N.C. v. P.R. Caldwell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/22/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1081434 N.C. v. P.R. Appeal WISE, Caldwell from T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t (CV-07-900015) Court Justice. The entered plaintiff, N.C., 1 appeals from by t h e T a l l a p o o s a Circuit Court, a summary judgment i n favor o f P.R. N.C.'s c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n 2007 and i n t h e T a l l a p o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t w a s f i l e d i n t h e name o f "N.C., a m i n o r c h i l d , b y a n d t h r o u g h h e r g u a r d i a n , J . C . " The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f i l e d i n 2 0 0 9 w a s f i l e d i n t h e name " N . C . " I t d o e s n o t a p p e a r f r o m a n y t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , t h a t N.C. h a s r e a c h e d t h e a g e of m a j o r i t y o r has been e m a n c i p a t e d . 1 1081434 Caldwell, claims her physical-education against Caldwell. Facts In October at school gym the f i f t h by C a l d w e l l . the majority period parking lot. bleachers, A.H., a class i n approached locker N.C. 31, 2005, a f t e r t h e getting and i n the started A.H. h a d made located away from outside t h e gym. book students 12th grade Shortly before suggestive p u l l e d N.C. t o w a r d under her pulling s h e r a n o u t o f t h e gym. student, Caldwell t h e gym, b u i l d i n g , a n d made s u r e of the other room w i t h h i m . N.C., of the students was student N.C. day, they school b u i l d i n g s r a t h e r than i n t o a nearby and most male grade of the school On O c t o b e r i n a separate went i n t o t h e o t h e r push i n the seventh she had a p h y s i c a l - e d u c a t i o n during w h i c h was l o c a t e d but History rang a t t h e end of t h e p h y s i c a l - e d u c a t i o n c l a s s , accompanied to as t o a l l o f h e r and remand. and P r o c e d u r a l School; w h i c h was t a u g h t bell reverse 2 0 0 5 , N.C. was a s t u d e n t Edward B e l l the We teacher, from had l e f t at he t u r n e d school, the boys' his attention to another a n d W.G., the t h e gym. the her toward comments A.H. bag another girl, male t h e b o y s ' l o c k e r r o o m , w h i c h was She t o l d them t h e m , b u t was n o t a b l e 2 to stop to. and t r i e d A.H. p u s h e d to N.C. 1081434 down t h e steps into the h e a d on the rail. hit her and raped her After the sixth-period teacher she left. indicating to her say by principal indicating had the went to her to incident any o u t s i d e t h e gym that before toward them. was reported N.C. and appointed when what N.C. had presented through her and of the On incident several to November school grandfather against school, Caldwell judgment, the A.H. c o m p l a i n e d t o C a l d w e l l t h a t A.H. with and 9, and the guardian, Glenda official Menniefee filed 3 and a the pleaded J.C., County Menniefee, individual motion m a t e r i a l s ; the A.H. acted 2005, Tallapoosa in their that had officials. C a l d w e l l and supporting The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s f i r s t - d e g r e e rape of N.C. 2 and girlfriends a personal-injury action against summary shower class with capacities. gym anything. t h a t C a l d w e l l had the and aide i n the f i f t h - p e r i o d p h y s i c a l - e d u c a t i o n Board of E d u c a t i o n the of into fell serve inappropriately filed the C a l d w e l l was some she to female students N.C., and 2 reporting a s k e d them not also evidence incident watch. left without told room, then p u l l e d her stood official. N.C. as a s t u d e n t He i n c i d e n t , N.C. or s c h o o l evidence W.G. class happened, but and while boys' locker for Board guilty to a also the 1081434 filed a motion materials. specifically claims State-agent the summary In the motion Menniefee N.C.'s for a motion against immunity. judgment, with supporting f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , C a l d w e l l a n d asserted, them were N.C. among barred filed other by things, that of i n opposition a motion the doctrine to f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o C a l d w e l l and a t t a c h e d a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s t o s u p p o r t h e r m o t i o n ; she a p p a r e n t l y d i d not oppose the entry Menniefee. Caldwell evidentiary The motions. o f a summary j u d g m e n t then filed items and a response trial court conducted motions f o r t h e Board and to t o N.C.'s a strike various opposition. hearing