THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSE, : 10 1, pif 1: | AT FRANKLIN setae SOHN DOE BY HIS NEXT FRIEND JANE DOE and JANE DOE IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY PLAINTIFF on2017-435° JURY DEMAND (12) vs BRENTWOOD ACADEMY, CURTIS G. MASTERS, NANCY BRASHER, BUDDY ALEXANDER, LYLE HUSBAND, AND MIKE VAZQUEZ ) » ) ) ) ) } BRENTWOOD ACADEMY, INC, —) ) d ) ) ) ) Defendant(s) ) COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, John Doe, by his next friend Jane Doe, and Jane Doe in her individual capacity, by and through counsel, pursuant to T.R.C.P, 8 and for their cause of action against Defendant Brentwood Academy, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant BA), Defendant Brentwood Academy (hereinafter, Defendant BA), Defendant Curtis Masters (hereinafter Defendant Masters), Defendant Nancy Brasher (hereinafter Defendant Brasher), Defendant Buddy Alexander (Hereinafter Defendant Alexander), Defendant Lyle Husband (hereinafter Defendant Husband), ‘and Defendant Mike Vazquez (hereinafter Defendant Vazquez), Plaintiffs would respectfully state ‘and show unto this Honorable Court the following facts that support an award for compensatory and punitive damages against this Defendant. To Wit: 1, The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, is an adult resident and citizen of Davidson County, ‘Tennessee, residing in Nashville, Tennessee and the mother of John Doe having custodial rights.2. The Plaintiff, John Doe, is a minor child and citizen of Davidson County, Tennessee residing in Nashville, Tennessee and is the son of Plaintiff Jane Doe and brings forth this cause of action by next fiend and mother Jane Doe. 3. Defendant(s), Brentwood Academy, Inc. and Brentwood Academy (hereinafter cumulatively referred to as Defendant BA) is an incorporated entity and/or nonprofit entity with its principal place of business located at 219 Granny White Pike, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027, providing education services in Williamson County, Tennessee out of its campus located at 219 Granny White Pike, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. Headmaster Curtis G. Masters is authorized to accept service of process for Defendant BA as registered agent to be served at 219 Granny White Pike, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. The actions, intentional acts, and/or omissions of Defendant BA, as averred herein, were all committed by faculty, staff, and/or employees of Defendant BA acting within the course and scope of employment. On the basis of the forgoing, Defendant BA shares fully in the liability resulting from the negligent acts, intentional acts, and/or omissions of their employees, agents, and or servants under the theories of respondeat superior and/or agency. 4. Defendant, Curtis G. Masters, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Masters) is the headmaster of Defendant BA and resides at 206 High Lea Road, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. 5. Defendant, Nancy Brasher, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Brasher), is the director of middle school at Defendant BA, board member of Daystar Counseling, alumni, and resides at 1925 Cakhampton Place, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. 6. Defendant Buddy Alexander, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Alexander), is the administrator and/or middle school athletic tor at Defendant BA and alumni resides at 1005 Manor Court, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027.7. Defendant Lyle Husband, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Husband), is the assistant basketball coach, English teacher, and alumni and resides at 6013 Foxborough Square East, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. 8. Defendant Mike Vazquez, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Vazquez), is the head sixth grade basketball coach and son in Jaw of Defendant Masters and resides at 505 McClanahan Drive, Brentwood, Tennessee, 37027. 9. This cause of action and/or claims for relief arise out of facts and or omissions which occurred in Williamson, County, Tennessee whose jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, FACTS 10, During the fall semester of 2014, Plaintiff John Doe was an eleven-year-old student in sixth grade at Defendant BA. Between January and February 2015, and during March of 2015, Plaintiff John Doe was a twelve-year-old student in sixth grade at Defendant BA. 11. During the 2014-2015 academic year, B.B., C.D., C.M., and/or R.G. were fourteen and/or fifteen-year-old students in the eighth grade at Defendant BA, During the 2014-2015 academic year, W.F, was a student in the sixth grade at Defendant BA. 12. In January and February, 2015, on four separate dates, sixth through eighth grade students attended gym elass and other sports practices as the last period of the day and donned and. doffed clothing in the same locker room without adult supervision. 