Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 53

Peter B. Janci, OSB No. 074249

[email protected]
Stephen F. Crew, OSB No. 781715
[email protected]
Zachary K. Pangares, OSB No. 213383
[email protected]
CREW JANCI LLP
9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 430
Portland, Oregon 97225
Telephone: (503) 306-0224
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JENNIFER DOE, an individual proceeding under CASE NO: 3:24-CV-00721

pseudonym,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JEWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, an Oregon school
district; ALICE HUNSAKER, individually and in her
capacity as Superintendent of the Jewell School District 8;
STEPHEN PHILLIPS, individually and in his capacity as
Administrator and Superintendent of the Jewell School
District 8; TERRENCE SMYTH, individually and in his
capacity as Principal of Jewell School; JOHN and JANE
DOE, 1-15;

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jennifer Doe, an individual proceeding under pseudonym, by and through her

attorneys, Crew Janci LLP, for her Complaint against Defendants allege, as follows:

Page 1—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 53

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that it

is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq and therefore

presents a federal question. This Court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

state-law claims that are related to, and form part of, the same case or controversy pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

VENUE

2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), in that a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Clatsop County, Oregon.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Jennifer Doe is an adult female born in 2002. At all times material

herein, Plaintiff was a minor resident of Clatsop County, Oregon, and a public-school student

enrolled at and attending Jewell School in the Jewell School District, in Clatsop County, Oregon.

4. Plaintiff is proceeding under a pseudonym because she is the victim of childhood

sexual abuse and publicity of her true identity will cause further unwarranted trauma. Plaintiff’s

true identity is known to the Defendants.

5. At all times material herein, Defendant Jewel School District 8 was a school

district authorized and chartered by the laws of the State of Oregon, and an education institution

that receives federal funding for public education and is subject to Title IX. Jewell School

District’s principal place of business is 83874 Highway 103, Seaside, Clatsop County, Oregon,

97138-6154. Jewell School District is a rural public school located between Vernonia and

Seaside in Clatsop County, Oregon. Jewell School is the only school in the Jewell School

Page 2—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 53

District. Jewell School serves kindergarten through twelfth grade and has approximately 175

enrolled students. At all times material herein, Jewell School District operated, governed, and

controlled Jewell School and its agents.

6. For at least part of the time material herein, Defendant Alice Hunsaker was the

Superintendent of Jewell School District from approximately June 2013 to March 2019. Upon

information and belief, Defendant Alice Hunsaker is currently domiciled in Sun City West,

Arizona. In Hunsaker’s official and/or individual capacity as Superintendent, Hunsaker had the

authority and duty to make and implement (and did make and implement) all District-wide

policies, procedures, and rules, including the implementation of any policies, procedures, or

training related to sexual abuse prevention detection, investigation, reporting, correction, and

remediation. Hunsaker also had the authority and duty (1) to supervise and discipline (and did

supervise) Jewell School District personnel, including Plaintiff’s abuser David Brandon; and (2)

to exercise final oversight (and did exercise final oversight) over personnel decisions, including

the hiring, supervision, discipline, and retention of Jewell School District personnel, including of

Plaintiff’s abuser David Brandon.

7. For at least part of the time material herein, Defendant Terrance Smyth served as

the Principal of Jewell School from approximately Fall 2016 to Spring 2019. Upon information

and belief, Defendant Terrance Smyth is currently domiciled in Sun City West, Arizona. In

Smyth’s official and/or individual capacity as Principal, Smyth had the authority and duty to

implement (and did make and implement) school-wide all policies, procedures, and rules adopted

by Jewell School District leadership, including by Superintendent Hunsaker. This included the

implementation of any policies, procedures, or training related to sexual abuse prevention,

detection, reporting, investigation, correction, and remediation. Smyth also had supervisory

authority and supervised Jewell School personnel, including Plaintiff’s abuser, David Brandon.

Page 3—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 4 of 53

8. For at least part of the time material herein, Defendant Stephen Phillips was

employed with Jewell School District as the Executive Administrator (from approximately 2018

to mid-year 2019) and Superintendent (from approximately mid-year 2019 to 2021). Upon

information and belief, Defendant Stephen Phillips is currently domiciled in Newberg, Oregon.

In Phillips’s official and/or individual capacity as Superintendent and Executive Administrator,

Phillips had the authority and duty to make and implement (and did make and implement) all

District-wide policies, procedures, and rules, including the implementation of any policies,

procedures, or training related to sexual abuse prevention, detection, investigation, reporting,

correction, and remediation. Phillips also had the authority and duty (1) to supervise and

discipline (and did supervise) Jewell School District personnel, including Plaintiff’s abuser

David Brandon; and (2) to exercise final oversight (and did exercise final oversight) of personnel

decisions, including the hiring, supervision, discipline, and retention of Jewell School District

personnel, including of Plaintiff’s abuser David Brandon.

9. Defendants John and Jane Doe 1-15 (“Does 1–15”) are unknown District agents

sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known to Plaintiff.

Does 1–15 are District agents who were aware of the substantial risk of abuse or harassment by

David Brandon and whose conduct played a causal role in Plaintiff’s injuries. Upon a

determination of their true identities, Plaintiff will supplement and amend her pleadings to reflect

the same.

10. Defendant Jewell School District and Defendants Hunsaker, Smyth, Phillips, and

Does 1–15 when acting variously at relevant times in their official capacities on behalf of Jewell

School District or Jewell School, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “District

Defendants.”

11. Defendants Hunsaker, Smyth, Phillips, and one or more of Does 1–15, when

Page 4—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 5 of 53

acting variously in their individual capacities on behalf of the Jewell School District or Jewell

School, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Supervisory Defendants.”

12. District Defendants and Supervisory Defendants shall hereinafter be collectively

referred to as the “Defendants,” unless the context clearly alleges otherwise.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

13. Defendant Jewell School District hired David Michael Brandon as a shop teacher

early in the 2014–2015 school year. Brandon had no experience as a shop teacher and was not

certified to teach a technical education class, Instead, Brandon had an “emergency teaching

license.” Brandon ultimately taught numerous classes at Jewell School District as a full-time

teacher between 2014 and his departure in 2019. As a teacher at the school, Defendant Jewell

School District empowered Brandon to perform all duties of a District staff member, including

supervising, disciplining, and developing rapport and relationships with District students,

including Plaintiff.

14. As alleged in further detail below, Defendants possessed extensive notice that

Brandon posed an ongoing danger to the District’s students, including knowledge that Brandon

had engaged in illegal conduct with multiple students and had committed numerous

unconstitutional acts of misconduct, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse.

Defendants chose to continuously retain Brandon until Defendants allowed Brandon to quietly

resign after the 2018–2019 school year, despite Defendants having extensive notice of Brandon’s

dangerousness towards female students, including Plaintiff, prior to and during his abuse of

Plaintiff. Defendants allowed Brandon to quietly resign despite knowing that he was likely to

seek new employment as a teacher—which he did—taking a position teaching at Hilda Lahti

Elementary in Knappa, Oregon.

Page 5—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 6 of 53

15. Brandon was arrested in 2021 for charges stemming from his abuse of Plaintiff. In

January of 2022, Brandon was indicted for his abuse of Plaintiff, including five counts of rape in

the third degree, one count of sodomy in the third degree, four counts of sexual abuse in the third

degree, five counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, and charges related to providing drugs to

minor students from Jewell School. In March of 2023, Brandon entered a plea and was convicted

of numerous counts related to his sexual abuse of and misconduct towards Plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS LEARN OF BRANDON’S DANGEROUSNESS TOWARDS STUDENTS

SHORTLY AFTER HE STARTS TEACHING AT JEWELL SCHOOL

16. Prior to Brandon’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff beginning in 2016, Defendants

acquired extensive prior notice that Brandon posed an ongoing danger to the District’s female

students. Defendants’ extensive notice included numerous known, corroborated acts of

misconduct towards and harassment of students dating from at least 2014.

