Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Hand Et Al

Case 1:19-cv-00895-UN1 Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JANE DOE, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, No.
v.
CHAMBERSBURG AREA SCHOOL

DISTRICT, CATHY DUSMAN,
individually and in her official capacity,
JOSEPH PADASAK, individually and in
his official capacity, KATHERINE
BARNHART, individually and in her
official capacity, JEFFREY HAND,
individually and in his official capacity and
JOHN DOES 1-5, individually and in their
official capacity,
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through counsel Robert A.
Bracken, Esquire and Bracken Law Firm, LLC and files the following Complaint and
avers as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff Jane Doe is an adult individual that resides in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania. As Plaintiff was a 17-year old student in the Chambersburg Area School
District when she was a victim of institutional sexual assault and corruption of minors,
she has been identified as Jane Doe; however, Defendants know her identity. Plaintiff
has not yet reached the age of 20.
2. Defendant Chambersburg Area School District (“CASD”) is a
governmental entity and/or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

located at 435 Stanley Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201. CASD provides public
education to students that reside within the school district.
3. Defendant Cathy Dusman, presently and at all times relevant, was
employed by CASD. Claims are being asserted against Dr. Dusman individually and in
her official capacity.
4. Defendant Joseph Padasak, presently and at all times relevant, was
employed by CASD. Claims are being asserted against Dr. Padasak individually and in
his official capacity.
5. Defendant Katherine Barnhardt, presently and at all times relevant, was
employed by CASD. Claims are being asserted against Ms. Barnhardt individually and in
her official capacity.
6. Defendant Jeffrey Hand, is an adult individual currently serving a one to
five-year prison sentence. At the time of the events set forth herein, Hand was a soccer
coach employed by CASD. Claims are being asserted against Mr. Hand individually and
in his official capacity.
7. Defendants John Does 1-5, are adult individuals that were administrators
and/or appropriate persons with decision-making authority employed by CASD. Claims
are being asserted against John Does 1-5 individually and in their official capacities.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. Plaintiff brings these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. and state law.
2
9. The Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and § 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
10. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
CASD Soccer Coach Grooms and Preys Upon Plaintiff Jane Doe
11. Since approximately 2011, Jeffrey Hand acted in a soccer coach capacity
at CASD. Mr. Hand also acted as a soccer coach for the Chambersburg Youth Soccer