13, During the 2014-2015 academic year, CM. and/or other students at an after high school football game party, restrained Plaintiff John Doe and placed their buttocks on his face and their scrotums on and/or in his mouth. In January and February, 2015, on four separate dates, B.B., cl . CM,, and/or R.G. and/or others conspired to engage in male on male sexual harassment,sexual assault, and/or rape upon Plaintiff John Doe in the locker room not supervised by an adult, ‘There were additional male students in the locker room witnessing the event, 14. In January and February, 2015, on four separate dates, the following acts of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape were perpetrated in the locker room without adult supervision upon Plaintiff John Doe when he would only be in his. rt and underwear: a B.B. on each date held closed either the front and/or rear door to the middle school ‘male locker room preventing ingress and/or egress. b, C.D. on each date held closed either the front and/or rear door to the middle male locker room closed preventing ingress and/or egress. C.D. alternated holding and restraining Plaintiff John Doe in an execution posture and holding the door preventing ingress and egress. ¢. CM.cltemated holding and restraining Plaintiff John Doe in an execution posture and holding the door preventing ingress and egress. Upon information and belief, C.M. is presently the age of majority. 4. RG. proceeded to rape Plaintiff John Doe by unlawfully and feloniously engaging in the sexual penetration of Plaintiff John Doe and said penetration was accomplished without the ‘consent of Plaintiff John Doe and R.G. knew or had reason to know at the time of penetration that Plaintiff did not consent, R.G. would place his penis before Plaintiff John Doe and forcibly penetrated it into the mouth of Plaintiff John Doe without consent exclaiming “eat it, eat it, eat it, ‘open your mouth, aecept it." R.G, nicked named his penis “Reggie” and articulated it throughout the sexual assaults. Upon information and belief, R.G. is presently the age of majority. e R.G. would place his penis into Plaintiff John Doe’s buttocks without consent. £ Upon information and belief, R.G. exclaimed about this sexual assault and that he ejaculated on Plaintiff John Doe. R.G. exclaimed and boasted to the AAU community and/orbasketball team that he “fucked that boy up the ass and stuck a Gatorade bottle in hi 8. One of the four perpetrators identified herein would say aloud Plaintiff John Doe's name in the locker room in a drawn out tone and tenor searching for him and alerting the sixth through eighth grade students what was to occur. 15. Subsequent to Plaintiff Jane Doe's discovery of the incidents averred and referenced herein, the mother of B.B. who is a physical education and athletic coach at « private school in Green Hills and another employee who is the wife of Defendant Husband who was employed at the same school located in Green Hills and a feeder school to Defendant BA, have taunted, harassed, and/or bullied the brother of Plaintiff John Doe and was admonished and placed ‘on a no-contact order with this child. 16, During the course of the 2014-2015 academic year and prior to these incidents referenced herein, the same four students B.B., C.D., C.M., and/or R.G., conspired and perpetrated numerous acts of intimidation, harassment, assault, and/or bullying upon other students. Defendant BA was on actual and/or constructive notice of these acts and through deliberate indifference failed to redress the same with remedial action, The mother and/or father of one particular minor child communicated the harassment to the administration. The board of trustees was on actual notice of this harassment, Such acts included, but not limited to, verbally and physically assaulting the student with elbows in the hallway upon passing by, sitting in the tunch room, at after-football-game parties, and/or placing him into a trash can. These incident occurred ‘numerous times. R.G. urinated on student’s shoe and defecated in another student's. shoe, Defendant BA was on actual notice of a student being duct tape to a pole on the property. 17, In April 2015, Plaintiff Jane Doe, was notified by the mother of another sixth-grade male student about the sexual assault referenced herein, The student reported the incidents to his‘mother. Upon information and belief, a number of students reported the incidents to their parents, ‘one or more of whom reported it to Defendant BA and/or Defendant Alexander. 18. Subsequent to leaming about the incident, Plaintiff Jane Doe informed Chris Roberts, a counselor at Daystar Counseling, a Christian counseling ministry founded by a former Brentwood Academy employee, about the facts referenced herein, Chris Roberts proceeded to communicate with Plaintiff John Doe during a session. Upon information and belief, Chris Roberts and/or another employee, communicated without consent, among others, with a board member(s) of Daystar Counseling, who coincidently contacted Plaintiff Jane Doe within approximately fifteen minutes of the counselor leaming about the incident from Plaintiffs. ‘That same board member was a primary party 10 communications of confidential and non-confidential information between Daystar, Defendant BA, and Jane and John Doe's minister at a local community church. 19, The counselor Chris Roberts, other Daystar employees, and/or DayStar board member(s), intially failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated 37-1-401 et seq. and more particularly Tennessee Code Annotated 37-1-403(i)(1) requiring reporting of suspected child abuse and/or neglect. 