17. From approximately 2009–2010, Brandon worked at Jewell School as a student

intern. Brandon returned to employment with Jewell School as a teacher in 2014.

18. Beginning in at least 2014, Jewell School District knew that Brandon was
engaging in boundary violations and misconduct with students and was a danger to students.

Jewell School District retained retired veteran teacher (Paula Jack-Fix) to mentor and provide
corrective oversight to Brandon in his classroom. Jack-Fix worked as a teacher for thirty years in

the Beaverton School District before mentoring Brandon for several years between

approximately the Fall of 2014 to the Spring of 2017.

19. Upon commencing her work with David Brandon, Jack-Fix quickly became

concerned about Brandon’s dangerousness towards students, including for the following reasons:

a. Jack-Fix observed Brandon isolating female students alone in a small room within

the shop classroom with him on multiple occasions. Jack-Fix repeatedly

Page 6—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 7 of 53

confronted Brandon about his behavior and directly told him that it was

inappropriate for him to isolate himself with a female student. Jack-Fix reported

every incident to the District administration. During each report, Jack-Fix told

District administrators that she was concerned about Brandon’s behavior and that

his behavior violated appropriate teacher-student boundaries;

b. Jack-Fix observed Brandon allowing and encouraging students to engage in

conduct that posed an obvious threat to their physical safety;

c. In the Spring of 2015, Jack-Fix informed Superintendent Hunsaker and one or

more other administrators that Superintendent Hunsaker should arrange for closer

supervision and monitoring of Brandon conduct within his classroom. At least

part of the reason for this recommendation was concern about Brandon’s

boundary violations with minor students.

d. After the Summer of 2015, Jack-Fix informed Superintendent Hunsaker to review

Brandon’s licensure because he had yet to receive the proper teaching

certifications that he was to obtain that year. On information and belief, at least

part of the reason for this recommendation was concern about Brandon’s

boundary violations with minor students.

e. Before the Summer of 2016, Jack-Fix notified Superintendent Hunsaker and

Principal Smyth that she did not believe Brandon was safe to be teaching at Jewell

School and that she had concerns for students’ safety based on Brandon’s

presence at the school. Jack-Fix expressly told Hunsaker and one or more other

administrators that Brandon should not be teaching at Jewell School and

recommended that should be terminated.

Page 7—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 8 of 53

f. By the Spring of 2017, Jack-Fix had expressed concerns to Jewell School

administrators on at least five or six separate occasions regarding Brandon’s lack

of judgment, poor boundaries, lack of professionalism, and danger to students.

Despite Jack-Fix’s reports to the District, the District did not terminate Brandon

and did not make any effective or meaningful changes in its supervision,

monitoring, or discipline or restrict Brandon’s access to or authority over minor

students at Jewell School.

20. Between approximately the Fall of 2014 and the Spring of 2019, in addition to the

aforementioned reports by Jack-Fix, various other Jewell School administrators, teachers, and

staff received information on multiple occasions indicating that Brandon was a danger to

students and engaging in misconduct and other illegal behavior, including allowing the open use

of illegal drugs in his classroom, providing illegal drugs to students on and off campus, and

enlisting minor students to sell illegal drugs to other students. For example:

a. Jewell School District administrators received reports about concerns that

Brandon was observed sitting too close to female students as they worked at

computer stations in the shop area.

b. The concerns about Brandon’s interactions with female students escalated to the

point that the District counseled Brandon on maintaining appropriate distance

when working with students and how to keep the doors to his classroom open.

c. Principal Smyth evaluated and observed Brandon’s classroom performance

several times over approximately three years while Brandon was a probationary

teacher. Smyth observed that Brandon, in general, exhibited a lack of professional

judgment, was too comfortable with minor students, and was too loose in his

classroom management.

Page 8—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 9 of 53

d. A staff member at Jewell School received reports during the 2015–2016 school

year that Brandon was smoking and selling marijuana to students. The staff

member passed the reports to Superintendent Hunsaker and other administrators.

21. Upon information and belief, Brandon openly communicated with other students

via text message during and outside of school hours. Brandon also took students off campus and

on road trips, sometimes under the guise of working on school projects.

22. Taken together, the information set out in paragraph 16–21 indicated to the

Defendants that, prior to any of the abuse suffered by Plaintiff (as set out below), Brandon was

engaged in boundary violations, misconduct, harassment, and grooming behavior towards

students indicating a danger to students. Despite this knowledge, the District retained Brandon as

a teacher and held him out to its students and parents as a safe, trustworthy authority figure for

youth.

23. Defendants’ decision to retain Brandon directly enabled him to continue his

boundary violations towards, grooming of, and sexual harassment of District female students,

including Plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS HAVE EXTENSIVE ONGOING NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUSNESS

POSED BY BRANDON AS HE GROOMS AND ABUSES PLAINTIFF

24. At all times material herein, the District Defendants selected, approved, and

retained Brandon as a public high school teacher at Jewell School. As a public high school

teacher for Defendants, Brandon acted as the agent of the District Defendants, agreeing to act on

the District Defendants’ behalf and under their control, and with the District Defendants’ assent

to Brandon acting on their behalf. As a public high school teacher for Defendants, Brandon was

empowered to educate, supervise, discipline, befriend, and mentor the District’s students

attending Jewell School, including Plaintiff. Brandon provided these services to Plaintiff on

Page 9—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 10 of 53

behalf of the District Defendants.

25. The District Defendants empowered Brandon to perform all duties of a public

high school teacher, including educating, supervising, disciplining, befriending, and mentoring

the District’s students attending Jewell School, including Plaintiff, and to perform any other

duties of a public high school teacher not specifically mentioned. The District Defendants knew

that as part of his duties as a public high school teacher, Brandon would be in a position of trust,

confidence, respect, and authority over District students attending Jewell School, including

Plaintiff. At all times material herein, the District Defendants retained the right to control the

means and methods used by Brandon in fulfilling his duties as a public high school teacher. In

addition, or in the alternative, the District Defendants caused Plaintiff to believe that the District

Defendants consented to having Brandon act on their behalf, and in all of Plaintiff’s interactions

with Brandon, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon her belief that the District Defendants consented

to having Brandon act on their behalf. The services of Brandon for and to the District Defendants

made him an agent and/or apparent agent of the District Defendants.

26. Plaintiff first met Brandon in his role as a teacher in the 2014–2015 school year

when Plaintiff was in seventh grade. Over time, Brandon’s duties towards Plaintiff as her teacher

expanded. When Plaintiff was a sophomore at Jewell School, Brandon was assigned as one of

Plaintiff’s teachers. When Plaintiff was a junior at Jewell School, Brandon was assigned as

Plaintiff’s teacher for three separate classes. Additionally, Brandon eventually encouraged

Plaintiff to serve as his teacher’s assistant (“TA”) and District Defendants affirmatively assigned

Plaintiff as Brandon’s teacher’s assistant. Eventually, through his position as a teacher with

Jewell School District, Brandon was spending multiple hours of each school day with Plaintiff.

27. Throughout the course of Plaintiff’s education within the Jewell School District,

District Defendants were aware of difficulties in Plaintiff’s personal life that made her

Page 10—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 11 of 53

vulnerable, particularly to boundary violations, grooming, advance, harassment, and abuse by a

trusted teacher. For example, during Plaintiff’s freshman year of high school, Plaintiff

experienced a family crisis and was out of school for several weeks. After Plaintiff returned, she

struggled with emotional issues. Plaintiff’s father communicated Plaintiff’s struggles and

vulnerability to Jewell School administrators and staff. Based on the information known to

District Defendants, it was foreseeable to Defendants that a sexual abuser would target Plaintiff,

given her vulnerabilities.

