UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA P.B.

, as lawful guardian ad litem of Minor Child, JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, LINDA BRADSHAW, JOHN ROES 1-10, and MICHAEL ANDREW ALEXANDER, Defendants. ANSWER (Jury Trial Demanded)

Now come defendants, Burke County Public Schools Board of Education (hereinafter Board) and Linda Bradshaw (hereinafter Bradshaw), and answers plaintiffs complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. It is admitted upon information and belief that law enforcement officers discovered a child pornography ring. It is further admitted that defendant Alexander has been arrested, charged and sentenced for various crimes under North Carolina law. Except as admitted, these answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and they are thus denied. It is admitted that defendant Alexander was a teacher wi th the Boards school system for approximately 12 years. Except as admitted, these answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number three regarding sexual abuse of Jane Doe by defendant Alexander and these allegations are thus denied. The remaining allegations of paragraph number three are denied. It is specifically denied that Jane Doe reported to defendant Bradshaw that anyone, within the school or otherwise, was inappropriately touching Jane Doe, including defendant Alexander.

2.

3.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 16

4. 5.

Denied. These answering defendants deny that they denied help to Jane Doe. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph number five and they are thus denied. Liability for the violations outlined in paragraph number six are denied as to these answering defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.

7.

Paragraph 7 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 8 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 9 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 10 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. PARTIES

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

Admitted upon information and belief. Admitted. It is admitted that the North Carolina General Statutes cited are a matter of public record and are the best evidence of their contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 13 are denied. Admitted. It is denied that defendant Bradshaw is a resident of Burke County. remaining allegations paragraph 15 are also denied. Admitted. The allegations of paragraph 17 are denied. It is specifically denied that any John Roes as described in paragraph 17 exist or have ever existed. Admitted upon information and belief. The

14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 16

19. 20.

Admitted. Admitted. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

21.

It is admitted that defendant Alexander was Jane Does third-grade teacher at Hildebran. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21, including all of its subparts, and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 22 and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 23 and they are thus denied. Denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number 25, including all of its subparts, and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number 26 and they are thus denied. Denied. Denied. It is admitted that defendant Bradshaw had the duty and ability to take action to protect Jane Doe if Jane Doe had ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the alleged abuse by defendant Alexander. It is specifically denied that Jane Doe ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the abuse alleged in the plaintiffs complaint. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 29 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are denied.

22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 16

34.

The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 34 are denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 35 are denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 are denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 are denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 38 are denied. The Communication Plan speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 39 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist Denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander was arrested and removed from his teaching post. Except as admitted, denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander was charged with crimes dating back to 2001. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 48 are denied. Denied. Admitted. Paragraph 51 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48.

49 50. 51.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 16

52.

These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 52 and they are thus denied. Denied.

53.

COUNT I Violation of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 54. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 53 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. These defendants deny John Roes 1 10 exist, or have ever existed. Further, these defendants deny any knowledge of abuse, sexual assault, or other such acts or omissions against Jane Doe. As such, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 are denied. Admitted. These defendants deny John Roes 1 10 exist, or have ever existed. Further, these defendants deny any knowledge of abuse, sexual assault, or other such acts or omissions against Jane Doe. As such, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 are denied. Denied. Paragraph 61 and all of its sub parts are hereby denied. Paragraph 62, including all subparts, is denied as to these answering defendants.

55. 56. 57.

58. 59.

60. 61. 62.

COUNT II Violation of the Educational Amendments of 1973 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 63. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 62 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 64 and all of its subparts are hereby denied.

64.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 16

65. 66.

Denied. These answering defendants did offer, provide and coordinate health and psychological counseling for plaintiff and Jane Doe. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 66 are denied. Paragraph 67, including all subparts, is denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT III Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights Special Relationship (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

67.

68.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 67 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that Defendants Bradshaw and Alexander were employees of the Board. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 69 are denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. Denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied.

69.

70. 71.

72.

73.

74.

75. 76. 77. 78.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 6 of 16

79. 80.

Denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 80, including all subparts, is denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT IV Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights State-Created Danger (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

81.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 80 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts. COUNT V Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights Failure to Train (Defendants School Board and John Roes 1-10)

82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

87.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 86 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 88 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 89 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 90 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Denied.