Afterward, i t entered the following on the various order: " T h i s m a t t e r h a s come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h e Motion f o r Summary Judgment f o r the defendants G l e n d a M e n n i e f e e a n d P.R. C a l d w e l l , t h e M o t i o n f o r Summary J u d g m e n t f o r t h e T a l l a p o o s a C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , a n d t h r e e M o t i o n s t o S t r i k e f i l e d b y P.R. Caldwell. A l l parties have b r i e f e d the issues p r o p o s e d and p r o v i d e d t h e i r e v i d e n c e t o t h e C o u r t . The C o u r t h e l d l e n g t h y o r a l a r g u m e n t on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 2009. "[N.C.'s] Complaint alleged that the Tallapoosa C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n was i n v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e IX f o r a l l e g e d l y s u b j e c t i n g t h e m i n o r p l a i n t i f f t o sexual discrimination through a hostile sexual environment o r was d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o a hostile sexual environment. [N.C.] also stated a c l a i m , p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 , t h a t d e f e n d a n t s Menniefee and Caldwell violated the minor 4 1081434 plaintiff's Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t Due Process and Equal Protection rights by failing to take appropriate c o r r e c t i v e action a f t e r having actual knowledge that [A.H.] was sexually harassing students. [N.C.] also claimed that defendants Menniefee and Caldwell negligently or wantonly s u p e r v i s e d t h e m i n o r p l a i n t i f f and t h e s t u d e n t s in the minor plaintiff's class; left [A.H.] unsupervised i n a classroom s e t t i n g w i t h the minor p l a i n t i f f and o t h e r s t u d e n t s ; and f a i l e d t o r e p o r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a Code (1975) § 2 6 - 1 4 - 3 . " [ N . C . ] has r e s p o n d e d s e p a r a t e l y t o t h e M o t i o n s f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t . [ N . C . ' s ] f i l i n g on February 13, 2 0 0 9 , s t a t e s t h a t [ N . C . ] h a s no o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on b e h a l f of t h e T a l l a p o o s a C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n and G l e n d a Menniefee. Nevertheless, since [N.C.] i s a minor and c a n n o t c o n t r a c t t o s e t t l e c a s e s w i t h o u t approval o f t h e C o u r t , t h i s C o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e law and evidence to determine whether summary judgment s h o u l d be e n t e r e d f o r t h e T a l l a p o o s a C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n and G l e n d a M e n n i e f e e . "[N.C.] contests summary judgment for Mr. Caldwell, candidly stating that its strongest o p p o s i t i o n i s t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e s t a t e t o r t claims, not the federal claim. P.R. Caldwell's principal defense is immunity. [ N . C . ] has not responded to Mr. Caldwell's arguments that the o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y c l a i m a g a i n s t him i s d u p l i c a t i v e of the c l a i m a g a i n s t the Board of E d u c a t i o n , that t h e r e i s no p r i v a t e r i g h t o f a c t i o n u n d e r A l a b a m a C o d e ( 1 9 7 5 ) § 2 6 - 1 4 - 3 , t h a t t h e r e i s no e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d d u t y t o p r o v i d e a s a f e e n v i r o n m e n t , and t h a t [ N . C . ' s ] r e q u e s t f o r an ' o b e y t h e l a w ' i n j u n c t i o n i s due t o f a i l . " I m m u n i t y , b o t h s t a t e and federal, is strong. Our Supreme C o u r t has been partic r e l u c t a n t t o h o l d an e d u c a t o r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m i s c o n d u c t by a n o t h e r . The C o u r t has said 5 quite ularly sexual that, 1081434 without immunity, e d u c a t o r s 'may a c t n o t on the basis of p o l i c y , but w i t h the g o a l of a v o i d i n g personal l i a b i l i t y or v e x a t i o u s s u i t s , ' Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2 d 2 9 7 , 302 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . In s u i t s w h e r e a s t u d e n t was sexually assaulted either by a n o t h e r s t u d e n t o r o u t s i d e r and where t h e e d u c a t o r s were a c c u s e d o f i m p r o p e r s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y f o u n d t h e e d u c a t o r s immune on summary j u d g m e n t . In cases where employees of a