28. While working for the District at Jewell School, and at least in part for the

purpose of furthering his assigned duties as a public high school teacher for the District

Defendants, Brandon sought and gained Plaintiff’s respect, admiration, friendship, and

obedience; sought and gained Plaintiff’s trust and confidence as an authority figure and mentor

to Plaintiff; and sought and gained the permission, acquiescence, and support of Plaintiff’s

parents to spend substantial periods of time alone with Plaintiff. Defendants also instructed

Plaintiff to trust, obey, and have respect for all school and District staff, including Brandon. As a

result, Plaintiff was conditioned to trust Brandon, to comply with Brandon’s direction, and to

respect Brandon as a person of authority. This course of conduct, as further described and

alleged below, is hereinafter referred to as “Grooming.”

29. Beginning in the 2016–2017 school year, Brandon, who was thirty-nine (39) years

old at the time, began Grooming Plaintiff, then a fourteen (14) year-old freshman.

30. Specifically, Brandon began observably Grooming Plaintiff through escalating

acts of special individualized attention, including:

a. Sitting and talking with Plaintiff one-on-one for long periods of time;

b. Talking about personal and intimate subjects with Plaintiff, including during

Page 11—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 12 of 53

classes;

c. Giving Plaintiff rides in his car to and from the school’s campus;

d. Exchanging handwritten personal notes with Plaintiff at school, and during school

hours;

e. Exchanging gifts with Plaintiff at school;

f. Meeting Plaintiff for one-on-one conversation at various locations on the school’s

campus;

g. Having regular one-on-one lunches with Plaintiff in his classroom;

h. Engaging Plaintiff in private personal phone calls;

i. Engaging with Plaintiff through private personal text messages, including during

the school day;

j. Engaging with Plaintiff through private social media messages; and

k. Allowing and encouraging Plaintiff to spend significant amounts of time alone

with Brandon in his classroom.

31. Brandon engaged Plaintiff in these acts of Grooming openly, and much of his

conduct was observable—and was observed—by Jewell School teachers, staff, and students. Yet,

Defendants undertook no action, follow-up, or investigation to end, mitigate, or prevent the

foreseeable and ongoing harms being inflicted on Plaintiff despite having extensive prior notice

of the danger Brandon posed to female students, including Plaintiff.

32. Defendants affirmatively acted to enable and encourage Plaintiff’s consistent

Page 12—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 13 of 53

exposure to Brandon’s known dangerousness, adopting a policy or practice of allowing

Brandon’s Grooming to continue unsupervised and unabated.

33. As alleged in paragraphs 30–32 above, Brandon’s acts of Grooming, (1) were

undertaken in furtherance of duties within the course and scope of his agency with, and on behalf

of, the District Defendants, (2) were actively encouraged and approved of by Defendants’ actions

and policy decisions, and (3) directly led to or resulted in the eventual escalation of Brandon’s

ongoing predation of Plaintiff to the point of intimate, physical, sexual abuse.

34. Starting on or around April 1, 2017, Brandon, while acting within the course and

scope of his actual or apparent agency for the District Defendants, and using his authority and

position of trust as a public high school teacher—through the Grooming process—induced and

directed Plaintiff, a minor, to engage in numerous acts of physical sexual contact, including

groping, digital penetration of Plaintiff’s vagina, mutual acts of oral sex, penetrative vaginal

intercourse, as well as BDSM practices (including subjecting Plaintiff to bondage and whipping).

Brandon committed these various acts of physical and sexual abuse on more than one hundred

separate occasions. As set out further below, these acts constitute multiple counts by Brandon of

sexual battery, each intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Plaintiff. Some of those acts

of sexual abuse were as follows:

a. Between approximately April 1, 2017, and May 30, 2017, the first incident of

abuse occurred and involved Brandon trying to kiss Plaintiff in his classroom.

Plaintiff was confused by the interaction and left the area. The next day, Brandon

tried again to kiss Plaintiff; this time, he succeeded. Brandon’s abuse of Plaintiff

quickly escalated. Within that same day, Brandon coerced Plaintiff to perform

oral sex on him and engage in vaginal intercourse in his classroom during school

hours. Brandon’s abuse continued during this time and included other instances of

Page 13—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 14 of 53

oral sex and sexual intercourse, including in the shop classroom at Jewell School,

Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s residence. Plaintiff was fourteen (14) years

old.

b. Between approximately June 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017, the abuse involved

groping, digital penetration, oral sex, and sexual intercourse, including in the shop

classroom at Jewell School, in Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s residence.

c. Between approximately August 1, 2017, and September 30, 2017, the abuse

involved groping, digital penetration, oral sex, and sexual intercourse, including

in the shop classroom at Jewell School, Brandon’s residence, Brandon’s truck,

and Plaintiff’s residence.

d. Between approximately October 1, 2017, and November 30, 2017, the abuse

involved groping, digital penetration, oral sex, and sexual intercourse, including

in the shop classroom at Jewell School, in Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s

residence.

e. Between approximately December 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018, the abuse

involved oral sex and sexual intercourse, including in the shop classroom at

Jewell School, in Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s residence.

f. Between approximately February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018, the abuse

involved oral sex and sexual intercourse, including in the shop classroom at

Jewell School, in Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s residence.

g. Between approximately April 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018, the abuse involved oral

sex and sexual intercourse, including in the shop classroom at Jewell School, in

Brandon’s truck, and at Brandon’s residence.

Page 14—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 15 of 53

h. Between approximately June 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018, the abuse involved oral

sex, sexual intercourse including BDSM practices, and the use of sex toys that

Brandon kept in the shop classroom at Jewell School, in Brandon’s truck and at

Brandon’s residence including, but not limited to, bondages, blindfolds, and

whips.

i. Between approximately August 1, 2018, and September 30, 2018, the abuse

involved oral sex, sexual intercourse (including BDSM practices like bondage,

blindfolds, and whips, and the use of sex toys that Brandon kept in the shop

classroom at Jewell School), including in Brandon’s truck and at Brandon’s

residence.

j. Between approximately October 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, the abuse

involved oral sex, sexual intercourse (including BDSM practices like bondage,

blindfolds, and whips, and the use of sex toys that Brandon kept in the shop

classroom at Jewell School), including in Brandon’s truck and at Brandon’s

residence.

k. Further similar acts of sexual abuse continued into 2019.

35. After Brandon started abusing Plaintiff, information about Brandon’s relationship

with Plaintiff was discussed widely throughout Jewell School and was known to Jewell School

District administrators and staff. For example, Jewell School District administrators and staff

knew the following:

a. Multiple students and staff observed and commented upon the unusual and

extensive amount of one-on-one time that Brandon was spending with Plaintiff;

b. A Jewell School staff member heard comments and reports from students that

Page 15—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 16 of 53

Brandon was “too close” to Plaintiff.

c. Multiple students and faculty members noticed and reported that Brandon “spent

an unusual amount of time with Plaintiff” and that “she seemed close to him.”

d. Students and School staff expressed their conclusion that Brandon was involved

in an inappropriate personal relationship with Plaintiff

e. District staff regularly observed Brandon taking Plaintiff off campus in his car or

returning to campus with Plaintiff in his car. Staff members, including the Jewell

School maintenance staff member, reported this to District administrators

(including Smyth).

f. During the 2018–2019 school year, a Jewell School District maintenance staff

member witnessed a concerning intimate interaction between Brandon and

Plaintiff. Specifically, the maintenance staff member went into Brandon's

classroom for a maintenance-related purpose and found Brandon alone with

Plaintiff in his classroom. Brandon was very closely beneath Plaintiff, looking

directly up her skirt at her genitals and flirting with Plaintiff. The Jewell School

maintenance staff member was very concerned about what he observed,

concluded it amounted to misconduct and policy violations by Brandon towards

Plaintiff and quickly reported this incident directly to Superintendent Hunsaker.

g. Brandon also regularly took Plaintiff off campus to various locations, including

lunch, during the school day. On one or more occasions, Brandon was observed

by District staff with Plaintiff at locations off-campus during the school day. On

one occasion, Brandon was observed with Plaintiff and another minor female

student at lunchtime at a local cemetery.