20. Two days later, counselor Chris Roberts in a subsequent session learned about additional facts of the incident from Plaintiff John Doe, Plaintiff Jane Doe inquires whether the counselor will comply with the child abuse reporting statute. Chris Roberts responded “reporting this may not be the best thing to do...this isn’t how Christian institutions handle these things.” Plaintiff Jane Doe responds that she is taking her son to the pediatrician. Plaintiff John Dee is evaluated by the pediatrician. The pediatrician stated that if Daystar Counseling failed to contact Department of Children Services immediately then he would do so.21. — Plaintiff Jane Doe and John Doe return to Daystar Counseling. Chris Roberts informed Plaintiff Jane Doe that his superiors would only permit him to observe Plaintiffs reporting the incident during the call to Department of Children Services and disclose what occurred, Plaintiff Jane Doe and Plaimiiff John Doe proceeded to contact the Department of Children Services and report the incident. Subsequent to the call, the counselor asked for permission to begin communication with Defendant BA. Plaintiff Jane Doe specifically refused to allow him to contact Defendant BA, Defendant Brasher, and/or any others. Counselor responded that Daystar Counseling had many clients from Defendant BA and “did not want to burn any bridges.” Less than five minutes subsequent to this refusal, the counselor Jeft a voicemail with Plaintiff Jane Doe that he had contacted Defendant Brasher and left a brief message with her. 22. On the same day, Defendant Masters contacted Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendant ‘Masters stated that he had found in the past that similar reports of abuse “or when these things happen” are usually worse than what the student initially reports. Defendant Masters asked for permission to allow the “BA Family” to handle the mother of C.M. because there was a long standing personal relationship between her and Plaintiff Jane Doe. 23. Plaintiff Jane Doe stated to Defendant Masters that Plaintiff John Doe informed her that another sixth-grade male student disclosed to Defendant Alexander about these incidents in the locker room. Defendant Masters refuted this assertion. 24. On or about April 19, 2015, Defendant Brasher, o Daystar Board member, contacts Plaintiff Jane Doe to inform her that she, Defendant Masters, and Defendant Alexander met to discuss the incident and allegations. During the call she accused Plaintiff John Doe of being at fault for not reporting it and that it could not be true because the four students had been removed from the locker room in January 2015. Defendant Brasher’s contention was that it could not havea 9 occurred in late January and/or early Febrvary ifthe four students were removed in January 2015. Upon information and belief, Defendant Brasher by implication asserted an admission that Defendant BA and/or one or more of each Defendant in this cause was on actual notice of these incidents occurring subsequent to the first incident but prior to the fourth incident. 25, On or about April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Jane Doe and the futher met with Defendants Brasher and Masters. Defendant Masters admitted there were reports of incidents bullying and/or harassment that he considered “boys being boys and he could not investigate each of those and run school.” Defendant Masters stated they could not investigate the matter or perform any searching inquiry until law enforcement arrived and/or attorneys approved it. He further stated there was no “legal go-ahead” to do anything. 26. Subsequent to the mecting, on April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff are at Dayster Counseling for a session. Chris Roberts appears ftom his office to inform them that Daystar received a call from Defendant BA who informed him that they had received the authority to proceed with an intemal investigation. Chris Roberts further stated that Defendant BA wanted Plaintiffs to retum to Defendant BA after the session, They proceeded to appear at the school to meet with Defendant Brasher and Defendant Masters who admitted that interviews with several students occurred, Defendant Masters stated that R.G, admitted to him that some of the allegations were true and that two students “were separated from the BA community.” Defendant Masters stated that one of the four students had retained a lawyer and that they could not do anything. ‘When questioned by Plaintiff John Doe, Defendant Masters stated that John Doe “needs to turn the other cheek,” “one of the students would be disciplined with in school suspension,” “everything in God's kingdom happens for a reason,” “we have talked about cameras in the locker room, but until then, you can change in my office.”COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE 27, Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 28. Defendant BA had notice through its agents and employees of the hostile and/or ‘unsafe educational environment consisting of a severe and/or pervasive pattern of harassment, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying perpetrated by W.F., B.B., C.D. CM, R.G,, and/or other students upon Plaintiff John Doe and/or other students, 29, Defendant Masters, Defendant Brasher, Defendant Alexander, Defendant Lyle ‘Husband, and Defendant Mike Vazquez had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the hostile and/or unsafe educational environment consisting of a severe and/or pervasive pattem of ‘harassment, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying perpetrated by W.F., BB.,C.D., CM, RG, and/or other students upon Plaintiff John Doe and/or other students. 