b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d s t u d e n t s and the supervisory educators were said to have knowledge of e i t h e r the s p e c i f i c s e x u a l a s s a u l t s or that the board employee would sexually assault s t u d e n t s , t h e Supreme C o u r t has r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e e d u c a t o r s on b o t h a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s and a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . In cases where there i s n o t i c e to the s u p e r v i s o r y educators of a p o t e n t i a l f o r s e x u a l o r o t h e r p h y s i c a l m i s c o n d u c t by one s t u d e n t on another o r by an e d u c a t o r on a s t u d e n t , t h e Supreme C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y r u l e d i n favor of the s u p e r v i s o r y educators, e i t h e r a f f i r m i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o r , b y o r d e r o f mandamus, r e q u i r i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r summary j u d g m e n t . These cases include decisions that either t h e r e i s no l e g a l b r e a c h o f d u t y o r t h a t b r e a c h o f any d u t y d i d not p r o x i m a t e l y cause the sexual misconduct or p h y s i c a l misconduct. "The f e d e r a l c l a i m a g a i n s t Mr. C a l d w e l l i s a federal c i v i l rights violation. To be l i a b l e , C o a c h Caldwell must both have acted with deliberate indifference and have lost qualified immunity. [ N . C . ] c a n n o t w i n on e i t h e r a r g u m e n t , g i v e n t h e l a w f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , as n o t e d a b o v e , and federal caselaw. Importantly, for a government employee to l o s e q u a l i f i e d immunity, the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t s a y s a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Alabama Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, or E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t Court of A p p e a l s . [N.C.] cannot p r e s e n t s u c h c a s e l a w , and t h i s C o u r t has n o t f o u n d caselaw supporting [N.C.] in the Court's own examination of t h i s matter. 6 1081434 "Pending before the Court are three Motions to Strike. The C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d e a c h and f i n d s p o r t i o n s o f those motions w e l l taken. In r e s o l u t i o n of those Motions to Strike, the Court has not c o n s i d e r e d any improper evidence i n reaching i t s decision. However, should the Court deny t h e Motions to Strike, the Court f i n d s that nothing p r e s e n t e d by [ N . C . ] overcomes t h e immunity p o s s e s s e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s . "Further, the claim f o r equitable r e l i e f found i n P a r a g r a p h s 43 t h r o u g h 47 o f [ N . C . ' s ] C o m p l a i n t i s due t o be d e n i e d f o r t h e r e a s o n stated i n the defendants' arguments. "Having examined the law, reviewed the evidence p r e s e n t e d by p a r t i e s , and a n a l y z e d t h e arguments o f the p a r t i e s , the Court f i n d s that the defendants the Tallapoosa County Board of Education, Glenda Menniefee, and P.R. Caldwell, whether sued o f f i c i a l l y o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , a r e e n t i t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t on a l l c l a i m s o f [ N . C . ] . Therefore, i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED t h a t s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t is entered i n f a v o r o f the defendants the Tallapoosa County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , Glenda Menniefee, and P.R. C a l d w e l l , on a l l c l a i m s o f [ N . C . ] . Costs o f c o u r t i n c u r r e d a r e t a x e d as p a i d . " N.C. filed denied a motion to alter, by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . Standard amend, This or vacate, appeal followed. of Review " ' " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e F a r m M u t . A u t o . I n s . C o . , 886 S o . 2 d 7 2 , 74 (Ala. 2003). We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f review as the trial court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t h a s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t exists 7 which was 1081434 and that t h e movant is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . Rule 56(c), A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v . H o d u r s k i , 8 99 S o . 2 d 9 4 9 , 952-53 ( A l a . 2004). In making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we m u s t r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. W i l s o n v . B r o w n , 496 S o . 