Page 16—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 17 of 53

h. Principal Smyth witnessed Brandon driving Plaintiff home from school on

multiple occasions. Principal Smyth told Brandon that Brandon was not allowed

to drive students off campus and that there was a policy against such behavior.

i. The District’s concerns grew to the point where they even installed cameras in the

shop room and warned Brandon that he was under “extra scrutiny.”

j. In the Fall of 2018, during a drop-in, Superintendent Hunsaker and Executive

Administrator Phillips found Brandon alone, behind closed doors with two minor

female students (including Plaintiff) in clear violation of school policy. Shortly

thereafter, school administrators caught Brandon again behind closed doors,

alone, with Plaintiff in clear violation of school policy. District Defendants took

no immediate meaningful action to restrict Brandon or protect minor students

from the known danger he posed.

k. On November 16, 2018, Phillips issued a written “official reprimand” based on

concerns regarding Brandon’s inappropriate interactions with students. Phillips

interviewed multiple students from Brandon’s classroom who corroborated

concerns about Brandon's boundary violations and inappropriate conduct towards

students. Among the concerns was Brandon spending most of the instructional

period behind closed doors in his private office with female students (one of

whom was Plaintiff). Even then, District Defendants did not take decisive action

to restrict Brandon’s access to minor students or to otherwise prevent harm to

Plaintiff or other students.

36. As set out above, prior to many of the instances of physical and sexual abuse

Plaintiff suffered, Defendants had extensive information Brandon’s dangerousness towards

female students. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of this information, neither the District,

Page 17—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 18 of 53

Superintendent Hunsaker, Principal Smyth, Executive Administrator/Superintendent Phillips, nor

any other District staff reported this information to the proper authorities, undertook any further

investigation, made any effort to warn Plaintiff or her parents of the danger Brandon posed to

her, nor made any attempt otherwise to end, mitigate, or prevent Brandon’s ongoing sexual abuse

of Plaintiff. Instead, the District maintained Brandon in his position and agreed to allow Brandon

to quietly resign and finish out the school year without restrictions or warning to students or

parents. As a result, on information and belief, Brandon sexually harassed other minor female

students at Jewell School as well.

37. On December 20, 2018, Brandon submitted a written letter of intent to resign six

months later at the end of the 2018–2019 school year. The resignation letter was devoid of any

reference to his repeated improper conduct and instead only referenced that he had “fallen back

in love with [teaching] English” and his desire to “focus . . . [his] career inside a middle or high

school ELA/social studies classroom.”

38. Defendant Jewell School District, by allowing Brandon to remain on staff and in a

position of trust and authority (despite knowing that he posed a danger to students), kept

Brandon in a position with access and authority over vulnerable minor students (including

Plaintiff). As a result, Brandon predictably continued to repeatedly and severely sexually harass

and abuse Plaintiff throughout that year.

39. To continue his sexual abuse of Plaintiff and maintain her compliance and

secrecy, Brandon also began plying Plaintiff with drugs. Brandon first offered Plaintiff marijuana

at school. Over time, he also began plying her with Adderall, Xanax, and then cocaine,

oftentimes on campus and during school hours. Plaintiff became dependent upon certain of the

drugs provided to her by Brandon and thereby became further reliant upon Brandon to provide

her continued access to these drugs. Over time, Brandon further manipulated Plaintiff and

Page 18—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 19 of 53

maintained her compliance with and secrecy about the sexual abuse by coercing Plaintiff to sell

drugs to her peers, including on campus and during school hours. Brandon required Plaintiff to

deliver the proceeds from the drug sales to him and thereby profited from these activities. This

conduct gave Brandon further control over Plaintiff based on both the risk of Brandon exposing

Plaintiff’s conduct and by inculcating a feeling of complicity on Plaintiff’s behalf.

40. Without the District’s help, Plaintiff was left to end the sexual abuse herself. She

did so in approximately early 2019. Even thereafter, Brandon continued to pursue Plaintiff at

school, massaging her neck and back, touching her, attempting to kiss her, and trying to engage

her in sexual acts. Plaintiff continued to rebuff Brandon and avoid being alone with him.

Brandon conducted this ongoing sexual harassment and abuse in an open and observable manner.

41. On April 1, 2019, a Jewell School District volunteer walking by Brandon’s class

saw Plaintiff smoking marijuana and reported it to the school administration. (Brandon was

absent from the classroom at the time that the students were seen by the volunteer.) A small

group of three female students (including Plaintiff) who regularly used marijuana with Brandon

in his classroom were called into Superintendent Phillips’ office.

42. During that meeting, one of the other girls who was present admitted to vaping

marijuana in Brandon’s classroom but did not go so far as to identify Brandon as the source.

Superintendent Phillips suspended that girl for two days. Plaintiff disclosed to Superintendent

Phillips that it was Brandon who had supplied her with the marijuana vape pen. Thereafter,

Phillips effectively expelled Plaintiff, rescinding an inter-district transfer and forcing Plaintiff to

return to her zoned school in the Vernonia School District.

43. Plaintiff’s father also told Phillips that he believed Brandon supplied the

marijuana to Plaintiff. District Defendants did not take any meaningful action in response to this

information. Instead, District Defendants allowed Brandon to complete the 2018–2019 school

Page 19—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 20 of 53

year.

44. Brandon completed the 2018–2019 school year, after which, on information and

belief, District Defendants engaged in an industry practice known as “passing the trash,”

whereby the District Defendants facilitated Brandon obtaining another teaching job, this time

with grade schoolers at Hilda Lahti Elementary School in the Knappa Public School District,

with no disclosure of the danger he posed.

45. On August 31, 2019, Plaintiff’s father told police that Brandon had supplied the

drugs to Plaintiff. Police opened an investigation.

46. In the Fall of 2019, after both Brandon and Plaintiff had left Jewell School, the

new shop teacher at Jewell School found in the shop classroom what appeared to be a love letter.

Further investigation revealed the letters were from Brandon to Plaintiff. In the letter, Brandon

lecherously comments to Plaintiff about, among other things, the following: “Your lips . . . your

legs. Your hands (And what you do with them) . . . Your soft skin . . . Your curves. Your moans.

Your wetness . . . Your breasts. Your ‘fuck me’ look . . . Your scent . . . Your taste . . .Your

commitment to make your partner cum. Your blow jobs.”

47. Throughout the period of Brandon’s boundary violations, harassment, and

grooming of Plaintiff while Plaintiff attended Jewell School, much of which was observable,

occurred within view of the Defendants, the Defendants (1) failed to question Brandon about the

nature of his relationship with Plaintiff, (2) failed to investigate comments and reports that

Brandon had an intimate relationship with Plaintiff, (3) failed to report reasonable suspicion of

child abuse of Plaintiff to police or state authorities, and (4) failed to create and enforce an

appropriate boundary between Brandon and students, including Plaintiff. In so doing, Defendants

acted with deliberate indifference to the safety of students, including Plaintiff, and/or tacitly

authorized Brandon’s misconduct to continue.

Page 20—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 21 of 53

48. On November 24, 2021, Brandon was arrested and charged with five (5) counts of

Rape in the Third Degree, nine (9) counts of Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree, one (1) count of

Sodomy in the Third Degree, and five (5) counts of Unlawful Delivery of a Marijuana Item.

49. Defendants failed to provide, offer, recommend, or coordinate any health,

psychological, counseling, and/ or academic assistance or services of any kind to Plaintiff to

address, remedy, or mitigate any of the harms she suffered as a result of Brandon’s sexual abuse.

