School seems more complicated than when I grew up. We now have stalking, harassment, cyber-bullying, and myriad of other objectionable conduct. Technology may be the engine of progress but, in an educational setting, it can also be used to harass, demean, and bully those students perceived to be weak or different.
To curb this objectionable conduct, New York enacted the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) effective July 1, 2012. This statute declares the policy of New York to “afford all students in public schools an environment free of discrimination and harassment.”
The statute is clear that it applies to public schools and their students. Does the statute reach conduct targeting a former public school student who transferred to a private school because of past bullying behavior at the public school? In other word, does the statute impose a duty on a public school district where the target of the misbehavior is now a student in a private school?
“Yes,” according to Simon v. Bellmore-Merrick Central High School District, et al. In Simon, the minor plaintiff was allegedly bullied earlier in her academic career at the defendant’s school district. She was transferred to another school within the district as part of the district’s earlier response and later transferred to a private school. A few years later, two students of the district allegedly circulated a lewd video involving a female student and falsely represented that the female was the minor plaintiff. The plaintiffs, both parents and minor daughter, alleged that the school district’s response was inadequate and such deficiencies contributed to the daughter’s distress.
In a case of first impression, the motion court found that the school district owed plaintiff a duty of care under DASA to prevent the subject harassment and cyber-bullying. In the court’s view, the district’s interpretation of DASA – that it owed no duty to a private school student – would permit the district to “turn a blind eye” to malevolence perpetrated by its students where the target was private school student. In sum, the court found that, under DASA, the district had a “duty to regulate” the conduct allegedly perpetrated by its students. Of note, the court also held that the district had no common law duty of care to the plaintiff and dismissed plaintiffs’ negligence claims.