88.

89.

90.

91.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 7 of 16

92. 93. 94.

Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT VI Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights (Defendant Alexander)

95.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 94 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 95 99 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 95 99. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 99 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT VII Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity Special Relationship (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

96. 97. 98. 99.

100.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 99 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that Alexander and Bradshaw were employees of the Board during the 2011 -2012 school year. It is specifically denied that, as alleged, defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 -10 exist. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 101 are denied. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions as alleged were outside of and exceeded the

101.

102. 103.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 8 of 16

scope of his employment with Board. allegations of paragraph 103 are denied. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants.

Except as admitted, the remaining

Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT VIII Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity State-Created Danger (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

112.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 111 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT IX Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity Failure to Train (Defendants School Board and John Roes 1-10)

113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

119.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 118 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 9 of 16

120.

Paragraph 120 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 121 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 122 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts. COUNT X Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity (Defendant Alexander)

121.

122.

123. 124. 125. 126. 127.

128.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 127 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 128 - 133 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 128 - 133. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT XI Violation of North Carolina Constitution, Article I, 19 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

129. 130. 131. 132. 133.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 10 of 16

134.

Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 133 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that Alexander and Bradshaw were employees of the Board during the 2011 -2012 school year. It is specifically denied that, as alleged in the complaint, defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions as alleged were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 -10 exist. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 135 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts. COUNT XII Violation of North Carolina Constitution, Article I, 19 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

135.

136. 137. 138. 139.

140.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 139 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 141 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. It is further specifically denied that these answering defendants failed in their duties in any way. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts. COUNT XIII State Law Claims (Defendants Bradshaw and John Roes 1-10)

141.

142. 143. 144. 145.

146.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 145 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 11 of 16

147. 148. 149. 150.

Admitted. Denied. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Denied. Paragraph 150 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. It is further specifically denied that these answering defendants failed in their duties in any way. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts. COUNT XIV State Law Claims (Defendant Alexander)

151. 152. 153.

154.

Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 153 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 154 - 160 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 154 -60 below. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants.

155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 12 of 16

161.

To the extent there is no waiver of immunity, these answering defendants are entitled to sovereign and/or governmental immunity for each and every claim asserted against each of them in the Complaint. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

162.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) plaintiff fails to state a claim against theses answering defendants and this action against them should be dismissed. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

163.

All actions by the individual defendant Bradshaw were objectively reasonable under the circumstances then and there existing, and she is entitled to qualified immunity. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC OFFICER IMMUNITY

164.

Defendant Bradshaw is entitled to Public Officer Immunity. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

165.

Punitive damages against local, governmental bodies, their officials and their employees are barred by governmental immunity and otherwise. Further, an award of punitive damages against theses answering defendants is unjustified and unconstitutional. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE

166.

Plaintiffs claims against these answering defendants are barred by the Pub lic Duty Doctrine. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STAUTORY IMMUNITY

167.

These Defendants assert immunity as outlined and provided in any Federal or State Statute, including but not limited to the immunity granted in NC Code Anno. 115C-44.

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 13 of 16

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff, these Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed or, in the alterna tive, for a trial by jury, together with the costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

This the 13 day of December, 2012. CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Andrew J. Santaniello Andrew J. Santaniello NC BAR No.: 23532 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 asantaniello@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Summer D. Eudy Summer D. Eudy NC BAR No.: 37638 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 seudy@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw

CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC /s/ K. Dean Shatley, II K. Dean Shatley, II NC BAR No.: 31782 674 Merrimon Ave., Suite 210 Asheville, NC 28804 828-398-2775 Dean@csedlaw.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 14 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Answer has been served upon opposing counsel by electronic filing through the ECF thereto this 13 day of December, 2012. Douglas E. Fierberg Peter C. Grenier Bode & Grenier, LLP 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Robert M. Tatum Tatum & Atkinson, PLLC 702 Glenwood Ave Raleigh, NC 27605

CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Summer D. Eudy Summer D. Eudy NC BAR No.: 37638 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 seudy@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 15 of 16

16

Case 1:12-cv-00334-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 12/13/12 Page 16 of 16