2 d 756, 758 ( A l a . 1986). Once t h e m o v a n t makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e issue of m a t e r i a l fact, the burden then shifts t o t h e nonmovant t o produce ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 S o . 2 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 7 - 9 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 . '[S]ubstantial evidence i s evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons i n the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e of the f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. Founders L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 S o . 2 d 870 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " P r i n c e v . P o o l e , 935 S o . 2 d 431 , 442 ( A l a . 200 6) ( q u o t i n g Dow v . A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , 897 S o . 2 d 1035, 1038-39 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " B r o w n v . W.P. Media, I n c . , 17 S o . 3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 6 9 ( A l a . 2009). Discussion I n E x p a r t e C r a n m a n , 7 92 S o . 2 d 3 9 2 , 405 rule governing State-agent immunity was ( A l a . 2000), restated as the follows: 3 C r a n m a n was a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n . The t e s t s e t f o r t h i n C r a n m a n was s u b s e q u e n t l y a d o p t e d b y a m a j o r i t y o f t h e C o u r t i n E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 1 7 3 , 178 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . 3 8 1081434 "A S t a t e agent shall b e immune from civil l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e agent i s b a s e d upon t h e a g e n t ' s "(1) formulating plans, p o l i c i e s , or designs; or "(2) e x e r c i s i n g h i s o r h e r judgment i n the administration of a department or agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , examples such a s : "(a) making adjudications; "(b) allocating "(c) administrative resources; negotiating contracts; "(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or "(3) d i s c h a r g i n g or agency by s t a t u t e , as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g performs the duties i d u t i e s i m p o s e d on a d e p a r t m e n t rule, or regulation, insofar or r e g u l a t i o n prescribes the t h e d u t i e s and t h e S t a t e agent n t h a t manner; o r "(4) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f the c r i m i n a l laws o f t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement o f f i c e r s ' a r r e s t i n g or attempting to arrest persons; or "(5) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n the discharge of d u t i e s imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n i n releasing prisoners, counseling or r e l e a s i n g persons of unsound mind, or e d u c a t i n g students. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the f o r e g o i n g statement of the r u l e , a State agent s h a l l n o t b e immune f r o m c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r personal capacity 9 1081434 " ( 1 ) when t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f t h e U n i t e d States, or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or "(2) when the State agent acts willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond h i s or h e r a u t h o r i t y , or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e l a w . " 792 So. 2d a t 405. Also, "[t]his Court has established a ' b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g ' p r o c e s s when a p a r t y r a i s e s t h e defense of State-agent immunity. Giambrone v. D o u g l a s , 874 S o . 2 d 104 6, 1052 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . In order to c l a i m State-agent immunity, a State agent bears the burden of demonstrating that the p l a i n t i f f ' s claims a r i s e from a f u n c t i o n that would e n t i t l e the State agent t o immunity. G i a m b r o n e , 874 So. 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ; E x p a r t e Wood, 852 S o . 2 d 7 0 5 , 709 (Ala. 2002). I f the State a g e n t makes s u c h a showing, the burden then s h i f t s to the p l a i n t i f f t o show that the State agent acted willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , or beyond his or her authority. Giambrone, 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ; Wood, 852 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 9 ; E x p a r t e D a v i s , 721 So. 2 d 6 8 5 , 68 9 ( A l a . 1 998 ) . 