred at any time during the school day. Thus, the school board and its employees were entitled to qualified immunity on the negligence claim. The parent alleged the board failed to implement and follow a bullying policy adopted under Connecticut law and policy, and that soveriegn immunity did not apply because the board acted on behalf of the town, not the state. The court held board and its employees were acting pursuant to a state-mandated activity, thus, they were protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The school board’s motion to strike was granted in its entirety. Here, as in [in similar cases], the Thomaston Board of Education and its employees are acting pursuant to a state mandated activity set forth [by Connecticut law], thus, implicating the doctrine of sovereign immunity” Said the court. “[This law] does not, therefore, provide a basis for circumventing the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”

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: Antalik v. Thomaston Bd. of Educ., 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2082 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2008)