Attorneys for the Pennsauken School District are requesting the dismissal of anti-bullying claims filed on behalf of a former student and his grandmother.
“D.V.,” who has autism, was a student at the district for several years before his grandmother pulled him out, citing pervasive antigay bullying within the district. Before D.V. was pulled, his uncle, Thomas Vandergrift, urged district officials to provide a proper education for his nephew.
District officials allegedly retaliated by calling the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services and reporting Vandergrift as a suspected child molester. DYFS ultimately determined that the reports against Vandergrift were unfounded.
Vandergrift, D.V. and D.V.’s grandmother filed suit in 2012, alleging violations of state and federal laws by district officials. But Vandergrift’s claims remain held in abeyance, until the claims of D.V. and his grandmother are adjudicated.
In recent court papers, district officials claimed that Vandergrift admitted he inappropriately touched his nephew and, thus, district officials acted reasonably when reporting him as a suspected child molester.
District officials claimed that D.V. and his grandmother didn’t suffer due to the unfounded reports. The district also denied that D.V. suffered pervasive antigay bullying, stating school personnel responded appropriately to allegations of such conduct.
For his part, Vandergrift emphatically denies ever stating that he inappropriately touched his nephew. D.V. also denies that Vandergrift ever inappropriately touched him.
District officials urged U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider to dismiss the claims of D.V. and his grandmother.
In a lengthy reply brief, attorneys for D.V. and his grandmother stated that D.V. suffered severe and pervasive antigay bullying while he was a student at the district.
According to the brief, D.V. was called “queer,” “gay” or “homo” on a routine basis, had his lunch money taken from him by classmates, and occasionally returned home with bruises caused by his bulliers.
“There is sufficient evidence that the bullying was based upon a protected characteristic and severe or pervasive,” the brief stated.
Attorneys also contended in the brief that a school psychologist openly admitted that antigay bullying among sixth-graders is common within the district.
“Her attitude was so out of date that at a meeting when she insisted that it was not a big deal, the then-superintendent yelled at her to leave the meeting,” according to the brief.
Additionally, the attorneys wrote in the brief that D.V. and his grandmother suffered greatly due to the unfounded reports that Vandergrift molested D.V.
“It is common sense that reporting a close family member to DYFS as having inappropriate sexual contact with a minor would have adverse impact upon a family member. [District officials] knew that the report would have that adverse impact and, in fact, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that they made the report to bring about that adverse impact.”
The attorneys urged Schneider to allow the case to reach a jury.
“The unwarranted reporting [of Vandergrift] to the authorities constituted retaliation against [D.V. and his grandmother] and there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer retaliatory intent,” they wrote.
As of presstime, the district’s request for dismissal remained pending before Schneider.