'A S t a t e a g e n t acts b e y o n d a u t h o r i t y a n d i s t h e r e f o r e n o t immune when he or she " f a i l [ s ] to discharge duties pursuant to d e t a i l e d r u l e s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , such as t h o s e s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t . " ' Giambrone, 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 1 7 3 , 178 ( A l a . 200 0))." Ex p a r t e Estate "State-agent exercise of Reynolds, immunity 946 S o . 2 d 4 5 0 , 452 protects agents of d i s c r e t i o n i n educating 10 ( A l a . 2006). of the State students. We i n their will not 1081434 second-guess their decisions." 2d 1186, 1190 that ( A l a . 2000). State-agent authority. immunity applies, fraudulently, Cranman, N.C. does State-agent i n bad f a i t h , to take be e n t i t l e d under However, because, fact Cranman. Caldwell i s not she a l l e g e s , as t o w h e t h e r , entitled there Caldwell failed of acted i n h i s acts beyond teacher's when aide; a n d when he b y A.H. Therefore, to State-agent she argues to 45 State-agent issue ignored female students A.H. and 11 immunity he was a c t i n g she c o n t e n d s he allegedly at the time to failed of sexual she c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l i n this of m a t e r i a l a n d W.G. allowed that immunity that, Specifically, h e r , A.H., allegedly c l a i m s by other the fact and o m i s s i o n s , he previous with h i s a u t h o r i t y when to properly supervise the rape; Ex p a r t e B i t e l , i s a genuine beyond t h e scope o f h i s a u t h o r i t y . that willfully, or beyond h i s or her issue C a l d w e l l would o r d i n a r i l y case, is ( A l a . 2010). not appear Ex p a r t e immunity the S t a t e agent a c t e d 792 So. 2d a t 4 0 5 . " So. 3 d 1252, 1257-58 806 So. However, " [ o ] n c e i t i s d e t e r m i n e d w i t h h e l d upon a s h o w i n g t h a t maliciously, Ex p a r t e B l a n k e n s h i p , a c t as to a report harassment court erred i n 1081434 entering a summary State-agent In judgment immunity. f o r Caldwell on the basis specifically stated of 4 her deposition, N.C. that A.H. approached her a f t e r t h e f i f t h - p e r i o d d i s m i s s a l b e l l had rung. She also stated the gym a n d t h a t that Caldwell s h e , A.H., a n d W.G. gym when A.H. a p p r o a c h e d h e r . she by left t h e gym a f t e r were t h e o n l y Finally, the rape, students had N.C. Caldwell left ones i n t h e stated that, was o u t s i d e when walking the s t a i r s . Caldwell the rape the students presented occurred other parts in and t h e o t h e r evidence indicating that he was e x e r c i s i n g j u d g m e n t away f r o m t h e gym a n d e n s u r i n g of the school. In h i s a f f i d a v i t , at the time i n accompanying that t h e y went t o Caldwell stated, part: "My name i s P.R. Caldwell. At a l l times relevant to this suit, I was employed by t h e Tallapoosa C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n as a p h y s i c a l education teacher f o r high school students, N.C. also addresses the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of several evidentiary items. Although the t r i a l court stated that p o r t i o n s o f C a l d w e l l ' s m o t i o n s t o s t r i k e were w e l l t a k e n , i t did not s p e c i f y which, i f any, of t h e e v i d e n t i a r y items i t struck. F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we h a v e t r e a t e d a l l t h e i t e m s c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g been a d m i t t e d . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s N.C.'s a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the e v i d e n t i a r y i t e m s . 4 12 1081434 assistant basketball coach and the d i r e c t o r a t Edward B e l l High S c h o o l . athletics "On O c t o b e r 31, 2005, the minor plaintiff identified a s 'N.C.' was a s t u d e n t i n my fifth period high school p h y s i c a l education class. There w e r e t w e n t y - o n e s t u d e n t s i n my f i f t h p e r i o d c l a s s that school year. T h e f i f t h p e r i o d c l a s s was h e l d i n t h e s c h o o l ' s gym, w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f a c o m p e t i t i o n size gymnasium, s e p a r a t e weight room, l o b b y and r e s t r o o m s and g i r l s ' and b o y s ' l o c k e r rooms. There a r e a l s o two s t a i r w e l l s and b l e a c h e r s . A l l of these are separated from t h e r e s t of t h e s c h o o l , w i t h t h e d i s t a n c e meaning t h a t , u n l e s s I stood near t h e f r o n t o