50. Defendants further failed to address any needed policy changes or to terminate or

discipline any District board, administrative, or teaching personnel as a result of Brandon’s

sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

51. On March 28. 2023, Brandon pled guilty and was convicted of the following

crimes for his conduct towards Plaintiff: two (2) counts of Rape in the Third Degree, one (1)

count of Sodomy in the Third Degree, and one (1) count of Unlawful Delivery of a Marijuana

Item.

52. As a result of Brandon’s sexual abuse, molestation, and breach of authority, trust,

and position as Defendants’ teacher and agent, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer in the future:

severe and debilitating mental and emotional injury, including but not limited to pain and

suffering, emotional trauma, inner turmoil, profound confusion, shame, guilt, anxiety, stress, fear

for her personal safety, low self-esteem, depression, suicidal ideation, chronic post-traumatic

stress disorder, sexual dysfunction, feelings of uselessness, feeling unwanted, social isolation,

embarrassment, avoidance, denial, obsessive behaviors, anger, issues with authority,

hypervigilance, and distrust of others. All of the aforementioned injuries have caused and will

cause Plaintiff non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

53. As an additional result and consequence of Brandon’s sexual abuse, molestation,

Page 21—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 22 of 53

and breach of authority, trust, and position as Defendants’ teacher and agent, Plaintiff has

incurred, and/or will incur in the future, costs for psychotherapy, psychological evaluations,

psychiatric care, substance abuse treatment, and similar medical treatment. All the

aforementioned injuries have caused and will cause Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.

54. Each of Plaintiff’s claims set out herein are timely for one or more of the

following reasons:

a. Any limitations periods applicable to Plaintiff’s claims were tolled based on

minority;

b. Any limitations periods applicable to Plaintiff’s claims were tolled based on a

disabling mental condition;

c. Any limitations periods applicable to Plaintiff’s claims were tolled by an

agreement on behalf of Defendants;

d. Any limitations periods applicable to Plaintiff’s claims are equitably tolled or

Defendants are equitably estopped from attacking Plaintiff’s claims on timeliness

grounds;

e. Less than two years have elapsed since Plaintiff discovered that the conduct by

Brandon was harmful or offensive;

f. Less than two years have elapsed since Plaintiff discovered her injuries and the

causal role that conduct by Defendants played in her injuries;

g. Plaintiff is under 40 years old and therefore her claims are timely under ORS

12.117;

Page 22—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 23 of 53

h. To the extent notice of claim was required under ORS 30.275, Plaintiff timely

provided such notice on or about May 25, 2023, less than 180 days after

discovering that she had been injured and that there was a substantial possibility

that the injury was caused by the conduct of Defendants.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – State-Created Danger

(As against all Defendants)

55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 54 hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

56. The Defendants, with deliberate indifference, exposed Plaintiff to Brandon’s

long-known and ongoing pattern of Grooming, boundary violations, and overtly predatory

behavior toward the District’s female students.

57. The Defendants’ deliberately indifferent exposure of Plaintiff to Brandon, as a

teacher known to harbor sexual interest in his minor female students (including a known sexual

interest in Plaintiff), affirmatively placed Plaintiff into the state-created danger of sexual abuse

by Brandon.

58. As a result of the Defendants’ deliberate indifference to their state-created danger

of sexual abuse, Plaintiff did in fact suffer numerous acts of sexual abuse by Brandon from

approximately 2017 into 2019.

59. The Defendants, under color of state law, subjected Plaintiff to the deprivation of

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, specifically Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment interest in bodily integrity and security from violation by state actors, in violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Page 23—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 24 of 53

60. As a direct result of her exposure by the Defendants to their state-created danger

of sexual abuse by Brandon, Plaintiff incurred economic and non-economic damages and is

entitled to an award of compensatory damages against the Defendants in an amount to be

determined by a jury, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.

61. The actions of the Defendants, as alleged in paragraphs 55–60, were deliberately

indifferent to, and in callous disregard of, Plaintiff’s physical safety and civil rights.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against the Defendants in an

amount to be determined by a jury.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Claims

(As Against the District Defendants)

62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

63. This claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of

Constitutional rights arising from Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment interest in bodily integrity

and security from violation by state actors, including public school teachers.

64. District Defendants are liable for the violations of Plaintiff's Constitutional rights

pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the District.

65. The “moving forces” that resulted in the violation of Plaintiff's rights included the

following:

a. A policy, custom, or practice of not providing or enforcing training of all District

staff members on how to identify, investigate, report, and prevent grooming,

boundary violations, or other predatory behavior;

Page 24—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 25 of 53

b. A policy, custom, or practice of not adopting sufficient policies and procedures as

to how to identify, investigate, report, and prevent grooming, boundary violations,

and predatory behavior;

c. A policy, custom, or practice of not implementing or enforcing existing policies,

procedures, or training as to how to identify, investigate, report, and prevent

grooming, boundary violations, harassment, and predatory behavior;

d. A policy, custom, or practice of not reporting, tacitly authorizing, or otherwise

ignoring substantiated reports and other information indicating ongoing

Constitutional deprivations, including sexual harassment and sexual contact by

staff toward students;

e. A policy, custom, or practice of not investigating, corroborating, communicating,

adequately documenting, or retaining reports and rumors of suspected, ongoing

sexual misconduct or abuse of students by staff;

f. A policy, custom, or practice of concealing and not warning students and parents

about known dangers to students of sexual misconduct, harassment, and abuse

posed by certain teachers or other staff members, including Brandon;

g. A policy, custom, or practice of retaining teachers or staff members known to

have already engaged in serious boundary violations, grooming behavior, sexual

harassment, or sexual abuse of students, even after reprimand;

h. A policy, custom, or practice of allowing or encouraging students to spend

extensive time with teachers or staff members alone and unsupervised, and

without any educational purpose, even when on extensive notice that the teacher

in question is unsafe to be around minors; and,

Page 25—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 26 of 53

i. A policy, custom, or practice of not providing training to all District students and

parents on the dangers to students of child sexual abuse, including how to identify

and protect against grooming, boundary violations, harassment, and other

predatory behavior.

66. These policies, customs, or practices are attributable to the District through the

decisions of its lawfully authorized officers or agents who repeatedly adopted such policies,

customs, and practices in the face of repeated instances of notice about incidents of grooming,

boundary violations, harassment, predatory behavior, and sexual conduct by staff towards

students by Brandon and, on information and belief, by other District teachers, administrators,

and staff.

67. The above-alleged policies, customs, or practices of the District Defendants posed

a substantial, known risk of causing significant harm to students, including Plaintiff.

68. As a direct and proximate result of these policies, customs, or practices, Plaintiff

suffered sexual abuse, which constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment interest

in bodily integrity and security from violation by state actors, including public school teachers.

69. As a direct result of the above-alleged policies, customs, or practices of the

District Defendants, Plaintiff was sexually abused by Brandon and suffered severe mental and

emotional distress. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages

against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury, plus her necessary and

reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action.

70. The actions of the District Defendants, as alleged in paragraphs – above, were

deliberately indifferent to, and in callous disregard of, Plaintiff’s physical safety and civil rights.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against the District Defendants

Page 26—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 27 of 53

in an amount to be determined by a jury.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Supervisory Liability

COUNT ONE
(As Against Defendant Alice Hunsaker)

71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 70 hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

72. By at least 2017, prior to Brandon’s Grooming and sexual abuse of Plaintiff,

District Superintendent Hunsaker, in her individual, supervisory capacity, acquired notice of the

following regarding her subordinate Brandon:

a. That Brandon was engaged in a continuing pattern of depriving female District

students of their constitutionally protected interests in bodily security by engaging

in boundary violations, grooming and/or sexual harassment of students.

b. That Brandon had begun to commit these acts by at least 2014;

c. That, between 2014 and 2017, Brandon had been confronted by school

administrators for numerous reported, documented, corroborated, and

unconstitutional deprivations of the rights of multiple female District students;

d. That Brandon was, nevertheless, retained as a teacher at Jewell School, posing a

continuing threat to the Constitutionally protected interests of female District

students;

e. That Brandon’s mentor Paula Jack-Fix recommended to Superintendent Hunsaker

that Brandon be terminated, based on Jack-Fix’s fear and prediction that his
Page 27—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 28 of 53

continued retention would enable, and likely result in, danger to the bodily

integrity of female students;

f. That Superintendent Hunsaker nevertheless retained Brandon, imposing no

supervisory measures or other conditions in response to the known ongoing

danger he posed to the District’s female students;

g. That other District administrators who spoke with Hunsaker personally on the

issue knew that Brandon posed a continuing and immediate danger to female

students of grooming, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse.