Association (“CYSA”) at times during his employment with CASD.
12. Mr. Hand was also a licensed therapist during the time of his employment
with CASD.
13. Jane Doe was a 17-year-old Chambersburg Area High School student and
soccer player at the time of her sexual assault by Mr. Hand.
14. Mr. Hand had known Jane Doe since she was about 10 years old, as he
was her CYSA soccer coach.
15. Mr. Hand is approximately twice Jane Doe’s age.
16. When Jane Doe was 16 and following the permanent exit of her father
from Jane Doe’s home after her parents’ divorce, Mr. Hand began grooming Jane Doe.
The grooming that began in Jane Doe’s junior year of high school continued through part
of her senior year of high school.
3
17. Initially, Mr. Hand’s overtures appeared innocuous. For example, Mr.
Hand invited Jane Doe to help him with junior high school soccer tryouts, which Jane
Doe did. Similarly, Mr. Hand volunteered to drive and did drive Jane Doe to soccer
camps and competitions.
18. Over time, Mr. Hand’s grooming became more targeted to Jane Doe.
19. Mr. Hand invited Jane Doe to his apartment to provide her with a book he
purchased for her and Jane Doe did visit his apartment for this reason.
20. Mr. Hand invited Jane Doe to go hiking and did go hiking with Jane Doe.
21. Mr. Hand invited Jane Doe to go out to dinner following soccer games and
did have such dinners with Jane Doe.
22. Mr. Hand invited Jane Doe to his apartment to play Uno and watch
television and Jane Doe did go to his apartment.
23. Mr. Hand invited Jane Doe to his apartment to assist her with her college
applications and Jane Doe did go to his apartment.
24. Mr. Hand often “counseled” Jane Doe regarding personal matters such as
the divorce of her parents during their private time together.
25. Eventually, Mr. Hand succeeded with his grooming and began engaging in
sexual acts with Jane Doe.
26. The first sexual encounter occurred in September 2016 at Mr. Hand’s
parents’ home after Mr. Hand plied Jane Doe with alcohol; Mr. Hand’s parents were not
present.
27. A few days after the encounter, Jane Doe was injured playing soccer for
CASD.
4
28. Mr. Hand fondled Jane Doe by intentionally grabbing her buttocks while
assisting her off the field.
29. Thereafter, Mr. Hand continued to engage in sexual acts with the student,
Jane Doe, while often plying her with alcohol.
30. Most of the sexual encounters occurred at Mr. Hand’s apartment.
31. The last sexual encounter between Mr. Hand and Jane Doe occurred on or
about December 13, 2016.
32. Mr. Hand’s conduct was unlawful sexual assault.
33. On or about February 7, 2018, Mr. Hand was convicted of felony
institutional sexual assault and felony corruption of minors resulting from his wrongful
conduct with Jane Doe and received a one to five-year prison sentence, followed by five
years of probation.
34. As part of his sentence, Mr. Hand must also undergo sex offender
treatment and is not allowed to contact Jane Doe or have unsupervised contact with
anyone under the age of 18.
CASD was Aware of Prior Allegations of Inappropriate Relationships Between Hand