f t h e gym, I c o u l d n o t h e a r t h e s c h o o l ' s b e l l s o r [ p u b i c - a n n o u n c e m e n t ] s y s t e m , w h i c h was a l s o u s e d f o r security purposes. The l o c k e r rooms a r e l o c a t e d u n d e r n e a t h t h e gym s o n e i t h e r s e t o f s t a i r s l e a d i n g to t h e l o c k e r rooms n o r t h e l o c k e r rooms t h e m s e l v e s a r e v i s i b l e f r o m t h e gym. L i k e w i s e , areas of the lobby, t h e e n t i r e bathrooms, i n between cars i n t h e p a r k i n g l o tand t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g cannot be s e e n f r o m i n s i d e t h e gym. B a s e d u p o n my own judgment and d i s c r e t i o n under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e w e a t h e r , number o f s t u d e n t s p r e s e n t i n t h e gym a n d c u r r i c u l u m a n d s k i l l s t o b e t a u g h t on a p a r t i c u l a r d a y , I d e t e r m i n e d w h e r e t h e s t u d e n t s w o u l d be d u r i n g c l a s s ( e i t h e r o u t s i d e , i n t h e gym o r i n t h e w e i g h t room) a n d how t h e y w o u l d b e supervised. I had been given no specific instructions, either w r i t t e n o r v e r b a l , by t h e T a l l a p o o s a C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o r b y a n y o f my superiors ( o r anyone else) regarding how to s u p e r v i s e t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e gym, l o c k e r r o o m s a n d w e i g h t r o o m p r i o r t o t h e i n c i d e n t made t h e b a s i s o f the c o m p l a i n t . I a l s o h a d b e e n g i v e n no s p e c i f i c instructions o r g u i d e l i n e s o n how t o s u p e r v i s e students i n the different areas when i t was necessary f o r me t o d i v i d e t h e m b e t w e e n t h e gym, l o c k e r rooms a n d w e i g h t room. I was n o t g i v e n a n y specific instructions or guidelines on how t o d i s m i s s students a t t h e end of t h e c l a s s p e r i o d from 13 1081434 t h e gym. T h e r e a r e no B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n p o l i c i e s w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t me on how t o do t h i s . I n d e t e r m i n i n g how t o a l l o c a t e my t i m e b e t w e e n t h e s t u d e n t s so t h a t t h e y were a d e q u a t e l y m o n i t o r e d and s u p e r v i s e d , I r e l i e d u p o n my own j u d g m e n t . The 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 s c h o o l y e a r was t h e o n l y y e a r i n w h i c h I was n o t p r o v i d e d an a i d e t o a s s i s t me i n m o n i t o r i n g t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s t u d e n t s i n my c l a s s e s . "I b e l i e v e t h a t young a d u l t s and h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s p o s s e s s t h e m a t u r i t y and k n o w l e d g e t o be a b l e t o w o r k on t h e s k i l l s a s s i g n e d t h a t d a y i f I s t e p o u t o f t h e gym a n d i n t o t h e w e i g h t r o o m o r v i c e versa. I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y a l s o know how t o e x i t t h e gym a t t h e e n d o f t h e c l a s s p e r i o d a n d p r o c e e d to t h e i r l o c k e r s and next c l a s s e s . I know f r o m my e x p e r i e n c e and t r a i n i n g t h a t h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s n e e d n o t be i n d i v i d u a l l y s u p e r v i s e d a t a l l t i m e s n o r do t h e s e s t u d e n t s r e q u i r e a n e d u c a t o r t o b e w i t h i n their view c o n s t a n t l y when performing physical education activities. When class i s over, my e x p e r i e n c e t e l l s me t h a t s t u d e n t s l e a v e t o go t o t h e i r next c l a s s . I , t o o , am a l l o w e d t o l e a v e , i n c l u d i n g t o go t o t h e o f f i c e t o r e t r i e v e my m a i l . I must r e g u l a r l y c h e c k my m a i l b o x f o r m a i l and notices, including absentee notices during the s c h o o l d a y . F u r t h e r m o r e , w a l k i n g away f r o m t h e gym when t h e c l a s s e s c h a n g e a l l o w s me t o b e t t e r m o n i t o r t h e c h a n g e o f c l a s s e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e t h e gym i s i n a separate b u i l d i n g from the remainder o f the school. My presence outside the gym also discourages students from going to the parking l o t . " Menniefee Caldwell rape was also acting occurred. provided within evidence that showed that t h e s c o p e o f h i s d u t i e s when t h e In her a f f i d a v i t , she s t a t e d : "It i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e