73. In addition to the above-alleged instances of prior notice of Brandon’s

dangerousness and misconduct, Supervisory Defendant Hunsaker, in her individual and

supervisory capacity, also acquired actual knowledge that Brandon’s inappropriate and predatory

conduct constituted a specific threat to current female District students, and specifically to

Plaintiff herself.

74. Supervisory Defendant Hunsaker had actual knowledge of Brandon’s threat to

Plaintiff specifically, based at least on the following instances of overt and observable conduct:

a. Brandon engaged in intimate one-on-one conversations with Plaintiff during

school hours and events;

b. Brandon spent an inordinate amount of time around Plaintiff for no educational

purpose, including unsupervised time in his classroom during and outside of class

hours, as well as off-campus;

c. That Defendants encouraged and allowed Plaintiff to spend time with Brandon

alone and isolated in his classroom for no educational purpose;

Page 28—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 29 of 53

d. Prior to most or all of Brandon’s physical and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, multiple

students had notified numerous District personnel of their concerns regarding

Brandon’s inappropriate relationship with Plaintiff;

e. During the course of Brandon’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff, it was generally known

amongst District staff and students that Brandon was “too close” to Plaintiff, that

Brandon spent an unusual amount of time with Plaintiff, and that Brandon seemed

close to Plaintiff. This resulted in a widespread conclusion among the school

community that Brandon and Plaintiff were involved in an inappropriate, intimate

relationship.

f. That Brandon was taking female students off school premises in his car, including

Plaintiff;

g. Superintendent Hunsaker received reports about concerns that Brandon was

observed sitting too close to female students during class time;

h. Superintendent Hunsaker had concerns about Brandon’s interactions with female

students, including inappropriate proximity to and in seclusion with female

students in his classroom;

i. Superintendent Hunsaker and Executive Administrator Phillips found Brandon

behind closed doors with female students (one of which was Plaintiff) on multiple

occasions;

j. That Superintendent Hunsaker was aware of reports from multiple students from

Brandon’s classroom who corroborated concerns about Brandon's boundary

violations and inappropriate interactions with students, including that Brandon

spent the vast majority of the class period in his private office with female

Page 29—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 30 of 53

students (one of whom was Plaintiff);

k. Superintendent Hunsaker received reports from District staff members about

observations of inappropriate conduct by Brandon towards Plaintiff, including the

report by a Jewell School maintenance worker about Brandon being too close to

Plaintiff while staring up her skirt at her genitals and flirting with Plaintiff.

75. Based on this knowledge, Hunsaker knew Brandon was engaged in conduct that

posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to District female students,

including Plaintiff specifically.

76. Instead of (1) terminating Brandon based on his above-alleged notice of

Brandon’s ongoing and un-remediated boundary violations, grooming, sexual conduct,

harassment, and abuse of female students (including of Plaintiff specifically), or even (2)

imposing on Brandon any supervisory safeguards or accountability, Supervisory Defendant

Hunsaker took no action at all to limit Brandon’s access to Plaintiff, or to otherwise stop

Brandon’s ongoing deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

77. As a direct, inexorable result of the actions and inactions of Supervisory

Defendant Hunsaker discussed above, Plaintiff was exposed to a known, grave risk of harm

endured and suffered severe emotional distress. The actions and inactions of Supervisory

Defendant Hunsaker were deliberately indifferent to the civil rights of Plaintiff and callously

disregarded her physical safety. Accordingly, punitive damages against Supervisory Defendant

Hunsaker should be awarded in an amount to be determined by a jury.

78. Plaintiff is entitled to her necessary and reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred in the prosecution of this action.

Page 30—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 31 of 53

COUNT TWO
(As Against Defendant Terrance Smyth)

79. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

80. Supervisory Defendant Smyth, in his individual, supervisory capacity as Jewell

School principal, had actual knowledge that Brandon’s inappropriate and predatory conduct

constituted a specific threat to students, including to Plaintiff. Smyth was on notice of at least the

following, based on Brandon’s following overt and observable conduct:

a. Brandon engaged in intimate one-on-one conversations with Plaintiff, including

on campus during school hours and events;

b. Brandon spent an inordinate amount of time around Plaintiff for no educational

purpose, including unsupervised time in his classroom during and outside of class

hours, as well as off-campus;

c. That Defendants encouraged and allowed Plaintiff to spend time with Brandon

alone and isolated in his classroom for no educational purpose;

d. Principal Smyth witnessed Brandon driving Plaintiff home from school. Principal

Smyth told Brandon that Brandon was not allowed to drive students off campus

and that there was a policy against such behavior.

e. Principal Smyth evaluated and observed Brandon’s classroom performance

several times over approximately three years while Brandon was a probationary

teacher. Smyth observed that Brandon, in general, exhibited a lack of professional

judgment, was too comfortable with minor students, and was too loose in his

classroom management.

Page 31—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 32 of 53

f. Prior to most or all of Brandon’s physical and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, multiple

students had notified numerous District personnel of their concerns regarding

Brandon’s inappropriate relationship with Plaintiff;

g. During the course of Brandon’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff, it was generally known

amongst District staff and students that Brandon was “too close” to Plaintiff, that

Brandon spent an unusual amount of time with Plaintiff, and that Brandon seemed

close to Plaintiff. This resulted in a widespread conclusion among the school

community that Brandon and Plaintiff were involved in an inappropriate, intimate

relationship.

81. Based on this knowledge, Smyth knew Brandon was engaged in conduct that

posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to District female students,

including Plaintiff specifically.

82. Instead of (1) terminating Brandon based on his above-alleged notice of

Brandon’s ongoing and un-remediated boundary violations, grooming, sexual conduct towards

female students (including of Plaintiff specifically), or even (2) imposing on Brandon any

supervisory safeguards or accountability, Supervisory Defendant Smyth took no action at all to

limit Brandon’s access to Plaintiff, or to otherwise stop Brandon’s ongoing deprivations of

Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

83. As a direct, inexorable result of Smyth’s actions and inactions discussed above,

Plaintiff was exposed to a known, grave risk of harm endured and suffered severe physical and

emotional distress. Smyth’s actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff’s

civil rights and callously disregarded her physical safety. Accordingly, punitive damages should

be awarded against Supervisory Defendant Smyth in an amount to be determined by a jury.

Page 32—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 33 of 53

84. Plaintiff is entitled to her necessary and reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred in the prosecution of this action.