30. Defendants failed to respond adequately to redress the hostile educational and/or unsafe environment consisting of a severe and/or pervasive pattern of harassment, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying perpetrated by W.F., B.B., C.D. CM., R.G. and/or other students. The Defendants’ actions, taken as a whole, demonstrate deliberate indifference to the harassment of Plaintiff. 31. Defendant BA and its employees and Defendant Masters, Defendant Brasher, Defendant Alexander, Defendant Lyle Husband, and Defendant Mike Vazquez failed to exercise its authority and capacity to supervise, investigate, discipline, and/or reportB.B., CD.,CM..R.Gu. and/or other students perpetrating the harassment, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying of students prior to these incidents alleged herein and/or during the period of timethese incidents alleged herein occurred. ‘These Defendants further failed to report the child abuse 10 authorities and/or parents pursuant to T.C.A. § 37-1-401 et seq. 32. Defendants failed to exercise its authority and capacity to ins ite corrective measures to prevent and stop the harassment, assault; sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying of students by W.F., B.B,, C.D., C.M., R.G,, and/or other students prior to these {incidents alleged hercin and/or during the period of time these incidents alleged herein occurred. 33, The harassment, assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and/or bullying suffered by Plaintiff John Doe were the result of a pattern, practice, and/or custom of Defendants that include, but not limited to, the following: a. Defendants’ faiting to adopt or maintain policies and/or procedures regarding detorrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape; b. Defendants’ failing to implement and/or execute policies and/or procedures regarding deterrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape; ©. Defendants failed to include in any grievance process an adequate mechanism to investigate and evaluate complaints and provide for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints; 4. Defendants failed to make sure that any such grievance procedures were adequately di ibuted and understandable by students, parents, and employees; and/or in the alternative Defendants; ©. Defendants failed to have proper adult supervision in the locker room; f. Defendants failed to enact property security safeguards and/or deterrent measures that had been recommended, studied, requested, and/or advised; 108 Defendants failed to adequately and/or effecti ly educate, train, and/or prepare employees, faculty, parents, and/or students on best practices pertaining to deterrence and/or education of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape. Defendants failed to create an environment that promotes and/or facilitates the statutory and/or common Jaw duty to report child abuse, 34. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendant BA’s negligent breach of its duty of care, both under statute, at common law, and under its own policies and/or terms of contract stated in the tuition agreement, handbook, and/or other documents, Plaintiff John Doe has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, and/or other enumerated damages herein for which each he is entitled to compensatory damages. 35. _Asadirect and proximate result of the negligent breach of duty of care, both under statute, at common law and under policies and/or terms of contract stated in the tuition agreement, handbook, and/or other applicable documents owed by Defendant Masters, Defendant Brasher, Defendant Alexander, Defendant Lyle Husband, and Defendant Mike Vazquez, Plaintiff John Doe has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, and/or other enumerated damages herein for which each he is entitled to compensatory damages. ‘COUNT TWO NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND/OR RETENTION 36. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 37, Defendant BA owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs to treat Plaintiff John Doe with reasonable care by having proper supervision of employees who failed to implement and/or execute policies and/or procedures and/or comply with statutes regarding deterrence of bullying, "harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape; and failing to have proper adult supervision in the locker room as a deterrence from such acts. 38. Defendant BA breached this duty of care by its employee’s negligence and deliberate indifference toward the educational rights of Plaintiff John Doe and its failure to implement and/or execute policies and/or procedures and/or comply with statutes regarding deterrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape suffered by Plaintiff John Doc. This includes the duty of using ordinary care to employ competent and law-abiding servants. [Defendant BA] conducting an activity through employees is liable for harm resulting from negligently employing [supervising] improper persons or instrumentalities in the work involving risk of harm to others. Gates v. MeQuiddy Office Prods., ‘No. 02A01-9410-CV-00240, 1995 WL 650128, at “1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 1995). 39. Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, and other enumerated damages herein upon Plaintiff John Doe. Such other emotional harm includes fright, shame, and ‘mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon such conduct upon a minor child. 40, Defendant BA owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs to treat Plaintiff John Doe with reasonable care by retaining only those employees who properly implement and/or execute policies and/or procedures and/or comply with statutes regarding deterrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, and/or sexual assault, This includes the duty ‘of using ordinary cave to employ competent and law-abiding servants. [Defendant BA] conducting an activity through employees is liable for harm resulting from negligently employing [retaining] improper persons or instrumentalities in the work involving risk of harm to others, Gates v. 12Oo a McQuiddy Office Prods., No. 02A01-9410-CV-00240, 1995 WL 650128, at *] (Tenn, Ct. App. Nov. 2, 1995). 41. Defendant BA breached this duty of care, by failing to execute policics of progressive discipline and/or terminate those employees who had actual and/or constructive knowledge of allegations averred herein and/or failed to implement and/or execute policies and/or procedures and/or comply with statutes regarding deterrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape. 42, Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, posttraumatic stress disorder, physical harm, damages to be discovered hereafter, and other enumerated damages herein upon Plaintiff John Doe. Such other emotional harm includes fiight, shame, and mortification from the indignity and disgrace, ‘consequent upon such conduct upon a minor child, COUNT THREE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 43. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 44, Plaintiff John Doe avers that the acts perpetrated upon him arising out of Defendants’ negligent breach of its duty of care averred herein constitutes the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, damages to be discovered hereafter, and other enumerated damages herein upon Plaintiff, Such ‘other emotional harm includes fright, shame, and mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon such conduct upon a minor child. 13ao a 43. Plaintiff John Doe's claim for negligent infliction of emotional involves physical identifiable bodily harm accompanied by contemporaneous injuries of severe emotional disttess that are parasitic to each additional, applicable cause of action alleged herein. Each cause of action alleged herein serves the purpose of demonstrating reliability of this claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, COUNT FOUR INVASION OF PRIVACY 46. Plainti incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein, 47. Plaintiff John Doe avers that the acts perpetrated by Defendant BA constitute the tort of invasion of privacy. Defendant BA intruded into and disclosed the private affairs of Plaintiff John Doe by communicating with Daystar Counseling about his educational records and/or facts, treatment, counseling, medical notes, statements expressed confidentially in a private session, and general expectations of privacy and/or seclusion involving his affairs. ‘This involved the public disclosure of private facts that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The ‘communications between Plaintiff John Doe and Chris Roberts and/or other Daystar Counseling employees and/or board members in sessions at Daystar Counseling were protected by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The interference with Plaintiff John Doe’s seclusion is a substantial one, of a kind that would be highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, as the result of conduct to which the reasonable man would strongly object, Defendant BA’s acts constitute intrusion, misappropriation, and/or public disclosure of private facts. 48. Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, and other enumerated damages h upon Plaintiff John Doe. 14COUNT FIVE INDUCEMENT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT 49. Plaintiff's incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 50. Plaintiff John Doe avers that the acts perpetrated by Defendant BA constitutes the tort of inducement to breach of contract at common law and in violation of T.C.A. § 47-50-109 and would show as follows: & Defendant BA was aware of a contract containing express and/or implied covenants of confidentiality and such contract existed; b. Defendant BA intended to induce a breach of that contract by soliciting protected health information from a counselor, employee, and/or a board member at Daystar Counseling; Defendant BA acted with malice; 4. Defendant BA’s communications with Daystar Counseling constitute a breach of that contract; e This breach of confidentiality was the proximate result of Defendant BA's. conduct; £ Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff John Doe. ‘This breach injured Plaintiff John Doe which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, and other enumerated damages herein upon Plaintiff John Doe. ‘COUNT SIX INDUCEMENT TO BREACH AN EXPRESS CONTRACT OF CONFIDENTIALITY 51. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein, 1552. Plaintiff John Doe avers that the acts perpetrated by Defendant BA constitutes the ‘ort of inducement to breach an express contract of confidentiality. 53. Plaintiff Jane Doe and/or John Doe entered into an expressed contract of confidentiality with Daystar Counseling for the purpose of protecting Plaintiff John Doe's privacy and protected health information, 54, Plaintiff John Doe furthered entered into an expressed contract of confidentiality by executing any release of medical information and/or written waiver of confidentiality for purpose of releasing protected health information to a particular third party upon request and with consent of Plaintiff Jane Doe and/or Plaintiff John Doo. 55. Defendant BA was aware of a contract containing express and/or implied covenants of confidentiality and such contract existed. 56. Defendant BA intended to induce a breach of that contract by soliciting protected health information from a counselor at Daystar Counseling. 37. Such conduct was the direct and proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff John Doe. ‘This breach injured Plaintiff John Doe which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, and other enumerated damages herein upon Plaintiff John Doe. ‘COUNT SEVEN INDUCEMENT TO BREACH AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF CONFIDENTIALITY 58. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs. above and herein, 59. Plaintiff John Doe avers that the acts perpetrated by Defendant BA constitutes the tort of inducement to breach an implied contract of confidentiality. 1660, Defendant BA was aware of a contract containing express and/or implied covenants of confidentiality and such contract existed, 61, Defendant BA intended to induce a breach of that contract by soliciting protected health information from a counselor at Daystar Counseling. 62, Defendant Jane Doe and/or John Doe entered into an implied contract of confidentiality when there was an agreement to remit payment for counseling services, An implied contract arose from the specific understanding that Plaintiff John Doe's protected health information would remain confidential. The circumstances of Daystar Counseling clearly show ‘mutual intent and/or assent to a contract with sufficient consideration and a lawful purpose. Such ‘a contract and/or agreement may result as @ legal inference from the facts and circumstances, An implied contract of confidentiality arises between a medical provider and a patient when a patient ‘compensates a medical provider in return for medical treatment, See Quarles v. Sutherland, 215 ‘Tenn. 651, 657, 389 S.W.2d 249, 252 (1965). COUNT EIGHT BREACH OF CONTRACT 63. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 64, Plaintiff Jane Doe avers that the acts perpetrated by Defendant BA constitute breach of contract. 65. Plaintiff Jane Doe entered into a contract and/or admissions agreement with Defendant BA whereby Defendant BA agreed to perform and/or execute terms and conditions of said contract and/or policies. Defendant BA agreed to enforce policies pertaining to sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, bullying whereby students would be free of such a hostile educational environment and that procedures would be enforced to investigate acts of such 7harassment and proceed with appropriate disciplinary measures to redress the same, and/or comply with mandatory child abuse reporting statute Tennessee Code Annotated 37-1-401 et seq. 66. Defendant BA breached the terms of this contract to which Plaintiff Jane Doe relied upon to the detriment of her son Plaintiff John Doe, 61, PlaintifE Jane Doe properly performed all material terms required in the tuition agreement. 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BA’s material breach of contract, Plaintiff Jane Doe has incurred substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT NINE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TENNESSEE CODEANNOTATED 37-1-401 et seq. MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTS 69. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein, 70, Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff John Doe to report him as a suspected victim and/or victim of sexual assault and/or abuse or as prescribed by T.C.A. 37-1-401 et seq. and/or more specifically T.C.A. 37-1-403. Plaintiff John Doe avers a claim for breach of this duty ‘of care consistent with Ham v. Hospital of Morristown, Inc. 917 F. Supp. 531 (E.D. Tenn. 1995) citing and relying upon Coffee County, 852 S.W.2d at 909 “In sum, while the court acknowledges that the defendants have raised many forceful arguments in support of their position that the reporting statute does not create a private cause of action, the court concludes that these arguments, do not circumvent the clear import of the Coftee County case: the reporting statute creates a legal obligation to report suspected brutality, neglect, or physical or sexval abuse of children and the failure to report ‘can therefore give rise to liability...”” 1871, Defendants breached this duty of care by failing to comply with T.C.A. 37-1-401 et seq, and/or more specifically T.C.A. 371-403 in reporting sexual assault and/or abuse of Plait tif John Doe to appropriate authorities. 