Seventh Circuit Federal Appellate Court Upholds Compensatory and Punitive Damage Award Against Building Principal For Being Aware of and Failing to Stop Teacher's Sexual Abuse of Students 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which governs Illinois) has upheld a jury's compensatory and punitive damage award against a school building principal because she knew that a teacher was sexually abusing his students and did nothing to stop it.

In this closely watched case, nine female elementary students of South Berwyn School District No. 100 alleged that their band teacher, Robert Sperlik, sexually abused them.  The complaint further alleged that the principal violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), which provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…" because she knew or had reason to know of Sperlik's sexual misconduct and failed to take sufficient action to stop the abuse. 

After the jury's verdict against the principal for more than 3.4 million dollars, eight of the plaintiffs reached a settlement with the principal for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The named plaintiff, G.G., who was a ten year old fifth grade student at the time of Sperlik's abuse, did not enter into a settlement with the principal.  As G.G. did not join the settlement, the principal requested that the court reduce the jury's compensatory damage award of $250,000 to G.G. on the grounds that it was not supported by the evidence at trial, and that the punitive damage award be stricken entirely or that the amount awarded to G.G. be reduced pro rata.  The lower court denied her request and she appealed.

The Court upheld the jury's compensatory damage award to G.G. in the amount of $250,000 because it was rationally connected to the evidence presented at trial and consistent with other jury awards in similar cases. It is important to note that the compensatory damages awarded to G.G. was based upon Sperlik's two separate acts of physical abuse; one where he touched G.G.'s neck and breast and another where he touched her thigh.

Finally, the principal argued that the punitive damage award should be stricken.  In this regard, she argued that the jury's punitive damage award against her was excessive because it was based upon Sperlik's conduct not her own.  She also argued that the punitive damage award was excessive because she did not actually engage in any of the brutal acts against the students.  In rejecting these arguments, the Court noted that the principal overlooked the fact that the jury found her guilty of "turning a blind eye to warning signs that Sperlik was abusing his students."  The Court determined that the punitive damage award of $100,000 against the principal was appropriate because the jury determined that she acted wantonly and willfully in failing to stop the abuse and G.G. agreed to accept her pro rata share of that amount which totaled $7,250.

This case illustrates the importance of investigating all alleged instances of abuse whether or not the alleged acts appear egregious and documenting all matters investigated as well as fulfilling mandatory reporter responsibilities under law.