|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the judge’s decisions.
United States District Judge Rita Lin denied most of the Sequoia Union High School District’s motions to dismiss most of claims in the lawsuit involving the arrest of a then Menlo-Atherton High School student in April 2023 in an Oct. 15 decision. The suit is against former M-A Vice Principals Stephen Emmi and Nick Muys.
The reported incident occurred on campus shortly before police arrested then-M-A student known as K.C. in the suit, near the Atherton campus.
“I’m very positive about the ruling,” said John Burris, the plaintiff’s attorney. “The cause of actions that we made were based upon the conduct of the school district, the people there and the impact so I fully expected the court would recognize those issues.”
The judge opted not to dismiss allegations against Emmi, SUHSD’s current wellness programs coordinator, for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Bane Act, which protects individuals from threats, intimidation or coercion that interfere with federal or state rights. The district’s motion to dismiss the negligence claim against Muys were denied.
The district’s motion to dismiss K.C.’s request for punitive damages from Emmi and Muys was denied. Punitive damages would award K.C. further payment from the defendants in addition to compensation. The court ruling states that “it is premature to conclude that K.C. is not entitled to such a reward.”
The only motion of dismissal that was granted to the district was the Ralph Act claims against Emmi. The Ralph Act is a law that prohibits hate crimes motivated by bias. The ruling found that the allegations were insufficient to suggest that Emmi’s alleged actions were driven by his bias against disabled children.
“At the heart of it all was this young man who had disability problems that the school district was aware of and they treated him in a harsh, disrespectful manner that was unbecoming,” said Burris. “That’s the part that’s most disturbing to me is that they didn’t respect him as a human being.”
The lawsuit alleges that Emmi forcefully grabbed a confiscated water toy from K.C. and that he physically pushed the student. The court found that the allegations are enough to “infer that Emmi touched K.C. in a harmful or offensive manner with the intent to do so” charging him with assault and battery.
The plaintiff K.C alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as he alleges Emmi continued to escalate the situation with K.C. while aware of his intellectual disability. The order states that “the allegations plausibly suggest that Emmi at least recklessly disregarded a probability of causing emotional distress.”
The court is also allowing for claims that administrators violated K.C.’s rights to be protected from harm under the Bane Act when he physically blocked and pushed into him in remain in the suit.
Allegations against Muys on negligence were found sufficient by the court stating that in his role as the school’s vice principal he “had a duty of care to protect [K.C.] from harm which was reasonably foreseeable while [K.C.] was on school grounds.”
“On a motion to dismiss, these allegations plausibly support that Muys failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and that this failure caused harm to K.C,” writes the court order.
Burris hopes that the school district will “get a profound lesson from [the lawsuit]” and hopes that the district will learn to treat special needs children in accordance with what they need.
“I think kids of color who have special needs problems should be treated like all kids with special needs,” he added.
The court is allowing K.C. 21 days to file an amended complaint correcting any deficiencies in the claims. According to lead investigator Dan Molieri, K.C.’s attorneys are in the process of amending the Ralph Act claim, the only item dismissed by the judge.
The district has not responded to this news organization on the judge’s ruling.
“Allegations against the district, Mr. Muys and Mr. Emmi in the complaint are allegations only and have not been proven or established in the court of law,” said the counsel representing SUHSD.
A case management conference is scheduled for Nov. 13 at 10 a.m. via videoconference. During the conference, all parties and the judge will discuss the following steps including a discovery process, alternative dispute resolution and a trial date.
View the full ruling below:
