Here's the lawsuit in question...
Identities were blacked out. I've substituted pseudonyms as it makes for easier reading.
There is also
a page missing from the online doc. (Paragraphs 102-109). If anyone comes across another version of this doc. and/or becomes aware of the missing page turning up, notification or posting of such would be much appreciated.
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Grove School SuitCase 3:11-cv-00902-JCH · Document 12 · Filed 06/17/11UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-----------------------------------------X
<Parent X>, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT
AND NEXT FRIEND OF <Student X>, AND
<Student X> INDIVIDUALLY,
Plaintiffs[/list]
GROVE SCHOOL, RICHARD L. CHORNEY,
PRESIDENT AND C.E.O., AND PETER CHORNEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
Defendants.[/list]
-----------------------------------------X
CIVIL ACTION NO:
ECF ACTION
JURY DEMANDEDPlaintiffs <Parent X>, individually and as parent and next friend of <Student X>, and <Student X>, by their attorney Asher, Gaughram LLP, alleges by their complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION[/list]
1. This is a suit for damages arising out of the defendants' negligence, policies and practices which resulted in a violent attack on plaintiff <Student X> and violation of her federal right to attend school free of gender discrimination.
2. Federal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. 1332 (diversity).
THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION[/list]
3. Plaintiff <Student X> and her mother plaintiff <Parent X> currently reside in <Town X>, New York and resided there at all times relevant to this complaint.
4. Plaintiff <Student X> is a sixteen year old child who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She attended The Grove School in Madison, Connecticut from April 15, 2010 through June 25, 2010.
5. Defendant Grove School, Inc. [Grove School, or the School], a school for emotionally disabled students, is a Connecticut corporation which maintains its place of business at 175 Copse Road, Madison, Connecticut 06443. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Grove School advertised itself as a private therapeutic boarding school which provides residential psychiatric and educational services to male and female adolescents with social and emotional issues.
6. Upon information and belief, the Grove School received federal financial assistance during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.
7. Defendant Richard L. Chorney [Richard Chorney] is the president and C.E.O. of the Grove School.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Richard Chorney was the owner, agent, servant and employee of the Grove School and was acting within the scope of his employment.
9. Defendant Peter Chorney [Peter Chorney] is CEO Richard Chorney's son and is the executive director of the Grove School.
10. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Peter Chorney was the owner, agent, servant and employee of the Grove School and was acting within the scope of his employment.
11. Upon information and belief, all times relevant to the complaint, defendants Richard Chorney and Peter Chorney, and their employees and agents, were responsible for creating and implementing Grove School policies and procedures, and for the hiring, training, retention and supervision of Grove School personnel.
12. As president and C.E.O. of the Grove School, Richard Chorney had the authority and obligation to develop and implement Grove School policies and procedures regarding safety, supervision and academic and behavioral instruction and programming. He further bore the authority and obligation to address sexual harassment and discrimination at the Grove School, and to institute preventative a and corrective measures on the School's behalf.
13. As executive director of the Grove School, Peter Chorney had the authority and obligation to develop and implement Grove School policies and procedures regarding safety, supervision and academic and behavioral instruction and programming. He further bore the authority and obligation to address sexual harassment and discrimination at the Grove School, and to institute preventative and corrective measures on the School's behalf.
FACTS[/list]
14. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 13 above.
15. At the time of the events at issue in this complaint, plaintiff <Student X> was a student at the Grove School.
16. Prior to her enrollment at Grove School plaintiff <Student X> had been diagnosed with a number of psychiatric impairments, including bipolar disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. She had been hospitalized on six occasions for treatment of these conditions.
17. On or about April 1, 2010, <Student X> applied for admission to the Grove School. Plaintiff and her mother submitted a written application detailing <Student X's> needs, and also submitted psychiatrist and psychotherapists' records which detailed each of her psychiatric disorders.
18. On or about April 23, 2010, parent <Parent X> and Grove School president and CEO Richard Chorney executed a contract arranging for student <Student X's> admission to the Grove School program, scheduled to commence retrospectively on April 15, 2010.
19. The contract detailed that "the child has need of the Contractor's [Grove School] services, and that the Contractor is capable of and willing to provide such services".
20. The contract states that Grove is certified as a residential education center by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families.
21. The initial contract term was from April 15, 2010 through August 31, 2010, for a fee of $36,720.00.
22. The Grove School Parent Grove Handbook ("Grove Handbook") was provided to <Parent X> prior to <Student X's> admission into the program. <Parent X> was informed by Kathy Kimmel, Grove's Admissions Director, that the Grove Handbook was the "bible" of the School.
23. The Grove Handbook asserts that "[e]nsuring safety and accountability is of the utmost importance to Grove School."
24. The Grove Handbook asserts that the Grove School seeks to provide a school environment that is free from all forms of sexual harassment. It also states that "a proven charge of sexual harassment against a staff member or student of Grove School shall subject that staff member to appropriate corrective action...which may include suspension or expulsion."
25.The Grove Handbook asserts that "[t]he parents of a child making a claim of, or accused of, sexual harassment will be promptly notified of the complaint, included in proceedings and apprised of the results of the investigation."
26. The Grove Handbook states that sexual activity is proscribed at Grove School between students, and that the disciplinary options for such behavior is suspension or expulsion from the school.
27. The Grove Handbook states that students may be terminated from their enrollment in Grove School on an emergency basis for such behaviors as "serious intimidating, bullying, threatening and/or assaultive behavior."
28. The Grove Handbook includes a section entitled
"Title IX". This section, at page 27 of the Grove Handbook, asserts that "it is the policy of the Grove School to operate in accordance to (sic.) all regulations stated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972." The Title IX section of the Grove Handbook recites the protections of the statute, and also details the requirement that "all institutions receiving federal financial assistance designate an employee to be responsible for the organization's enforcement of Title IX".
29. The Connecticut State Department of Education lists Kelly Wallace as the Grove School's title IX Coordinator.
30. Grove students are managed in-house by the School's own clinical teams. According to the Grove Handbook, "[e]ach of these teams is headed by a psychiatrist and is composed of the student's psychiatrist, therapist and Advisor...the teams meet regularly at once/week."
31. The Grove Handbook indicates that "[e]ach student is seen by a psychiatrist who is responsible for his/her medication" and it is expected that the psychiatrist will meet with each of the students on average of twice per month, or more frequently when clinically appropriate.
32. The high level of attentive care promised in the Grove Handbook bears little resemblance to the casual manner in which its fragile inhabitants are treated.
33. For example, Avery Kruger, M.D. who was assigned as <Student X's> psychiatrist responsible for medical management during her tenure at Grove, was on personal leave for two weeks or more during the period pertinent to this action, and no psychiatrist covered for her to manage <Student X's> medical needs.
34. Upon information and belief, during May and June 2010 Dr. Kruger failed to meet with <Student X> for periods of up to three weeks, despite the school mandate that each student is under the constant care and oversight of the psychiatric team leader.
35. Upon her enrollment at Grove School, <Student X> was placed on "New Student Supervision" level, which requires that "
tudents must be with staff at all times excluding time spent in their assigned bedrooms or the bathroom."
36. In mid-May 2010, <Student X> applied for, and was granted a less restrictive supervisory status, but this grant was revoked during the last week of May, 2010, just prior to the incidents complained of herein.
37. At all times relevant to this Complain, <Student X> was mandated by the Grove School to be supervised at all times by staff or administrators, excluding only time spent in her assigned bedroom or the bathroom.
38. On June 21, 2010, during her third period art class, plaintiff <Student X> was passed a note by a fellow Grove residential student, 16 year old B.M., which told her to meet him after class in the school's main office bathroom located on the second floor of the administration building.
39. On information and belief, <Student X> had a class that was scheduled to commence immediately following this third period art class, in the same hallway.
