‘case Number: PC-2022-02220 Filed ln Provienceatl County Superior Court ‘Sulbrmtte: 4/19/2022 429 PM Envesope: 3887285 Reviewer: Carol M. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, PROVIDENCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JOHN DOE 42 AND PARENT DOE 42 Plaintiffs v. CA: GREGORY — BLASBALG, —_LISA|PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A HILDEBRAND, JENNIFER HOSKINS, |JURY TRIAL ON ALL JENNIFER LIMA, and JAKE MATHER, |ISSUES all in their official capacities as members of NORTH KINGSTOWN SCHOOL COMMITTEE; JAMES LATHROP in his official capacity as Town Finance Director, for the Town of North Kingstown; PHILIP D. THORNTON; GERALD FOLEY: PHILIP AUGER; DENISE MANCIERI; KEITH KENYON; HOWARD (HOWIE) HAGUE; AND JOHN AND JANE ROES 1-20 Defendants COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial JOHN DOE 42 and his father, PARENT DOE 42, for their complaint against defendants, allege: Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This is an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of events that occurred in the State of Rhode Island. 2. Plaintiffs’ damages are such that jurisdiction over plaintifis’ complaint is with this Court.Case Number: Pe-2022.02220 Fe in Provdeneateetol County Superior Court ‘Submttod: 4/10/2022 4:29 PM Envelope: 3587285 Reviewer: Carol M. 3. Defendants either are residents of the State of Rhode Island, or had such minimum contacts with the state of Rhode Island as to render them subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, 4. This court is a proper venue for this action pursuant to R.I. Gen, Laws § 9-4-3 ‘The pai 5. Plaintiff, JOHN DOE 42, is a resident of Manchester, New Hampshire. 6. John Doe 42 was born on April 21, 2001, and was a minor at the time of the events giving rise to this complaint. 7. Plaintiff, PARENT DOE 42, is plaintiff John Doe 42’s father, and is a resident of West Greenwich, Rhode Island. 8. Gregory Blasbalg, Lisa Hildebrand, Jennifer Hoskins, Jennifer Lima, and Jake Mather are the members of North Kingstown School Committee (“NKSC”), statutorily responsible for oversight of the North Kingstown School Department, (“NKSD”) and of the Educator Defendants as hereinafter defined, and relied upon those Defendants in connection with the NKSC’s statutory duties as set for in paragraph 20, and are statutorily liable to indemnify and hold harmless those Defendants for their negligence and that of the individuals upon whom the Educator Defendant ’s relied in performance of their statutory and contractual obligations. 9. Defendant JAMES LATHROP is the Finance Director for the ‘Town of North Kingstown. 10. Defendant PHILIP THORNTON (“Thornton”) was Assistant School Superintendent for NKSD from 2007 to 2009, and School Superintendent from 2008 to 2011, and is a resident of Providence County. 11. Defendant GERALD FOLEY (“Foley”) was Principal of North Kingstown High School (“NKHS”) from 1992 to 2010.case Number: PC-2022.02220 Fied in ProvdencelBstol County Superior Court ‘Sulit 4/18/2022 4:29 PM Envelope: 3587285 Reviewer: Carl M 12. Defendant PHILIP AUGER (“Auger”) was Assistant School Superintendent for NKSD from 2009 until 2011, and School Superintendent for NKSD from July of 2011 until March 2022. 13. Defendant DENISE MANCIERI (““Mancieri”) was Principal of NKHS from 2014 to 2019, and Assistant Superintendent of the NKSD from 2019 until March of 2022. 14. Defendant KEITH KENYON (“Kenyon”) was the NKHS Director of Athletics & Student Activities from 1985 until 2009. 15. Defendant HOWARD HAGUE (“Hague”) was the NKHS Director of Athletics & Student Activities from 2011 until 2017. 16. JOHN and JANE ROES 1-20 are other educators in the North Kingstown School Department: a. responsible for the establishment or enforcement of policies regarding the supervision or training of teachers and coaches, or b. Responsible for the practices of North Kingstown teachers and administrators as they relate to the misconduct of coaches, and the investigation and reporting of same, or c. having knowledge of Thomas’ inappropriate conduct. 17. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 10-16 above, (collectively the “Educator Defendants”) were employed by the Town of North Kingstown and/or the NKSC and/or NKSD. General Allegations 18. The Educator Defendants at all times material hereto were employees serving as educators under the control and supervision of the NKSC, or administrators under NKSD control and supervision having supervisory authority over teachers and coaches in the NKSD, and/or those who had supervisory authority over such teachers and coaches.‘case Number: Po-2022-02220 Filed in ProudencelBatl County Superior Gout ‘Submited: 4/19/2022 4:29 PAM Envelope: 3587285, Reviewer: Carl M 19. The Educator Defendants at all times material hereto were public school teachers, supervisors, administrators, or licensed professional employees whose positions require a certificate from the department of education or board of regents for elementary and secondary education or were employees acting under the supervision of such persons whose position directly involves work with students. 