72. Such conduet was the direct and proximate cause which inflicted anxiety, stress, depression, emotional harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical harm, and other enumerated ‘damages herein upon Plaintiff John Doe. Such other emotional harm includes fright, shame, and mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon such conduct upon a minor child. COUNT TEN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 73. Plaintifis incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein, 74, Plaintiffs do further allege that the acts of Defendants and/or conduct toward Plaintiff John Doe was committed in an intentional or reckless manner; the Defendants’ conduct ‘was outrageous and intolerable because it offended generally accepted standards of decency and morality; and the Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress, The acts perpetrated by Defendants constitute the actual, direct, and proximate cause of Plaintiff John Doe's mental and emotional distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to all available remedies, including ‘compensatory and punitive damages. DAMAGES 75. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein, 76. Asa result of the direct and/or proximate acts and/or deliberate indifference of Defendant alleged herein, Plaintiffs suffered damages, known and/or unknown, which include, but are not limited to, the following: 19ao a & Constructive denial of education and educational and/or athletic extracurricular opportunities to Plaintifis; b. General damages for past, present, and/or future pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, anxiety, public humiliation, emotional distress, and embarrassment; such other emotional harm. ©. Trreparable han 4. Loss of personal reputation; ¢. Loss of other fringe benefits; £ Physical pain, past and future; & Inability to enjoy the normal pleasures of life past and future; h, Such other emotional harm includes fright, shame, and mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon such conduct upon a minor child. i. Medical expenses, past and future. 77. As noted herein, Plainti John Doe has suffered severe and extensive damages, physically and emotionally, that may be categorized as “non-economic damages” by Tennessee ‘Code Annotated 29-39-101(2). The Plaintiff respectfully submits that these damages exceed seven ‘hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00). To the extent that the qualified Jurors of this community agree with the Plaintiffs’ assessment and deem it appropriate, given the facts and the law, they may award non-economic damages in excess of the seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00) amount stated in Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39- 101@). 78. Upon information and belief, Defendants concealed facts surrounding the unlawful bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape upon 20oO an Plaintiff John Doe. Defendants concealed facts surrounding the severe and pervasive pattern of harassment, bullying, sexval harassment, sexual assault, assault, and/or rape perpetrated by W.P., BB, CD, CM, R.G., and/or other students on other students prior to and/or during that of Plaintiff John Doe. As a consequence, the Defendants have “intentionally falsified, destroyed, and/or concealed records containing material evidence with the purpose of wrongfully evading liability” as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-101(b)(2); and the statutory cap of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00) stated in Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-101(a)(2) does not apply to this case. 79. Notwithstanding the inapplicability of the seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00) cap as noted herein, if a jury renders a verdict for non-economic damages in excess of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00), the Court may be called upon to reduce the verdict for non-economic damages to seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($750,000.00) based on Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39- 102(g). If so, the Plaintiffs respectfully submits that any such reduction of a verdict by the jury would violate the following constitutional provisions: the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the right to a trial by jury in suits at common law and the mandate that “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law” as provided by the Seventh Amendment 10 the U.S. Constitution; the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by Art. I § 6 of the Tennessee Constitution; the right against deprivation of life, liberty, or property “but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land” as guaranteed by Art. 1 § 8 of the Tennessee Constitution; the Open Courts Clause of Art. I § 17 of the Tennessee 2Constitution; the Limitation of Powers Clause of Art. II § 2 of the Tennessee Constitution; the Judicial Power principles established by Art. VI § 1 of the Tennessee Constitution; the Bill of Rights guarantees established by Art. XI § 16 of the Tennessee Constitution; and any other provisions of the U.S. Constitution or Tennessee Constitution which secure the right to trial by Jury of the right to due process under law. 80. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the conduct of the Defendants in bringing about the Plaintiffs’ injury constituted, by clear and convincing evidence, recklessness, willful misconduct, and conscious indifference to the foreseeable danger they posed to children on the sehool campus and/or members of the public. Consequently, punitive damages are appropriate as contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-104 and Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 'S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992). 81. To the extent that the jury in this matter deems is reasonable and appropriate to award punitive damages, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the jury may assess punitive damages at an amount equal to the greater of (a) two times the total compensatory damages awarded; or (b) $500,000.00, which would exceed the statutory cap described in Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-104. 82. As stated above, upon information and belief, Defendants concealed facts surrounding the unlawful bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape upon Plaintiff John Doe. Defendants concealed facts surrounding the severe and pervasive pattern of rape, harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and/or assault perpetrated by W.F., B.B., C.D., C.M., R.G., and/or other students on other students prior to and/or during that of Plainti John Doe. Asa consequence, the Defendants have “intentionally falsified, destroyed, and/or concealed records [communications] containing material evidence with 22a a the purpose of wrongfully evading liability” as defined by ‘Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39- 104(@\X(7)(B). Accordingly, the punitive damages cap established by Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-104 does not apply to this ease, 83. Notwithstanding the inapplicability of the statutory cap on punitive damages, if a Jury renders a verdict for non-economic damages in excess of the amounts set forth in the statute, the Court may be called upon to reduce the jury’s verdict for punitive damages. If'so, the Plaintifis respectfully submit that any such reduction of a verdict rendered by the jury would violate all of the constitutional provisions enumerated in paragraph 79 of this Complaint. 84, For the reasons stated above, the Plaintifis asks this Court to render declaratory judgment that the limitations on non-economic and punitive damages set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated 29-39-102 and 29-39-104 violate one or more of the aforementioned constitutional provisions, are invalid as a matter of law, and cannot serve as any limitation whatsoever on entry ‘of judgment for the damages and losses sustained by the Plaintiff, as determined by the jurors selected to hear this case, 85. Notice of this action will be served upon the Attomey General of the State of Tennessee as required by TROP 24. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 86. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs above and herein. 87. Plaintiffs aver that the unlawful bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape upon Plaintiff John Doe was clearly foreseeable through actual and/or constructive knowledge on part of Defendants constitutes fraudulent, intentional, reckless, and/or malicious conduct warranting punitive damages. In addition to and/or in the 23altemative, the unlawful bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape upon Plaintiff John Doe arose out of Defendants’ failure to implement and/or ‘execute policies and/or procedures and/or comply with statutes regarding deterrence of bullying, harassment, sexually charged acts and/or harassment, and/or sexual assault suffered by Plaintift John Doe. Furthermore, Defendants’ intentionally to comply with T.C.A. 37-1-403 in reporting sexual assault and/or abuse of Plaintiff John Doe to appropriate authori Defendants were reckless and/or intentional in their neglect to have adult supervision in the locker room. Plaintiff seeks recovery of punitive damages for injuries sustained as a direct and proximate result of one orall of the aforesaid acts and/or omissions of the Defendants. Wherefore premises considered, Plaintiffs demand: L ‘That Plaintiffs be allowed to file this Complaint and that the named Defendants be required to answer within the time prescribed by law; 2, That upon final hearing, each Plaintiff have and recover judgment against the Defendant for compensatory damages Complaint in the amount of fifteen million dollars and zero cents ($15,000,000.00); 3. That a jury of twelve be empaneled to hear and try all issues properly submitted to the trier of facts 4. ‘That Plaintiffs have and recover such further and general relief as to which they may be entitled, including court costs and reasonable attomey fees. 5. That upon final hearing, each Plaintiff have and recover judgment against the Defendant for punitive damages Complaint in the amount of fifteen million dollars and zero cents (15,000,000.00); 246. ° Forsuch other relief which the Court may deep appropriate and/or entitled to under law, Respectfully Submitted, ROLAND F. MUMFORD aE BY fumford ROLAND F. MUMFORD, #26495 Attorney for Plaintifis 242 West Main Street No. 223, Hendersonville, TN. 37075 Telephone: 615.348.0070 Facsimile: 615.246.4110 roland@mumfordiaw.net 25