40. Despite her status as a student mandated for a high level of constant adult supervision, <Student X> was permitted to leave the class hallway and school building where she was expected to leave one room and travel directly to another for her fourth period class.
41. <Student X> was not prevented from, or questioned regarding her passage from the school hallway across the campus to the administrative building.
42. To enter the second floor bathroom in the administrative building, <Student X> was required to travel from the school hallway across the small campus to a neighboring building, enter the main administrative building through its sole entryway, pass two staff members who are permanently stationed at the entrance and travel upstairs to the private bathroom on the second floor.
43. Plaintiff <Student X> is <age X> and weighs <weight X> pounds.
44. According to B.M.'s subsequent arrest profile, he is six feet tall and weighs 185 pounds, with a build described by the Madison, Connecticut Police Department as "muscular/fit".
45. Minutes after <Student X> entered the bathroom, B.M. entered and locked the door behind him, preventing <Student X's> egress.
46. M. told <Student X> to take her clothes off and shut up. Frightened, she complied. B.M. began to initiate sexual contact and when <Student X> resisted, he became enraged, threatened to call her a slut, and stated that she would be punished by Grove if he told on her.
47. B.M. then grabbed her and bent her forwards over the sink, pressing her abdomen down hard against the sink's surface.
48. B.M. repeatedly sexually assaulted plaintiff <Student X>.
49. Initially, B.M. forced her into anal sex.
50. Following the forced anal sex, B.M. then forced <Student X's> head down and compelled her to engage in oral sex. He then forced her to swallow his ejaculate.
51. B.M. then forced her once again to engage in anal sex.
52. Plaintiff <Student X> wept through the entire episode.
53. Following the sexual assault, B.M. ordered <Student X> to remain in the bathroom for five minutes until he was gone.
54. Upon information and belief, this bathroom is large, coeducational, and had an internal lock at the time of the incident.
55. Upon information and belief, following this incident Connecticut's Department of Children and Families required Grove School to remove the internal lock on this bathroom door and replace it with a key lock in the exterior.
56. After leaving the bathroom, a shaken <Student X> travelled back across the campus and joined her fourth period class after it had commenced.
57. Upon information and belief, <Student X's> late arrival in her class went unnoticed by Grove staff, teachers and administrators.
58. Upon information and belief, no Grove staff, teacher or administrator noted that <Student X> had left the classroom area unsupervised and travelled across the campus to the administration building.
59. Upon information and belief, no Grove staff or administrator noted that <Student X> had disappeared into the administrative office bathroom, for an undetermined period of time, unsupervised.
60. <Student X> told her roommate <Student Y> of the assault on or about June 22, 2010.
61. In response, <Student Y> urged <Student X> to inform her therapist at Grove, and also told <Student X> that <Student ?'s> prior roommate, <Student Z>, had also been raped by B.M.
62. Upon information and belief, the Grove School was aware, or should have been aware, of B.M.'s sexually assaultive and harassing behaviors, yet did nothing to protect <Student X> or the other students at the School from his violent propensities.
63. Upon information and belief, despite this history of assault Defendants neither disciplined B.M. nor insured the protection and safety of the other students of the Grove School.
64. The next morning, June 23, 2010, at approximately 11:00 a.m., <Student X> informed her Grove therapist Nacy Darr that she had been sexually assaulted by B.M.
65. Approximately one hour later, <Parent X> was contacted by Program Director Kelly Wallace and Advisor Jen Padovani, who tole her that <Student X> had engaged in consensual anal and oral intercourse with another student at the school.
66. <Parent X> was incredulous that this incident had in fact been consensual, and questioned Wallace and Padovani on this point.
67. <Parent X> asked if they had taken her daughter to a doctor and she was informed that they had not yet done so but would shortly.
68. <Parent X> asked about the location and status of the assailant. She was told he had already been removed from the campus by his family.
69. <Parent X> expressed her shock and dismay that the assailant's family had been informed of the assault before she had, and he had been spirited away before the police or others had an opportunity to question him.
70. When <Parent X> asked whether B.M. would be returning to Grove School, she was told, in words or effect, "that is partly up to you."
71. Several hours later, she was informed that the School's consulting pediatrician had insisted that <Student X> be taken to Yale-New Haven Hospital for completion of a rape kit, in an apparent concession that the assault was not "consensual."
72. Neither the President of the School, Richard Chorney, nor the Executive Director, Peter Chorney, made any attempt to contact <Parent X> on the day they learned of the assault.
73. Late in the day on June 23, 2010, <Parent X> sent a fax to the directors, demanding a copy of the not purportedly given by B.M. to <Student X>, and demanding that the students' clothes be preserved as evidence and not laundered.
74. The Grove School ignored both these requests and promptly sent the students' clothes out to be laundered by their service.
75. On the following day, June 24, 2010, <Parent X> finally spoke to Peter Chorney, CEO Richard Chorney's son.
76. Peter Chorney told <Parent X> that he had called B.M.'s parents right away, and had called the police two to three hours later. He stated that B.M. had been removed to his home state of Pennsylvania by his parents.
77. Upon information and belief, B.M.'s parents retrieved him before <Parent X> was notified of the assault, and before any police report was filed with the Madison, Ct. Police department.
78. When <Parent X> asked why the first priority had been to spirit B.M. out of the state, Peter Chorney replied that he had a personal relationship with the M.'s and had known them a long time, longer than he had known <Parent X> or her daughter.
79. On June 25, 2010 <Parent X> met with Peter Chorney, <Student X's> therapist Nancy Darr, the school's Program Director and Title IX Officer Kelly Wallace and several other administrators.
80. When <Parent X> complained that they had been more careful of B.M.'s needs than those of her daughter, including a delayed report to the police and the arrangement for his swift departure, Mr. Chorney repeated, in words and effect, "He was here at Grove longer [than your daughter], and we have a personal relationship with the family."
81. When <Parent X> asked Mr. Chorney about the school's policy regarding sexual abuse on the campus, he responded, in words or effect, "there is no written policy, it is all in my head."
82. When asked why the police were not immediately called to come to the campus to gather evidence, and question the accused assailant, Mr. Chorney responded, in words or effect, "it upsets the students to see police on the grounds."
83. <Parent X> told Mr. Chorney that the school had failed to protect her daughter, that she considered the enrollment contract rescinded, and that she would be removing her daughter immediately from the school.
84. The CEO of Grove School, Richard Chorney telephoned <Parent X> five days later, on June 28, 2010. He stated that he had been unavailable earlier as he had been on a school trip to the Caribbean with Grove students.
85. Richard Chorney stated, in words and effect, that he "knew you don't think we we did our part, and some things could be improved, but if you remove your daughter from the school she will view it as a punishment."
86. <Parent X> again asked if there was any written protocol regarding how the school handled sexual assaults. Richard Chorney responded that there had never been a prior sexual assault at the school, so there had been no call for such a policy.
87. An arrest warrant was issued for B.M. on August 12, 2010 by the Madison, Connecticut Police Department, on charges of Sexual Assault in the First Degree and Risk of Injury to a Minor.
88. B.M. turned himself in on August 17, 2010. B.M. was charged as an adult due to the serious nature of this crime, and the criminal case is currently pending.
89. On or about September 23, 2010, the Grove School refunded $16,936.56 of the fees <Parent X> had paid to the Grove School on behalf of her daughter. The School retained $4,320.00 plus $150.00 application fee.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENCE[/list]
90. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 89, above.
91. At all time relevant to this complaint, the defendants had a duty to provide the plaintiff with an appropriate, safe therapeutic residential program.
92. <Student X>, as a member of the student body of a residential school for emotionally disturbed children, belongs to a special class of individuals to whom the school administrators and teachers owe a special duty of care.
93. <Student X's> injuries, and her Plaintiff <Parent X's> damages, were caused by the negligence of the Grove School, its administrators, employees and agents, for whose negligence defendant is liable, in one or more of the following respects:
a. The defendants failed to institute policies and procedures, including on-going appropriate supervision of its emotionally disturbed students, that were sufficiently detailed to assure students' safety, and failed to enforce such policies and procedures as it had;[/list]
b. The defendants failed to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees regarding appropriate responses to sexual harassment complaints;[/list]
c. The defendants failed to properly hire, train and/or supervise its employees regarding appropriate responses to incidents of sexual assault;[/list]
d.The defendants failed to properly supervise Grove School staff and administration responsible for plaintiff <Student X's> care and treatment following the sexual assault, and following her disclosure of the sexual assault;[/list]
e. Defendants permitted B.M., a student who had already been accused of a sexual assault of a female Grove student, unfettered freedom to move about the buildings at will;[/list]
f. Defendants failed to adequately investigate and act on information regarding B.M.'s violent and sexually assaultive behaviors, and that he presented a severe risk to fellow students;[/list]
g. The defendants failed to provide appropriate, adequate supervision of plaintiff <Student X> per their directive that she was not permitted out of the sight of staff at any time, and such failure to supervise was a proximate cause of <Student X's> assault by student B.M.;[/list]
h. The defendants failed to comply with their own policy requiring students to arrive timely to each class, and failed to promptly track down plaintiff <Student X> when she was late to class due to her status of being assaulted;[/list]
i. The defendants failed to establish customs or procedures to ensure adequate supervision, and failed to provide adequate supervision of its students and its staff.[/list]
94. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of the defendants, as described herein, plaintiff <Student X> suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, including bruising to her abdomen, chronic gastrointestinal distress, anal pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, humiliation, fear and anxiety, which have required medical and psychiatric treatment at her mother's expense.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATIONS OF THE CUTPA[/list]
95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 1 through 89 of the complaint.
96. At all times relevant to the complaint, the defendant school and the defendant directors held the School out as a therapeutic boarding school that competently addresses the mental health and academic needs of adolescents with serious social and emotional issues.
97. As a therapeutic boarding school, defendant Grove School is required to follow accepted practices regarding the supervision of its students and appropriate segregation and disciplining of students who violate its sexual harassment policies.
98. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendants were engaged in commerce, as defined by the Conn. Stat. sec. 42-110a,
et seq. (hereinafter, "CUTPA").
99. Defendants' representations that it provides safe and effective residential treatment services to adolescents suffering from psychiatric and behavioral issues were false and deceptive, as defendants failed to hire, train, and/or supervise its employees in the proper procedures for discipling and supervising its students.
100. The defendants' false and misleading representations constitute deceptive practices as defined by the CUTPA.
101. As a direct result of the defendants' unfair and deceptive practices, the plaintiffs have suffered economic losses, including the cost of treatment for her physical and psychological injuries.
102.103.104.105.106.107.108.109.THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
BREACH OF CONTRACT[/list]
110. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 1 through 97 of the complaint.
111. On or about April 23, 2010, the plaintiff <Parent X> entered into an agreement with defendants to provide a therapeutic residential education program to her daughter, plaintiff <Student X>, at the cost of $36,720.00 for a term running from April 15, 2010 through August 31, 2010.
112. Grove's agreement with the plaintiffs required defendants to provide a safe residential program, including but not limited to appropriate supervision according to its own guidelines.
113. As described herein, the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiffs.
114. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' breach of contract, the plaintiffs suffered physical injuries, emotional injuries, and economic losses.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF TITLE IX[/list]
115. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 1 through 97 of the complaint.
116. <Student X>, a female, is a member of a protected group under Title IX.
117. <Student X> has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of gender by the Grove School which, upon information and belief, receives federal funding and has a Title IX coordinator on its staff.