no s t u d e n t s a s s i g n e d t o Coach C a l d w e l l i n t h e s i x t h p e r i o d d u r i n g t h e 2005-06 s c h o o l y e a r . I t was 14 1081434 a p p r o p r i a t e f o r Coach C a l d w e l l to walk out of the gym w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s f r o m h i s f i f t h p e r i o d c l a s s a f t e r the d i s m i s s a l b e l l had r u n g t o check h i s m a i l between c l a s s p e r i o d s . I f s i x t h p e r i o d was Coach C a l d w e l l ' s p l a n n i n g p e r i o d t h a t y e a r , he w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d t o r e m a i n i n t h e gym d u r i n g s i x t h period." N.C. did affidavit when he not that he left dispute was t h e gym Caldwell's acting within with period dismissal bell the assertions the scope students B a s e d on rang. other the in his of his duties after the fifth- undisputed evidence p r e s e n t e d , C a l d w e l l s a t i s f i e d h i s burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t , at the time of the rape, dismissal bell discharge of accompanying go and to the had his rung, duty them out parking which occurred to of was the fifth-period e x e r c i s i n g judgment supervise the l o t but t h e r e a f t e r going he after and gym, ensuring went b a c k to to the main s c h o o l that the the students educate in by they did not school b u i l d i n g , b u i l d i n g to check his mail. H o w e v e r , N.C. authority by a l s o argues that C a l d w e l l appointing A.H. as a student acted aide with his fifth-period physical-education class. her motion judgment, in N.C. opposition presented to Caldwell's affidavits 15 motion from three to beyond his assist him In support for a of summary students who 1081434 stated in that Caldwell had t o l d have an presented weight room to assist affidavit had Caldwell times, aide an Caldwell asked from went from noon into because until Caldwell year first the was going him and t h a t other teacher However, he n e v e r student education aide i n t h e gym 5 him t o be had that not with asked A.H. leave The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t s c h o o l day around lunchtime. 5 16 supervising her about t h e 2005-2006 been given an the school aide to a s s i s t a n t or his students. he a p p o i n t e d A.H. t o a c t as fifth-period physical- a s k e d i f he a l l o w e d finished with stated o u t o f t h e gym the told those monitoring specifically students to was was and that during a teaching Caldwell's a f t e r A.H. that i n t h e gym campus allegedly also stated he She c e r t a i n days, a w a r e t h a t A.H. indicated that during on left d i d not have help Caldwell to run other fact, or c l a s s . R a t h e r , when he was day, tried to he class. students p.m. did state he the i n which 3:00 had year assist given A.H. his office Caldwell was with him t o s u p e r v i s e arrangement. be him a n d t h a t M e n n i e f e e was students to A.H. c h a r g e o f t h e c l a s s a few d a y s a week b e c a u s e C a l d w e l l d i d not a them t h a t gym on A.H. was that school they on A.H. any always a n d t h a t he h a d , i n previous occasions finished with his 1081434 because he was not supposed that he d i d n o t know that the incident; to permission that, from anyone i n c i d e n t ; and t h a t , have asked handbook t o be A.H. there. was He i n t h e gym h i s knowledge, t o be i n t h e gym on f o r Edward Bell School scheduled f o r a class should t h a t A.H. should at incident occurred. the time testified that the he got out of required to leave campus lunch. Finally, Menniefee teacher evaluations through visits supervising office or material as t o t h e gym, the students o f f campus. fact authority he was Thus, class." 11:45 he that she that, during performing there Caldwell 17 not a n d was are genuine actually she and was was eating conducted her walk¬ h i s duties and not i n h i s issues appointed a n d , i f he d i d , w h e t h e r he a c t e d i n doing so. faculty Further, a.m. unless i n h i s classes as t o w h e t h e r a student aide at time and the would Specifically, testified of Caldwell he n o t h a v e b e e n i n t h e gym school at that have "Any s t u d e n t that Menniefee t e s t i f i e d there, Also, provides: not attend d i d not the day of the was to the o f f i c e . stated on t h e d a y o f A.H. i f he h a d known A.H. him to report further of A.H. beyond h i s 1081434 Finally, authority N.C. argues because prior claims A.H. The by he Tallapoosa that for teacher any was sexually any Caldwell stated harassing complaints