LEARN
MORE

School’s Mistaken Identity Mandated Report Was Made In Good Faith And Therefore Subject To Immunity

CATEGORY: Private Education Matters
CLIENT TYPE: Private Education
DATE: Oct 30, 2024

In 2021, M.C. was a student at Northwest Catholic High School in Connecticut. On November 18, 2021, M.C. was accused by a fellow student of an alleged sexual misconduct and assault. That same day, the School and its president allegedly reported the incident to the West Hartford police department and suspended M.C. from school. The School also told M.C. they would report the accusation to the state Department of Children and Families (DCF).

M.C. alleged that this was a case of “mistaken identity,” and that the School and the president lacked a good faith basis to take these actions. M.C. filed suit against the School and the president, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and slander.

In response, the School and the president filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Anti-SLAPP motions are special motions to dismiss when the opposing party’s complaint is based on the moving party exercising free speech, right to petition the government, or right to association under the U.S. Constitution in connection with matters of public concern.

To succeed on an anti-SLAPP motion is a two-step process. First, the Court must determine whether the defendants made an initial showing that the complaint was based on the defendants’ exercise of rights to free speech, to petition the government, or to assemble on a matter of public concern. Second, the party that brought the complaint must set forth the circumstances giving rise to the complaint and demonstrate that they will likely prevail on the merits.

Here, the School and president argued that in notifying the DCF and the West Hartford Police Department, they were petitioning the government on a matter of public concern. M.C. argued that this was not a matter of public concern because he was wrongly accused and not responsible for sexual misconduct. The Court, however, noted that a matter of public concern includes issues related to health or safety or community well-being. Therefore, regardless of who committed the sexual assault, the matter related to the health or safety of the victim.

For the second part of the test, the School and president did not dispute that M.C. pled a prima facie case for the various claims he alleged. However, the School and president argued that they would prevail on the merits because as mandated reporters, they were required to report the conduct to DCF and the police, and therefore are immune from liability.

Under the Connecticut Mandated Reporter statute, a mandated reporter includes any school employee, and it requires the employee to make a report if they have reasonable cause to suspect that any child under the age of eighteen years has been abused or neglected, suffered physical injury, or is placed in serious harm. Such reasonable suspicion or belief is based on the reporter’s observations, allegations, facts, or statements from a child, victim, or third party. The suspicion or belief does not require certainty or probable cause. If the report is made in good faith, the reporter is immune from liability.

Here, the reporting student submitted an affidavit to the Court where she said she told a school counselor about an incident involving a student with the same first name and last initial as M.C. This student said she did not give M.C.’s last name, but said it started with “Ch,” and M.C.’s last name starts with “Cu.”

The School, however, provided evidence of what was reported to them by the student. In particular, after the student’s initial report to a school counselor, the director of counseling met with the student, and during this meeting she showed the School text messages and described physical actions that suggested M.C. was harassing and stalking her. The school officials said that the student confirmed the identity of the perpetrator as M.C. on at least two occasions and did not express any doubt or indicate any confusion about his identity. The counseling team informed the principal and the president, and the principal and president met with M.C. and his parents to tell them that they would be reporting the matter to DCF and the police. While the matter was being investigated, the School told M.C. and his parents that he could not be on campus.

A few days later, the reporting student informed the School that the suspect was present in the school hallway. At that point, the School realized they had mistakenly notified the wrong person as the alleged perpetrator.

M.C. argued that the School’s actions did not constitute a good faith report because they did not do a sufficient investigation before reporting the matter to the officials.

The Court found probable cause to believe the reporting student informed school officials that the perpetrator was not M.C. However, the Court also found that the School and president acted in good faith in reporting M.C., with the mix-up due to confusion or misapprehension. Furthermore, the mandated reporting statutes allow the mandated reporter to rely on facts or statements made by a victim. The School was not required under the statutes to undertake a full investigation prior to making the report. The Court found that the School took a cautious approach, met with the victim multiple times, met with M.C. and his parents before making the report, and removed M.C. from campus while the matter was investigated.

The Court therefore found that the School and president acted in good faith, were immune from liability, and granted the motion to dismiss.

Culligan v. Northwest Cath. High Sch. Corp. (Super.Ct. Sep. 23, 2024) 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2041.

Note: California similarly provides immunity for mandated reporters under certain circumstances.

View More News

Private Education Matters
University Potentially Liable for Contract and Discrimination Claims Based on Student’s Academic Suspension
READ MORE
Private Education Matters
California Universities Do Not Have Duty To Protect Students From Emotional Harm
READ MORE