118. <Student X> was subjected to a hostile educational environment based upon her gender while at Grove.
119. <Student X> was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, and indeed, a sexual attack, based upon her gender, while at Grove.
120. The sexual harassment and assault that <Student X> was subjected to at Grove was sufficiently severe so as to alter the conditions of her education and create an abusive educational environment.
121. Upon information and belief, President and CEO Richard Chorney and Executive Director Peter Chorney were aware or should have been aware that assailant B.M. had raped a female Grove student at the Grove School prior to his attack on <Student X>.
122. Upon information and belief, the Chorneys failed adequately to respond to this earlier attack.
123. The failure to adequately investigate and take action based upon B.M.'s earlier attack on a female Grove student amounted to deliberate indifference to the right B.M.'s first victim had to an education environment free of discriminatory anti-female animus.
124. In addition and separately, the Chorneys' complicity in assisting or permitting B.M. to flee the Grove School and the State of Connecticut despite Chorney's knowledge that he had attacked <Student X> constitutes an inadequate response to actual knowledge of discrimination and deliberate indifference to <Student X's> right to attend the Grove School free of severe sexual harassment and attack.
125. Defendant's failure to exercise oversight of their staff and students created a foreseeable risk of a sexually hostile environment to plaintiff <Student X> and its female student population.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS[/list]
126. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 1 through 97 of the complaint.
127. Defendants' failure to protect plaintiff <Student X> from the foreseeable risk of a sexual assault while she was in their care and custody resulted in the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
128. The negligent and unauthorized reproduction of plaintiff <Student X's> image in the Grove School yearbook after her sexual assault at the hands of a fellow student which occurred directly as the result of the defendants' actions and omissions, additionally caused <Student X> emotional distress.
129. As all students at the Grove School are, by definition, students with emotional disabilities, the public display of <Student X's> image as a student in the Grove School yearbook breaches her confidentiality by publicly identifying her as a student with an emotional disability, thereby causing <Student X> severe emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
130. The defendants knew or should have known that their conduct in publicly displaying <Student X's> photograph in the yearbook without authorization posed a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of causing her emotional distress, and that the distress might result in illness or bodily harm.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
INVASION OF PRIVACY:
PRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF C.J. IN A FALSE LIGHT[/list]
131. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraph 1 through 97 of the complaint.
132. The unauthorized reproduction of plaintiff <Student X's> image in the Grove yearbook after her sexual assault at the hands of a fellow student, which occurred directly as the result of the defendants' actions and omissions, presented <Student X> in a false light.
133. It was distributed to the student body with both actual malice regarding the falsity of the representation that she was a student at Grove School, and reckless disregard for the truth that she had been forced to leave the school on an emergency basis due to a violent assault, approximately one year prior to the distribution of the yearbook.
134. The display of <Student X's> image in the yearbook was an atempt to "whitewash" <Student X's> relationship with the school following her sexual assault and emergency removal from the School by her parent, by falsely encouraging the perception that <Student X's> relations with the school were normal and her departure a regular transition to another school setting.
135. By the time of the unauthorized publication of her image, <Student X> had long since been removed by her mother from the school and her mother had demanded the return of the tuition funds she had paid.
136. The family had not interest in endorsing any aspect of the Grove School, nor any interest in promoting their daughter's connection with the school in any respect.
137. <Student X's> unauthorized representation in such a false light caused <Student X> emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants in an amount to be determined after a jury trial of this action, together with costs and disbursements, including:
1. Actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof, no less than $75,000.00;
2. Punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants, and deter others from like conduct;
3. Prejudgment interest;
4. Attorneys fees, expert fees and costs;
5. Such other and further relier as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 28, 2011
<signature> Rachel Asher, Esq., PHV 04804
Asher, Gaughran LLP
4 MacDonald Avenue, Suite 3
Armonk, New York 10504
Tel.: (914) 273-3187
Fax: (914) 273-3206
[email protected][/list][/list][/list]
# # #