that A.H. have taken to was that made and material that as harassment them. had He action f r o m two of b o a r d policy " he would 18 been never Further, A.H. was sexually received any specific not that, female against of i f he students, A.H. a there Caldwell A.H. to her. was known he would alleged sexually are had However, they complained to C a l d w e l l to whether have that Caldwell f e m a l e s t u d e n t s who Therefore, Conduct that added comments by A.H. aware harassing inappropriate fact he effect. that students, not report been aware t h a t also t e s t i f i e d was disciplinary "harassing" to his harassment sexual h a r a s s m e n t by sexually n a t u r e t o them and was She he presented a f f i d a v i t s A.H. a violation tolerate female it. that failed sexual t h a t , i f C a l d w e l l had such sexual anyone a l s o be to harassing reported beyond C o u n t y S c h o o l s 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 Code o f ... r e q u i r e d to report acted and female s t u d e n t s of " [ i ] ts h a l l Menniefee t e s t i f i e d Caldwell a l l e g e d l y ignored other provides that N.C. that harassing that A.H. genuine issues actually aware of that 1081434 A.H. was sexually was, whether he Caldwell function evidence that, and sexual in i f his that authority Therefore, there of the parte Jones, 52 So. 3d of to in A.H. report Bitel, supra; issues to a he from a immunity. See N.C. produced Caldwell as a other student claims Cranman, material summary State-agent (Ala. of i f that establish to and, arose However, appointing See 475 claims State-agent could entitled doctrine allegations. the supra. genuine is to failing A.H. are Caldwell basis and students N.C.'s him believed, ignoring female respond Cranman, h a r a s s m e n t by whether to established supra; beyond aide failed other that would e n t i t l e Blankenship, acted harassing immunity. supra. fact judgement See, of as to on the e.g., Ex 2010). " ' I f t h e r e i s a g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a n y material f a c t on t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t i s e n t i t l e d to immunity, then the moving p a r t y i s not entitled t o a summary j u d g m e n t . R u l e 56, A l a . R. C i v . P.' Ex p a r t e Wood, 852 So. 2d 7 0 5 , 708 (Ala. 2002); B l a c k w o o d v . C i t y o f H a n c e v i l l e , 936 So. 2d 4 9 5 , 507 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e was a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t as t o t h e S t a t e - a g e n t d e f e n d a n t ' s r a t e of speed; a j u r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t speed w o u l d d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was entitled t o S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y and p r i v i l e g e under A l a . Code Suttles ___ v. (Ala. 1975, § Roy, 6-5-338(a) [Ms. and 1071453, § May 2010). 19 32-5A-7(b)(3))." 21, 2010] So. 3d , 1081434 Conclusion Because there could defeat trial court on that judgment remain genuine issues Caldwell's erred i n entering ground. Therefore, and remand t h i s R E V E R S E D AND claim case of m a t e r i a l of State-agent immunity, JJ., we reverse for further the the t r i a l court's proceedings. REMANDED. concur. Murdock, that a summary j u d g m e n t f o r C a l d w e l l Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Main, fact J . , dissents. 20 Shaw, a n d 1081434 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . I respectfully evidence i n the other students that A.H.'s nature. Nor student or to information be allowed record that does there was otherwise, assist that i n place w o u l d have to serve "beyond Court i n the main Educ., in part 752, his or opinion. 765-66 dissenting dissenting ( A l a . 2009) be was notice sexual in s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Caldwell from policy, appointing a was aware of established that A.H. should not aide. I question the understanding a u t h o r i t y " element 48 S o . 3d 6 2 1 , 630 and students on by Caldwell as a s t u d e n t her complaints an e s t a b l i s h e d s c h o o l that Apart from the f o r e g o i n g , the substantial to put C a l d w e l l to forbidding or find pre-incident these appear him cannot enough of there I the were s p e c i f i c "harassing" showing that written dissent. See E x p a r t e ( A l a . 2010) i n p a r t ) ; Ex (Murdock, in part). 21 employed by Monroe C o u n t y Bd. of the of (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g parte Watson, J., concurring 37 So. i n part 3d and

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.