20. RL Gen. Laws § 16-2-9 vests the NKSC with the entire care, control, and management of North Kingstown public schools, to ensure the implementation of federal and state laws, the employment of school department personnel, including the Superintendent, and to address the health and wellness of students. NKSC has an independent right to take action to protect students, if they have reason to believe that students are at risk. 21. RL. Gen. Laws § 16-2-11 requires the Superintendent to provide the care and supervision of the district’s public schools, comply with state and federal laws, appoint administrators, and oversee their discipline upon failure to comply with policies set by the school department. 22, RL Gen, Law § 16-2-11.1 requires the Principal to supervise the operation and management of their schools and school property and to provide for the evaluation of personnel assigned to the school. 23. As Principals and/or Athletic Directors, Mancieri, Kenyon, and Hague, at the time they held those offices, were those with authority over training and supervision of coaches generally, with the responsibility to address those employees who failed to comport with policies set by NKSC and NKSD. History 24, From at least as far back as the mid-90’s, NKSD has employed coaches and given them access to positions of authority over students, without the minimum degree of training and supervision requisite to protect students from a known risk of harm ~ specifically including inappropriate conduct and exploitation by North Kingstown coaches, which misconduct was accomplished by virtue of abuse of the power confirmed on those coaches by these Defendants, the erosion of boundaries between coaches and the children 4‘case Number: PC-2022.02220 Fied in ProvgencelBrstol County Superior Cour ‘Submitted: 4/19/2022 429 PM Envelope: 3587285 Reviewer Caro to which NKSD provided its coaches access, and the practices of those coaches in taking advantage of their position for personal motives, inconsistent with their professional obligations and exploiting the children entrusted to their care. 25. Defendants further allowed coaches to exercise power over students without reasonable or appropriate supervision, and in an environment where unprofessional conduct and violations of boundaries as to officials’ personal interests versus professional obligations were openly permitted, routine and ignored, and indeed encouraged. 26. When misconduct of educators rose to a level such that it came to the attention of others, NKSD either ignored or silenced those raising questions, or dealt with the concerns ‘informally,’ in manners that effectively covered for the misbehavior, thereby effectively licensing it. 27. More specifically, to the extent such misconduct progressed to ‘the point that it was the subject matter of complaints or concerns, Defendants actively sought to avoid controversy, brushing off parental complaints, or professing that ‘nothing could be done,” or, if pressed, cloaking such behavior with intemal, informal responses as opposed to official reporting and investigation, effectively signaling that NKSD administration could be counted upon to shield offending employees. 28. Steeped in a culture that prioritized loyalty to the school and athletic success over the safety of children, Defendants marginalized complaining parents, and students were not only not warned about the utter lack of professional boundaries, but swept into ‘going along’ with practices that were grossly inconsistent with appropriate professional standards, yet passed off as routine. 29. More particularly as to these plaintiffs, commencing at or around 1989 NKSD employed one Aaron Thomas, as a History teacher. 30. By 1993, NKSD assigned Thomas variously as a video technology and editing teacher and basketball coach.(Cave Number: Pe-2022-02220 Fed in ProvigencelBrsiol County Superior Cour Suerited: 471912022 4:29 PM Envelope: 9587285 Reviewer: Caro M ‘Thomas remained an employee of NKSD until he resigned in 2021, in anticipation of termination for misconduct that spanned decades. Over those intervening years, NKSD allowed Thomas, in the aforementioned capacities, to a, Work in conjunction with other NKSD officials to set up a sham “body fat’ testing program run both officially, ostensibly as part of his coaching of students under his supervision, and with other students at the school, including non-athletes, and non-students that he targeted, and, under the tacit, and explicit approval of NKSD, use NKHS and its students as an ‘alpha’ test site, operated as part of a for-profit enterprise in which his NKSD supervisor had an interest; 'b. Operate that sham program with no proper training; c. The foregoing was specifically authorized and promoted by a NKSD employee having direct supervisory authority over Thomas, then Director of Athletics, Kenyon, who NKSD allowed to use “Athletic 1Q,” a private for-profit endeavor in which he had an interest, and Kenyon’s relationship with NKHS students, to operate the private enterprise within the school. 