and Students
35. Upon information and belief, sometime during his employment with
CASD, and prior to 2016, Mr. Hand was accused of assaulting another CASD student.
36. Upon information and belief, as a result of this accusation, Hand was
temporarily suspended while CASD investigated. He was also suspended from CYSA
during the investigation.
37. Thus, upon information and belief, one or more of John Does 1-5, had
knowledge of these accusations about Mr. Hand.
5
38. Yet, upon information and belief, CASD, through one or more of John
Does 1-5, chose not to involve the Pennsylvania State Police but rather handled the
investigation internally.
39. Upon information and belief, following CASD’s internal investigation,
Mr. Hand was reinstated by one or more of John Does 1-5 and permitted to continue
coaching without appropriate monitoring or discipline.
40. Subsequently, Mr. Hand was witnessed engaging in inappropriate
behavior with female soccer students.
41. Upon information and belief, a complaint was made by a female CASD
high school junior varsity soccer coach to either the Head Coach for CASD soccer or the
CASD Athletic Director (or both) about her witnessing Mr. Hand telling the junior
varsity players to lift up their shirts during practice. It appears that no permanent (or any
for that matter) corrective action was taken. The complainant subsequently resigned her
position as junior varsity soccer coach with CASD when nothing was done about her
complaint.
42. In approximately 2016 Mr. Hand was retained by CASD as the junior
varsity soccer coach reporting to newly hired Head Coach Ed Franchi.
43. Upon information and belief, CASD, through one or more of John Does 1-
5, failed to adequately consider Mr. Hand’s troubling background when making the
decision to hire and retain Mr. Hand.
44. As should have been expected, Mr. Hand continued to engage in
inappropriate conduct with female students after he was hired by CASD.
6
45. Head Coach Franchi stated that he saw the need to counsel Mr. Hand
regarding his “disturbing” behavior with female CASD soccer players which he
described as Mr. Hand being “too handsy”. Notwithstanding, it appears that no report of
Mr. Hand’s “disturbing” behavior was made to anyone outside of CASD. Further, it
appears that the CASD took no permanent disciplinary measures (or any) as a result of
such “disturbing” behavior. CASD permitted Mr. Hand to continue as the CASD junior
varsity soccer coach.
46. CASD’s decisions, through John Does 1-5 regarding the hiring and
continued employment of Mr. Hand despite multiple “disturbing” incidents involving
him with minor, female soccer players - including those listed above - jeopardized the
safety of Jane Doe and her teammates.
47. As a result, Mr. Hand was put in a position that allowed him to target and
groom Jane Doe – ultimately, engaging in sexual relations with her, while plying her
alcohol.
48. The failures by CASD, through one or more of John Does 1-5, including
the failure to adequately screen Mr. Hand’s background prior to hiring/retaining him; the
failure to report “disturbing” behavior brought to their attention to the proper authorities
as required by applicable law; and the failure to adequately investigate and discipline
“disturbing” behavior brought to their attention amounts to a reckless indifference to the
safety of CASD students.
49. This reckless indifference allowed Mr. Hand to continue preying upon
Jane Doe.
7
50. Teachers, coaches and school administrators owe a duty of care to their
students, which includes (i) a requirement that they promptly and adequately report any
reasonable suspicion of sexual assault or the corruption of its students to authorities as
mandated by law; (ii) a requirement that they properly screen teachers, coaches and
school administrators at the time of hiring; (iii) a requirement that they adequately
investigate reports of inappropriate conduct by other teachers, coaches and school
administrators regarding a student; and (iv) a requirement that they invoke appropriate
discipline if a teacher, coach or school administrator demonstrates inappropriate conduct
involving a student.
51. Notwithstanding, CASD, through one or more of John Does 1-5 made the
affirmative decision not to report such concerns – including allegations that could have
constituted crimes. Further CASD, through one or more of John Does 1-5 failed to
adequately investigate reports of Mr. Hand’s inappropriate conduct, failed to conduct an
adequate hiring screen when hiring Mr. Hand and failed to take adequate (or any)
discipline pertaining to reported misconduct.
52. The conduct of CASD and CASD’s failures to properly act, through one
or more of John Does 1-5, emboldened Mr. Hand and left his female students vulnerable
to his on-going conduct.
Jane Doe is Victimized in a Meeting with Senior Administrators Following CASD