COUNT THREE
(As Against Defendant Stephen Phillips)

85. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

86. Supervisory Defendant Phillips, in his individual, supervisory capacity as

Executive Administrator and Superintendent of Jewell School District, had actual knowledge that

Brandon’s inappropriate and predatory conduct constituted a specific threat to students, including

to Plaintiff. Phillips was on notice of at least the following, based on Brandon’s following overt

and observable conduct:

a. Brandon engaged in intimate one-on-one conversations with Plaintiff during

school hours and events;

b. Brandon spent an inordinate amount of time around Plaintiff for no educational

purpose, including unsupervised time in his classroom during and outside of class
hours, as well as off-campus;

c. Defendants encouraged and allowed Plaintiff to spend time with Brandon alone

and isolated in his classroom for no educational purpose;

d. Prior to most or all of Brandon’s physical and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, multiple

students had notified numerous District personnel of their concerns regarding

Brandon’s inappropriate relationship with Plaintiff;

e. During the course of Brandon’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff, it was generally known

amongst District staff and students that Brandon was “too close” to Plaintiff, that
Page 33—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 34 of 53

Brandon spent an unusual amount of time with Plaintiff, and that Brandon seemed

close to Plaintiff. This resulted in a widespread conclusion among the school

community that Brandon and Plaintiff were involved in an inappropriate, intimate

relationship.

f. Phillips found Brandon behind closed doors with two female students (one of

whom was Plaintiff). Brandon was warned by administrators; however, shortly

thereafter, he was caught again doing the same thing;

g. Phillips issued a written “official reprimand” based on concerns regarding

Brandon’s interaction with students. Phillips interviewed multiple students from

Brandon’s classroom who corroborated concerns about Brandon. Among the

concerns listed included Brandon spending the vast majority of the period in his

private office with two students (one of whom was Plaintiff);

h. Phillips received reports from students that Plaintiff was smoking marijuana in

Brandon’s class. Phillips functionally expelled Plaintiff, a minor student, for

smoking at school, despite knowing that Brandon provided the marijuana to her.

Phillips did not discipline Brandon;

i. Phillips instituted check-in rotations in Brandon’s classroom due to reports of

misconduct;

j. District administrators concerns about Brandon grew to the point where they

installed cameras in the shop room and warned Brandon that he was under “extra

scrutiny.”

87. Based on this knowledge, Phillips knew Brandon was engaged in conduct that

posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to District female students,

Page 34—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 35 of 53

including Plaintiff specifically.

88. Instead of (1) terminating Brandon based on his above-alleged notice of

Brandon’s ongoing and un-remediated sexual misconduct, harassment, and abuse of female

students (including of Plaintiff specifically), or even (2) imposing on Brandon any supervisory

safeguards or accountability, Supervisory Defendant Phillips took no action at all to limit

Brandon’s access to Plaintiff, or to otherwise stop Brandon’s ongoing deprivations of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

89. As a direct, inexorable result of Phillips’s actions and inactions discussed above,

Plaintiff was exposed to a known, grave risk of harm endured and suffered severe physical and

emotional distress. Phillips’s actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s

civil rights, and callously disregarded her physical safety. Accordingly, punitive damages should

be awarded against Supervisory Defendant Phillips in an amount to be determined by a jury.

90. Plaintiff is entitled to her necessary and reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred in the prosecution of this action.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

(As Against Defendant Jewell School District)

91. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 90 hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

92. Defendant Jewell School District, as a public school district providing a public

education to students within its boundaries, is a recipient of Federal educational funding.

93. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that “[n]o person . . .

shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
Page 35—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 36 of 53

subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance. . . .” This prohibition encompasses sexual harassment and sexual abuse of students by

public school employees.

94. Title IX required that Defendant Jewell School District provide educational

opportunities on an equal basis to Plaintiff, regardless of her gender.

95. Defendant Jewell School District, in the ways alleged further below, violated Title

IX by discriminating against Plaintiff based on gender in that they failed to provide educational

opportunities on an equal basis to Plaintiff, a minor female student, compared to the educational

opportunities provided to minor male students not subject to a known, ongoing danger of sexual

harassment and sexual abuse.

96. Officials within the District with the authority to address gender discrimination

and to institute corrective measures had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of abuse or

harassment of female students by Brandon. Despite this knowledge, Defendant and its officials

failed to take appropriate action to address and prevent the harassment, demonstrating deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s rights under Title IX.

COUNT ONE
Deliberate Indifference to Gender Discrimination, Sexual Discrimination, Harassment, and
Abuse

97. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 96 hereof, as if fully set forth

herein.

98. At least by 2017, Defendant Jewell School District had actual knowledge of

Brandon’s ongoing boundary violations, grooming behavior, sexual harassment, and/or sexual

abuse of female students, including Plaintiff.

99. Defendant Jewell School District subjected Plaintiff to discrimination in her

Page 36—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 37 of 53

education at Jewell School based on her gender in that she suffered boundary violations, sexual

grooming, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse as a condition of her receipt of education at

Jewell School.

100. In light of the known circumstances, Defendant Jewell School District

unreasonably failed to take corrective action to stop Brandon’s ongoing boundary violations,

grooming, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, thereby acting with deliberate

indifference to the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

101. The deliberate indifference, actions, and omissions described above caused

Plaintiff to suffer gender discrimination and the above-alleged criminal and unconstitutional acts

of sexual harassment and sexual abuse by Brandon, which were so severe, pervasive, and

objectively offensive that they effectively barred Plaintiff access to educational opportunities or

benefits.

102. As a direct result of Defendant Jewell School District’s deliberate indifference,

actions, and omissions described above, Plaintiff incurred economic and non-economic damages

and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against Defendant Jewell School District in

an amount to be determined by a jury.

103. Plaintiff is also entitled to her necessary and reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred in the prosecution of this action.

COUNT TWO
Failure to Take Remedial or Corrective Action

104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 103 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

105. Defendant Jewell School District’s obligations under Title IX extend to taking
Page 37—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 38 of 53

steps to prevent the recurrence of known acts of gender discrimination, including sexual

harassment and abuse of students by teachers and other District staff, and to remedy the effects

of such harassment and abuse on a student.

106. By at least early 2019, if not earlier, Defendant Jewell School District had actual

knowledge of Brandon’s ongoing boundary violations, grooming, sexual harassment, and sexual

abuse of Plaintiff.

107. Despite having notice of Brandon’s sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff,

Defendant Jewell School District took no action to correct, address, remedy, or mitigate the

effects on Plaintiff of Brandon’s abuse or to prevent the future occurrence of gender

discrimination and sexual harassment and abuse of students by staff. Defendant Jewell School

District failed to provide, offer, recommend, or coordinate adequate health, psychological,

counseling, and/ or academic assistance or services to Plaintiff to address or mitigate the harm

she suffered.

108. Defendant Jewell School District further failed to address any needed policy

changes to prevent further gender discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual abuse of students

or to terminate or discipline any District, administrative, or teaching personnel as a result of

Brandon’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

109. Defendant Jewell School District failure to take or attempt any remedial or

corrective action in aid of Plaintiff, a victim of known acts of gender discrimination, sexual

harassment, or sexual abuse by a District employee, was deliberately indifferent to the rights and

safety of Plaintiff.

110. In failing, with deliberate indifference, to take or attempt any remedial or

corrective measures in aid of Plaintiff subsequent to learning of Brandon’s gender

Page 38—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 39 of 53

discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, including taking any action to

mitigate or address the harms caused to Plaintiff by Brandon’s abuse, Defendant Jewell School

District left Plaintiff vulnerable to further predations, harassment, and abuse by Brandon,

including the subsequent acts of sexual abuse she, in fact, suffered as alleged above.

111. As a direct result of Defendant Jewell School District’s deliberate indifference,

actions, and omissions described above, Plaintiff suffered gender discrimination and the above-

alleged criminal and unconstitutional acts of sexual harassment and sexual abuse by Brandon,

which were so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that they effectively barred Plaintiff

access to educational opportunities or benefits.

112. As a direct result of Defendant Jewell School District’s deliberate indifference,

actions, and omissions described above, Plaintiff incurred economic and non-economic damages,

and is entitled to an award of compensatory damages against Defendant Jewll School District in

an amount to be determined by a jury, plus her necessary and reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred in the prosecution of this action.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence
(As Against All Defendants)

113. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 112 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

114. Defendants established a special relationship with Plaintiff once Plaintiff became

a student of the District and held out to Plaintiff that their facilities were safe and trustworthy.