4. Kenyon promoted Thomas as a “Testing Station Operator” and promoted Thomas’ performing body fat testing on the students of North Kingstown High School. e. Although NKSD acted to remove Kenyon from his NKSD position for his having entangled personal business interests with those of NKSD, Thomas continued thereafter to operate the sham testing program, which served no legitimate educational nor coaching purposes, and continued to openly recruit children, from both within and without the school to accompanying him into closed quarters, including first a closet and later a private communication office, which was fitted with cameras supplied by NKSD that he could use to monitor the comings and goingsCase Number: PC-2022-02220 Files in ProvidencaBistl County Superior Court Subtod: 4/10/2022 429 PM Envelope: 3587285 Reviewer: Carl M. of others while he conducted sham examinations as part of his “program.” ; In the course of the foregoing sham program, Thomas used his NKSD coaching position to obtain access to children both within and without the school, and conduct pretextual intimate physical ‘examinations’ that involved having children strip naked, inappropriate touching of naked children, and having them assume various poses in the nude at his direction; . NKSD and the Educator Defendants assisted Thomas in normalizing his conduct by allowing him to openly pull young, men into private spaces alone, openly portraying the invitation to participate in his ‘testing regime’ as important to their athletic development, which indeed it was not, and then asking boys under his control whether they were ‘shy or not shy,’ effectively compelling teenage boys competing for an athletic position to express reticence in the presence of adult male in the position of power which NKSD conferred upon him. . Not surprisingly, many boys, including Plaintiff, succumbed to their Coach’s suggestion that if they were ‘not shy’ they could expose themselves for him, and submited to the sham physical examinations, particularly given that they heard from other students at NKSD that this Coach would do these examination with kids, and indeed had been doing so for some time. Thomas further used his NKSD coaching position to gather both images of the school’s students and personal and educational data collected in the course of the ‘testing,’ and without lawful consent collect and disseminate those images and that data. j. NKSD and the Educator Defendants, in failing to supervise Thomas, effectively allowed him to exercised personal control and convert student information, indeed taking and retaining such information without consent or lawful authorityCase Number: P¢-2022-02220 File in ProvdencefBrstl County Superior Court SSubmitod: 4/102022 4:29 PM Envelope: 3887285 Reviewer: Carol M 33. As a result, NKSD for decades operated an educational institution in which: a. Coaches generally were routinely allowed to engage in private communication, and establish private relationships between themselves and students; b. This Coach in particular used such communication, and his position with NKSD to facilitate his personal interest in getting children naked and alone with him for one-on-one ‘examinations’ or ‘testing’ both during school hours and in conjunction with official and ‘private’ basketball practices he coached on NKSD property and within NKSD facilities. c. Coaches generally and this coach in particular, knowing that young students, looking to compete for positions within school sports wouldn’t want to be seen as uncooperative, shy, afraid, or distrustful of their coach, were able to use the position of coach at NKSD to obtain compliance from children, which in this instance meant repeatedly getting children alone and naked with him. d. This coach’s practice was so prevalent that he was able i. to recruit children who were participating in other coaches’ sports to participate in his ‘program’ ii, talk openly about his ‘testing program’ with other coaches in school and during practices; openly and within earshot of the school’s faculty and coaches, and indeed entire teams, invite boys for private, one-on-one ‘testing’ during school, at practices, and before and after games; 34. Thomas’ inappropriate and unprofessional conduct continued without any meaningful supervision, and indeed with the tacit approval of the administration for the two decades of his employment.case Number: P¢-2022-02220 File in Providenceitl County Superior Count ‘Submitod:4/1872022 429 PM Envelope: 3587288 Reviewor Corl M 35. The Commissioner of Education and the Board of Education rely upon NKSC and the individual school administrators to investigate complaints which evidence that a given teacher or coach is a threat to students in their school system, and take reasonable steps to protect other students committed to their care from such foreseeable harm. 36. Despite openly engaging in inappropriate conduct, and being caught alone in inappropriate situations with children, Defendants took no official action relative to Thomas’ conduct until February of 2021 37. Even then, Defendants delayed reporting Thomas’ behavior to the Rhode Island Department of Education, which was informed of Thomas’ behavior months after his suspension, and well after Thomas’ termination. 