Learning of Hand’s Sexual Assault
53. On December 14, 2016, Jane Doe was suddenly pulled into a meeting with
4 CASD senior administrators, including male administrators. These senior
administrators included Principal Cathy Dusman, Assistant Principals Jaime Vinglass and
Brad Ocker, and Athletic Director Jeremy Flores.
8
54. Jane Doe was told that the meeting was the result of a report being made
to CASD about the inappropriate relationship involving Mr. Hand and Jane Doe.
55. The date that CASD received this report is presently unknown.
56. At some point after the meeting was in progress, Jane Doe’s mother was
called and permitted to attend.
57. Throughout that meeting, Jane Doe was humiliated, verbally attacked and
accused by the senior administrators present.
58. The attacks and accusations included those of Dr. Dusman – who berated
Jane Doe, shook her head in disgust at Jane Doe, demanded Jane Doe’s phone and
passcode, searched her private text messages and insisted that Jane Doe answer her
questions. Dr. Dusman even called Jane Doe a “liar” in the meeting.
59. More shocking was that the meeting turned into an interrogation of Jane
Doe’s sexual activity. This included Ms. Vinglass asking Jane Doe’s mother (in the
presence of Jane Doe) whether she was “sexually active” - stating that she had “heard”
that Jane Doe was.
60. Based upon Ms. Vinglass’ accusation, it appears that rumors were
circulating regarding Jane Doe being “sexually active” – which upon information and
belief, was directly associated with Mr. Hand’s sexual assaults of Jane Doe.
61. Upon information and belief, these rumors made their way to senior
administrators at CASD, yet it appears that no action was taken until a “formal report”
was made prior to the December 14, 2016 meeting.
9
62. The conduct of the CASD senior administrators in the meeting was so
deplorable that Jane Doe’s mother had to remind them multiple times that Jane Doe was
the victim.
63. During the meeting, Jane Doe tried to cooperate with the demands of the
senior administrators after she was assured that everything discussed would be kept
confidential and “not leave the room.”
64. At no time prior to this meeting were police notified as required by
applicable law. Jane Doe’s mother later learned directly from Superintendent Joseph
Padasak that he had instructed Dr. Dusman “not to touch” the situation and to
immediately contact the police, but that Dr. Dusman disregarded his specific instructions.
Notwithstanding his receipt of the report, Dr. Padasak did not himself contact the police,
did not attend the meeting on December 14, 2016 and did not follow up to ensure that his
directions regarding handling of the matter were followed.
65. As the meeting progressed, Jane Doe became increasingly distraught. By
the end of the meeting, Jane Doe was in shock and hysterical. Jane Doe’s condition was
so uncharacteristically fragile that her mother took her from the meeting to the
Chambersburg Hospital Emergency Room.
66. Jane Doe’s mother also arranged for a licensed therapist to talk with Jane
Doe following her release from the hospital, as she was so alarmed and very concerned
that Jane Doe might be suicidal.
10
Jane Doe is Bullied by a Teacher and Students After CASD Breaches its
Promise of Confidentiality and Fails to take Corrective Action
67. Despite the promise of confidentiality, Dr. Dusman promptly held a
meeting with the CASD faculty and informed them all of the report – including Jane
Doe’s identify.
68. Thereafter, teacher Katherine Barnhart (who at one time had a romantic
relationship with Mr. Hand) started discussing these events – including Jane Doe
specifically – with Jane Doe’s peers (other students).
69. Ms. Barnhart’s conduct was outrageous and calculated to cause Jane Doe
enormous embarrassment, humiliation and severe emotional distress; Ms. Barnhart was
successful.
70. Indeed, Ms. Barnhart encouraged bullying and harassment of Jane Doe,
which included and led to Jane Doe being called, among other things, a “whore,” “slut,”
“disgusting,” “gross,” “f*cked up,” and stating that she should be “in jail” rather than Mr.
Hand.
71. Ms. Barnhart’s bullying and harassing behavior began soon after the
December 14, 2017 meeting and continued throughout the remainder of the school year.
72. In particular, Ms. Barnhart encouraged one particular student, who hung
out with Ms. Barnhart outside of school, interacted with Ms. Barnhart on social media
and through text messages and was essentially Ms. Barnhart’s sidekick, to bully Jane
Doe.
73. In fact, this student apologized to Jane Doe after her high school
graduation and admitted that she acted the way she did and did not apologize earlier
because she did not want to upset Ms. Barnhart.
11
74. The bullying included students keying Jane Doe’s car and shooting it with