The special relationship created a duty on the part of Defendants to ensure that the facilities and

services are as safe as possible from known dangers and to exercise reasonable care in the

selection, training, supervision, and retention of its staff, including Brandon. Alternatively, or in
Page 39—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 40 of 53

conjunction with the above, Plaintiff had a special relationship with Defendants as a child

entrusted to the care and control of Defendants in loco parentis. This special relationship created

a duty of care on the part of Defendants to ensure Plaintiff’s safety while a student.

115. On information and belief, Defendants acted negligently and created a foreseeable

risk of Brandon abusing students, including Plaintiff, by failing to undertake reasonable child

abuse prevention measures in one or more of the following ways:

a. In failing to adequately supervise Brandon in his interactions and relationships

with minors, including Plaintiff;

b. In failing to adequately train employees and/or volunteers, including Brandon, in

how to recognize, report, and prevent child sexual abuse;

c. In failing to reasonably and adequately investigate and respond to information

indicating that Brandon was engaging in inappropriate and sexual contact with

students, including Plaintiff;

d. In retaining Brandon after learning information indicating that he was engaging in

inappropriate and sexual contact with students, including Plaintiff;

e. In failing to warn Plaintiff about the known and foreseeable danger of sexual

misconduct, harassment, or abuse posed by Brandon;

f. In failing to train students and parents about the known and foreseeable danger of

child sexual abuse by trusted adults in public school settings; and,

g. In failing to enforce child abuse prevention policies and practices.

116. Any or all of Defendants’ failures described above were substantial contributing

Page 40—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 41 of 53

and causal factors of all or some of Plaintiff’s abuse and damages. As a result, Plaintiff endured

and suffered severe physical, mental, and emotional distress.

117. Defendants’ failures described above created a foreseeable risk that students in

Defendants’ care, including Plaintiff, would be sexually abused. Plaintiff’s interest in being

protected and free from child sexual abuse was an interest of a kind that the law protects against

negligent invasion.

118. Defendants’ failures were direct and foreseeable causes of all or some of

Plaintiff’s sexual abuse and damages, as alleged above. As a result and consequence of

Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has incurred economic and non-economic damages and is

entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

119. In Defendants’ actions and failures, Defendants acted with reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and with a conscious indifference

to the health, safety, and welfare of minor students, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thereby

entitled to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Sexual Battery of Child – Respondeat Superior

(As against Defendant Jewell School District)

COUNT ONE

120. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 119 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

121. Between April 1, 2017, and May 31, 201, while acting in the course and scope of

his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive touching of

Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including groping Plaintiff’s
Page 41—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 42 of 53

genitals, digital penetration, oral sex, and sexual intercourse.

122. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

123. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

124. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT TWO

125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 124 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

126. Between June 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017, while acting in the course and scope of

his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive touching of

Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual intercourse

and oral sex.

127. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

128. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

Page 42—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 43 of 53

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

129. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT THREE

130. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 129 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

131. Between August 1, 2017, and September 30, 2017, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

132. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

133. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

134. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Page 43—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 44 of 53

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT FOUR

135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 134 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

136. Between October 1, 2017, and November 30, 2017, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

137. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

138. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

139. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT FIVE

140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 139 hereof, as if fully set
Page 44—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 45 of 53

forth herein.

141. Between December 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

142. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

143. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

144. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT SIX

145. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 144 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

146. Between February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

Page 45—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 46 of 53

147. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

148. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

149. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT SEVEN

150. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 149 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

151. Between April 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018, while acting in the course and scope of

his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive touching of

Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual intercourse

and oral sex.

152. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

153. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

Page 46—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 47 of 53

154. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT EIGHT

155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 154 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

156. Between June 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018, while acting in the course and scope of

his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive touching of

Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual intercourse

and oral sex.

157. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

158. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

159. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

Page 47—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 48 of 53

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT NINE

160. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 159 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

161. Between August 1, 2018, and September 30, 2018, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

162. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

163. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

164. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT TEN

165. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 164 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

Page 48—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 49 of 53

166. Between October 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, while acting in the course and

scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in harmful and offensive

touching of Plaintiff, a minor, to which Plaintiff did not or could not consent, including sexual

intercourse and oral sex.

167. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

168. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

169. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT ELEVEN

170. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 169 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

171. In addition to the conduct in Counts 1-10 above between 2017 and 2019, while

acting in the course and scope of his agency for Jewell School District, Brandon engaged in

various other instances of harmful and offensive touching of Plaintiff, a minor.

172. Acts within the course and scope of Brandon’s agency with the Jewell School

District led to or resulted in his sexual battery of Plaintiff.

Page 49—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 50 of 53

173. As a direct result of Brandon’s sexual battery, Plaintiff has incurred economic and

non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

174. In sexually battering Plaintiff, Brandon acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a conscious indifference to

the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. Where, as here, acts within the course and scope of

Brandon's agency with the District Defendants led to or resulted in the battery of Plaintiff,

punitive damages against an agent are attributable to a principal. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to

punitive damages against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Respondeat Superior

(As against Defendant Jewell School District)

175. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 174 hereof, as if fully set

forth herein.

176. Brandon knowingly and intentionally caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff

each and every time he sexually battered her as alleged above in paragraphs 120–174.

177. Plaintiff did in fact suffer severe emotional distress each and every time she was

sexually battered by Brandon, and as a direct result of that sexual battery, as alleged above in

paragraphs 120–174.

178. The sexual abuse of a child is beyond the bounds of all socially tolerable conduct.

179. While acting in the course and scope of his agency for the District Defendants,

Brandon engaged in Grooming, boundary violations, and similar acts that led to or resulted in his

intentional infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff.

Page 50—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 51 of 53

180. As a direct result of Brandon’s intentional infliction of emotional distress,

Plaintiff has incurred economic and non-economic damages and is entitled to compensatory

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

181. In intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Plaintiff, Brandon acted with

malice or a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm with a

conscious indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff. The District Defendants are

liable for these punitive damages, as actions that were within the course and scope of Brandon’s

agency with the District Defendants were causally connected to and in fact led to his intentional

infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to punitive damages

against the District Defendants in an amount to be determined by a jury.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

A. On the First Claim for Relief, for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them,

for compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for punitive

damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and reasonably

incurred costs and attorney fees;

B. On the Second Claim for Relief, for judgment against the District Defendants, and each

of them, for compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for

punitive damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and

reasonably incurred costs and attorney fees;

C. On the Third Claim for Relief, for judgment against the Supervisory Defendants, and

each of them, for compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for
Page 51—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 52 of 53

punitive damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and

reasonably incurred costs and attorney fees;

D. On the Fourth Claim for Relief, for judgment against the Defendant District and Board,

and each of them, for compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and

for necessarily and reasonably incurred costs and attorney fees;

E. On the Fifth Claim for Relief, for judgment against the Defendants for compensatory

damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, for punitive damages in an amount the

jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and reasonably incurred costs;

F. On the Sixth Claim for Relief, for judgment against the District Defendants, for

compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for punitive damages

in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and reasonably incurred costs.

G. On the Seventh Claim for Relief, for judgment against the District Defendants, for

compensatory damages in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for punitive damages

in an amount the jury concludes is appropriate, and for necessarily and reasonably incurred costs.

H. For all other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

///

///

///

///

Page 52—COMPLAINT
 Case 3:24-cv-00721-JR Document 1 Filed 04/29/24 Page 53 of 53

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED: April 29, 2024

Portland, Oregon

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Peter B. Janci
Peter B. Janci, OSB No. 074249
Stephen F. Crew, OSB No. 781715
Zachary K. Pangares, OSB No. 213383
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Page 53—COMPLAINT