38. Upon his termination, without notice to or the consent of the students whose information Thomas had obtained, Thomas was allowed access his office without adequate supervision and removed and retains student records, which Defendants have failed to take reasonable steps to secure recover. 39, Even after termination of Thomas’ employment, Defendants failed to wam former students, including John Doe 42, and parents of former students, including plaintiff Father of John Doe 42 or other school districts of Thomas’ behavior and instead withheld all negative information and allegations, until the re-hiring of Thomas in a nearby school system caused public scandal. 40. Defendants NKSC, PHILIP THORNTON; GERALD FOLEY; PHILIP AUGER; DENISE MANCIERI were charged with control of NKSD_ education institutions, adoption and enforcement of standards, and supervision of employees of NKSD, including formation, adoption, and enforcement of educational policies, adoption of standards and qualifications for teachers, evaluation of teachers in accordance with law and established standards, inspection of schools and enforcement of the provisions established standards, inspection of schools and enforcement of the provisions of all laws relating to schools and education, Those defendants are also obligated to issue such regulations in furtherance of education as may be required.case Number: P¢-2022-02220 Fes n ProvidenceBrstl County Superior Court Subsited:4/1072022 6:29 PN Envelope: 9587285 Reviewer: Carol M 41. Defendants NKSC, PHILIP THORNTON; GERALD FOLEY; PHILIP AUGER; DENISE MANCIERI; KEITH KENYON; and HOWARD (HOWIE) HAGUE had statutory, contractual and other duties at law that included the responsibility to oversee the conduct of teachers and coaches in NKSD, those having supervisory authority over teachers and coaches, and those having knowledge of misconduct or reports of misconduct by fellow employees and provide reasonable notice and warning to students, former students, and their parents regarding the risks to which students would be and were exposed. 42, Rather than fulfilling their oversigt responsibility as to employees under their supervision, Defendants exhibited the repeated and routine practice of avoiding complaints by “resolving” such complaints so there was no formal process pursued, no record of a complaint, nor a predictable outcome, resulting in a lack of oversight and control over coaches generally, and Thomas and those supervising him in particular. 43. Defendants have the responsibility to create, implement and enforce policies to protect their students from unreasonable risk of harm and had a responsibility to use reasonable care in supervising their employees. 44, Defendants are liable under the doctrine of Negligent Entrustment. 45. Defendants are liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. 46. Defendants NKSC and the Educator Defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff, John Doe 42, under the doctrine of parents patriae. 47. During the 2014-2016 school years, plaintiff, John Doe 42, was a minor student on the active enrollment list of the North Kingstown High School, the public secondary school in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. 48. During his time at NKHS, John Doe 42 was a child participating in an educational and associated athletic program controlled and managed by NKSD and the Educator Defendants.cave Number: PC-2022-02220 Filed in Providencenatol County Superior Court Submited: 4/102022 4:29 PM Envocper 3587285 Reviewer: Carol M. 49. John Doe 42 was under the care and supervision of Defendants and entitled to their protection, 50. During the course of naked “fat testing” as previously described, John Doe 42 was touched inappropriately by Thomas. 51. More particularly, on or about November of 2015, while plaintiff, John Doe 42, was a student at the North Kingstown High School, he was asked to stand in front of his Coach, remove his clothing while continuing to stand exposed in front of his Coach, who had positioned himself so as to place his head within 12-15 inches of the boy’s genitals. 52. John Doe 42 was then inappropriately touched by Thomas, who placed his hands within inches of the boy’s genitals. 53. As a result of the foregoing harmful and offensive touching, abuse of the coach’s position and exploitation of the child, John Doe 42 sustained emotional distress and mental suffering, requiring mental health counseling. 