paintballs.
75. The bullying and harassment Jane Doe experienced were on the basis of
sex and related to the sexual assaults that Mr. Hand had committed.
76. This harassment caused Jane Doe severe and on-going emotional distress
and often led Jane Doe to a sympathetic teacher’s classroom to talk about the bullying
and harassment she was experiencing while she was crying.
77. The bullying contributed to Jane Doe’s need for medical care and
treatment and often led Jane Doe to skip school.
78. Jane Doe pleaded with to Dr. Dusman herself to take action to stop the
bullying, yet her concerns were intentionally ignored.
79. Jane Doe’s mother pleaded with both Dr. Dusman and Dr. Padasak in
writing about Ms. Barnhart’s behavior, yet her concerns were intentionally ignored.
80. During the holiday break, Jane Doe’s mother contacted Dr. Padasak and
requested a “re-entry plan” for Jane Doe’s returned to school in January. She expressed
her concern about how cruel people can be and wanted a safe emotional and physical
environment for Jane Doe. Despite Dr. Padasak’s promise that action would be taken to
ensure her safe return nothing at all was done and the harassment and bullying behavior
continued after Jane Doe returned to school in January. This includes Ms. Barnhart’s
continuing to spread rumors and engaging in gossip regarding Jane Doe and Mr. Hand.
81. Jane Doe, as to be expected of any minor child, experienced serious
emotional distress and physical symptoms from the sexual assaults and from CASD’s
gross - and in some cases intentional - mishandling of the incident.
12
82. Accordingly, instead of experiencing the joy of her high school senior
year, Jane Doe experienced regular and severe harassment, bullying and humiliation.
Jane Doe often skipped classes to get away from the harassment, bullying and
humiliation and went through medical treatment and counseling to try and cope.
83. Jane Doe continues to experience physical and emotional issues and
remains in counseling today.
COUNT I - Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. All Defendants
84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 through 83 of the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
85. All named Defendants were state actors at all times relevant to the claims
in this Complaint.
86. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
87. Jane Doe had a liberty interest in her bodily integrity and her reputational
integrity that were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
88. Further, a student’s right to be free from sexual assault is a clearly defined
Constitutional right, as is a student’s right to equal protection and to be free from sex-
based harassment.
13
89. Yet, these Defendants violated Jane Doe’s due process and equal
protection rights, which rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
90. Mr. Hand by committing institutional sexual assault and engaging in the
corruption of a minor violated Jane Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights, including but
not limited to her due process rights, including her right to bodily integrity.
91. Ms. Barnhart by her own actions and by encouraging students to bully and harass
Jane Doe on the basis of her sex violated Jane Doe’s rights to equal protection and to be
free from sex-based harassment and violated Jane Doe’s due process rights, including her
right to her reputational integrity.
92. Defendants CASD, Dr. Dusman, Dr. Padasak and John Doe’s 1-5 violated
Jane Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment rights under a Monell theory of liability.
93. Defendants CASD, Dr. Dusman, Dr. Padasak, Ms. Barnhart, Mr. Hand
and John Doe’s 1-5 violated Jane Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights under a state-
created danger theory.
94. John Does 1-5, Dr. Padasak and Dr. Dusman possessed policymaking
authority for the specific supervisory decisions at issue here.
95. Furthermore, the failures of CASD, Dr. Dusman, Dr. Padasak and John
Does 1-5 to adequately implement effective policies, train its teachers, staff, agents and
administrators regarding those policies and/or enforce those policies reflects a deliberate
indifference to the Constitutional rights of CASD students, including Jane Doe,
particularly given the recurring situations involving Mr. Hand and Ms. Barnhart that
presented an obvious potential for continuing Constitutional violations (which did, in fact
occur).
14
96. Upon information and belief, CASD, Dr. Padasak, Dr. Dusman and John
Does 1-5 failed to have effective polices, customs and practices in place and/or
adequately educate or train its teachers, administrators and staff and ensure their
compliance regarding the following:
(a) Obligations as mandatory reporters;
(b) Documentation of meetings, warnings and accusations of criminal

