Seventh Circuit finds qualified immunity no bar to claims against principal for failure to investigate, attempts to hide sexual abuse complaints 

In Sandra T. v. Grindle, No. 09-2920 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit, affirming the district court, found that qualified immunity did not bar students' equal protection and due process claims against their principal for failure to investigate complaints of sexual abuse.

The action was based on three complaints made to Pershing Elementary School Principal Karen Grindle, between January 2001 and April 2002, accusing band teacher Robert Sperlik of sexual abuse and other inappropriate behavior toward his students. Although Grindle warned Sperlik and instructed him to cease the inappropriate conduct, she insisted on the teacher's innocence during meeting with the parents. Grindle did not report the complaints to the district superintendent until after the third complaint, where she presented the issue as one of appropriate teaching methods rather than potential sexual abuse. 

Following a criminal investigation, several students reported incidents of abuse occurring from 2001 through 2005, in which Sperlik blinded and duct taped them, touching their thighs and breasts. Sperlik was later arrested and pled guilty to multiple counts of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual abuse for abusing his students from 2001 through 2005.

Plaintiffs subsequently brought a section 1983 action against Grindle and Sperlik, among others, alleging violation of equal protection and due process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants except Grindle and Sperlik. Grindle appealed, claiming the doctrine of qualified immunity barred the actions because plaintiff's failed to prove violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

The court noted that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity when she violates a clearly established constitutional right. Grindle argued the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, since it was not until 2005, in Nanda v. Moss, 412 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2005), that the Seventh Circuit found an administrator could violate equal protection rights by ratifying sexual abuse committed by a subordinate.

The court rejected her argument, finding that Nanda merely applied the standard of supervisory liability. It noted that supervisors can themselves violate the Constitution if they know about the unconstitutional conduct and either facilitate, approve, or turn a blind eye to the conduct. Citing Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988).

The court then found that the doctrine did not bar the substantive due process claim. The court's previous recognition of the substantive due process right to bodily integrity, along with numerous district court cases, show that a reasonable principal would have concluded that she could be held liable for ignoring and covering up evidence of sexual abuse.