54, His embarrassment and shame about the foregoing was such that he could not disclose these events to his father for years. 55. Defendants delay in public notice generally, and notice in particular to these plaintiffs, regarding Thomas’ misconduct left plaintiff isolated from familial support around these issues, exacerbated the minor child’s mental distress, and delayed providing the services needed to begin remediation of the damage caused. COUNTI Negligence 56. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referenced Paragraphs 1-55 of this Complaint, as if fully stated herein. 57. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care in connection with their professional obligations as administrators, supervisors and educators. 58. It was reasonably foreseeable that if these defendants breached their duty to use reasonable care that plaintiff John Doe 42 would be harmed. i‘case Number: Pc-2022-02220 Fl in Providence/ito! County Superor Court ‘Submit: 471972072 4:29 PM Envelope: 3887285 Reviewer: Carol M. 59. 60. Defendants breached their duties. Defendants were negligent in the performance of their professional duties as administrators and supervisors in one or more of the following: a 61. Failure to properly supervise employees, or take reasonable steps to require that persons under their control and supervision did so; Failure to train Thomas, and or those with supervisory authority over Thomas, or take reasonable steps to require that persons under their control and supervision did so; Failure to suspend, dismiss or otherwise remove or control ‘Thomas or those with supervisory authority over Thomas, or take reasonable steps to require that persons under their control and supervision did so; Failure to take appropriate action to prevent Thomas from using his position as a coach at North Kingstown High School to provide him with access to children and the opportunity to engage in inappropriate physical and/or sexual contact with students, including plaintiff. Failure to warn students generally and John Doe 42 and Parent Doe 42 in particular regarding the foregoing lack of oversight, and lack of enforcement of appropriate professional boundaries relative to coaches, and dangers that same presented to children in NKSD schools generally and to John Doe 42 in particular Defendants’ negligence in the performance of their professional duties as teachers, administrators and educators, caused John Doe to suffer permanent emotional and psychological injury and cause him other great damage. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants for damages at law, costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest. couNT 12‘Case Number: Po-2022.02220 Filed n ProvdencelBtol County Superior Court Sulit: 4/10/2022 4:29 PAE Envelope: 3587285 Reviewer: Carl M Consortium 62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referenced Paragraphs 1-61 of this Complaint, as if fully stated herein. 63. As Plaintiff John Doe’s parent, Father Doe was entitled to a. Reasonable care and the exercise of due care in the supervision of personnel acting in loco parentis as to the minor plaintiff, s . Notice of the risks to which his son was exposed, both prior to and after the specific events occurred; ° . The minor plaintiff's injury was as a result of the failure of these defendants to exercise due care a |. Defendants’ failure to warn of the risks to which the minor plaintiff’ was exposed after the fact exacerbated his injuries; 64. Asa result of the negligence as related in the foregoing, plaintiff Parent Doe 42 was deprived of the minor plaintif’s society and companionship. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Parent Doe 42 demands judgment against these Defendants for damages at law, costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest. COUNT HI Indemnor 65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referenced Paragraphs 1-64 of this Complaint, as if fully stated herein. 66. The NKSC Defendants are liable as the indemnors of the Educator Defendants for their negligence and their negligent oversight of those under their control and supervision under RI Gen. Laws 9-1-31. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against GREGORY BLASBALG, LISA HILDEBRAND, JENNIFER HOSKINS, JENNIFER 13‘Case Number: PO-2022-02220 Fed in ProvdenceBrstol County Suporor Court ‘Submitte: 4/19/2022 420 PM Envelope 3587285 Reviewer: Carol M. LIMA, and JAKE MATHER, all in their official capacities as members of the NORTH KINGSTOWN SCHOOL COMMITTEE and JAMES LATHROP in his official capacity as Town Finance Director, for the Town of North Kingstown for damages at law, costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest. Dated: April 19, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, JOHN DOE and his PARENT By Their Attorney ch imothy J. Conlon, Esq. Burns & Levinson, LLP 1 Citizens Plaza, Providence, RI 02903 (401) 831-8330