IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No.

: 1:13-cv-0009-MR-DLH

A.B., AS LAWFUL GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF MINOR CHILD, L.B.,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, LINDA ) BRADSHAW, JOHN ROES 1-10 and ) MICHAEL ANDREW ALEXANDER ) ) Defendants ) ) )

ANSWER OF BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION AND LINDA BRADSHAW

Now come defendants, Burke County Public Schools Board of Education (hereinafter “Board”) and Linda Bradshaw (hereinafter “Bradshaw”), and Answer 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 with the Board's 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 L.B. by defendant Alexander and these allegations are thus denied. The remaining allegations of paragraph number three are denied. It is specifically denied that L.B reported to defendant Bradshaw or anyone, within the school that

2.

3.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 15

she was being bullied. It is also further specifically denied that any student informed Bradshaw or anyone else at the school that defendant Alexander was inappropriately touching them. 4. 5. 6. Denied. Denied. These answering defendants deny that they denied help to L.B. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph number six and they are thus denied. Liability for the violations outlined in paragraph number seven are denied as to these answering defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Paragraph 8 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 9 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 10 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 11 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. PARTIES 12. 13. 14. 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 14 are denied. Admitted. It is denied that defendant Bradshaw is a resident of Burke County. The remaining allegations paragraph 16 are also denied. Admitted.

7.

9.

10.

11.

15. 16.

17.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 15

18.

The allegations of paragraph 18 are denied. It is specifically denied that any John Roes as described in paragraph 18 exist or have ever existed. Admitted upon information and belief. Admitted. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

19. 20.

21.

It is admitted that L.B. attended Hildebran elementary and completed the third grade there. The remaining allegations of paragraph 21 are denied. It is admitted that defendant Alexander was L.B.’s 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 22, 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 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 26 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 27 and they are thus denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is admitted that defendant Bradshaw had the duty and ability to take action to protect L.B. if L.B. had ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the alleged bullying. It is specifically denied that L.B. ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the bullying alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 are denied. Denied.

22.

23.

24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30. 31.

32.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 15

33. 34. 35.

Denied. 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 policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 39 are denied. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 40 are denied. The Communication Plan speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 41 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. 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 upon information and belief. Paragraph 51 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48.

49. 50. 51.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 4 of 15

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. § 1681 et seq. (Defendant School Board) 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 L.B. or other students at Hildebran. 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 L.B. or any other student at Hildebran. As such, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 59 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 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (Defendant School Board) 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. Denied. These answering defendants did offer, provide and coordinate health and

64. 65. 66.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 5 of 15

psychological counseling for plaintiff L.B. and her family. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 66 are denied. 67. 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) 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. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 79, 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) 80. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 79 as if fully set forth herein.

69.

70. 71.

72.

73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 6 of 15

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

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)

86.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 85 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 87 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 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. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts, as to these answering defendants. COUNTY VI Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights (Defendant Alexander)

87.

88.

89.

90. 91. 92. 93.

94.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 93 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 94 – 98 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 7 of 15

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 – 98. 95. 96. 97. 98. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 98 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) 99. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 98 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. Alexander’s 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 100 are denied. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexander’s actions as alleged were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 102 are denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants.

100.

101. 102.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 8 of 15

109.

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)

110.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 109 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)

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

117.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 116 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 118 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 119 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Paragraph 120 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

118.

119.

120.

121. 122. 123. 124.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 9 of 15

125.

Denied, including all subparts. COUNT X Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity (Defendant Alexander)

126.

These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 125 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 126 - 131 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 127 - 131. 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)

127. 128. 129. 130. 131.

132.

Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 131 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. Alexander’s 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 133 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied, including all subparts.

133.

134. 135. 136. 137.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 10 of 15

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) 138. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 137 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 139 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) 144. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 143 as if fully set forth herein. Admitted. Denied. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. Denied. Paragraph 148 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)

139.

140. 141. 142, 143.

145. 146. 147. 148.

149. 150. 151.

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 11 of 15

152.

Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 151 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 152 - 158 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 153 -158 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. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158.

1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 12 of 15

5.

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

6.

Plaintiffs’ claims against these answering defendants are barred by the Public Duty Doctrine. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STATUTORY IMMUNITY

7.

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.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff, these Defendants pray that the Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed or, in the alternative, 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 1st day of March, 2013. 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

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 13 of 15

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 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 14 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that in conformity with Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a true copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all parties entitled or required to be served by mailing a copy of the document in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage affixed thereto. Alternatively, and further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Civil Rule 5.3 this document has been filed by electronic means in compliance with the rules and service has been effected by electronic means through the Court’s transmission facilities as authorized by Rule 5.3 and in conformity of these rules this 1st day of March, 2013. Mr. Michael A. Alexander Offender ID: 1328076 NC Central Prison 1300 Western Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27606 Via ECF: Douglas E. Fierberg dfierberg@bode.com Peter C. Grenier pgrenier@bode.com James W. Saffell jsaffell@bode.com Robert M. Tatum rtatum@tatumatkinson.com Laura E. Conner lconner@tatumatkinson.com

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

Case 1:13-cv-00009-MR-DLH Document 5 Filed 03/01/13 Page 15 of 15