conduct or impermissible teacher/coach-student relationships;
(c) Institutional sexual assault and corruption of minors;
(d) Appropriately handling internal investigations to ensure they are

done adequately, fairly and do not subject a student to further
harassment or bullying;
(e) Appropriate student-teacher/coach boundaries and student-teacher

communications;
(f) Student-on-student discriminatory or sex-based harassment;
(g) How to identify, investigate, report and handle allegations of

teacher/coach-student sexual relations;
(h) How to identify, investigate, report and handle allegations of

student-on-student discriminatory or sex-based harassment;
(i) How to adequately screen applicants before hiring or retaining

them to ensure they do not pose a risk of harm to students;
(j) How to adequately discipline teachers or coaches engaged in

inappropriate relations with students; and
(k) Monitoring teachers/coaches that have been accused of

inappropriate relations with student(s).
97. The failure to enact, train and/or enforce policies in these regards amounts
to a deliberate indifference on behalf of the Chambersburg Area School District, Dr.
Dusman, Dr. Padasak and John Does 1-5, as they knew that employees of the district
would be confronted with complaints of inappropriate student-teacher/coach relations and
15
inappropriate sex-based harassment and that a failure to properly handle such matters
could lead to a violation of a student’s Constitutional rights.
98. These failures reflected deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights
of CASD students, including Jane Doe.
99. Further, the Chambersburg Area School District, Dr. Padasak, Dr. Dusman
and John Does 1-5 acted with deliberate indifference to the plight of Jane Doe, which
resulted in the deprivation of Jane Doe’s Constitutional rights.
100. These failures, as well as the customs, policies and habits enacted and
followed by the Chambersburg Area School District, Dr. Padasak, Dr. Dusman and John
Does 1-5 were a direct cause of harm to Jane Doe.
101. Furthermore, supervisory liability exists, as Dr. Padasak with respect to
Dr. Dusman and all other defendants and Dr. Dusman with respect to Ms. Barnhart and
all other defendants, had knowledge of and acquiesced, condoned, permitted and/or failed
to end Mr. Hand’s and Ms. Barnhart’s on-going violations of Jane Doe’s rights, as
illustrated in detail throughout the complaint.
102. CASD is also liable for its failure to adequately screen Mr. Hand prior to
hiring / retaining him.
103. Adequate scrutiny of Mr. Hand’s background should have led CASD or
any reasonable administrator to conclude that Mr. Hand should not be coaching minor,
female students, as it would jeopardize their rights to bodily integrity.
104. Moreover, CASD is liable for its failure to adequately discipline Mr. Hand
given his prior history of inappropriate conduct towards female students.
16
105. The failure to adequately discipline Mr. Hand emboldened him to engage
in further reprehensible conduct with female students.
106. Additionally, there was a state-created danger.
107. The harm suffered by Jane Doe, being subjected to sexual assault, was
foreseeable, particularly given that there had been reports to CASD and John Does 1-5
regarding Mr. Hand engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior involving other students
prior to Mr. Hand preying upon Jane Doe.
108. Furthermore, upon information and belief, there had been reports and
rumors regarding Mr. Hand’s illicit sexual conduct with Jane Doe for months, yet CASD,
Dr. Dusman, Dr. Padasak and John Does 1-5 refused to timely involve the police
department.
109. Moreover, Jane Doe and her mother repeatedly reported Ms. Barnhart’s
bullying and harassing behavior that created a hostile educational environment.
110. Thus, clearly the harm to Jane Doe was foreseeable.
111. Next, Mr. Hand, a state actor, acted with a degree of culpability that
shocks the conscience by engaging in institutional sexual assault and corruption of a
minor.
112. Ms. Barnhart, a state actor, acted with a degree of culpability that shocks
the conscience by engaging in and encouraging other students to engage in the sex-based
harassment, bullying and humiliation of Jane Doe.
113. Additionally, Dr. Dusman, a state actor, acted with a degree of culpability
that shocks the conscience by engaging in bullying, harassment and humiliation of Jane
Doe during the December 14, 2019 meeting, intentionally choosing not to immediately
17
involve the police despite Dr. Padasak’s instruction to do so, subsequently betraying the
confidentiality promised to Jane Doe by revealing her identity to others within the school
and intentionally choosing to do nothing regarding the on-going sex-based harassment
Jane Doe was experiencing.
114. Dr. Padasak, a state actor, acted with a degree of culpability that shocks
the conscience by intentionally choosing not to involve the police, intentionally choosing
not to properly supervise or monitor CASD’s handling of the reported sexual assault and
intentionally choosing to do nothing regarding the on-going sex-based harassment Jane
Doe was experiencing.
115. Furthermore, the conduct of John Does 1-5 in intentionally choosing to not
thoroughly investigate the prior allegations of Mr. Hand or to timely enlist the police or
other authorities shocks the conscience.
116. Finally, the state actors, Mr. Hand, Dr. Dusman, Ms. Barnhart and John
Does 1-5, affirmatively used their authority in ways to create a danger and/or rendered
Jane Doe more vulnerable to danger than if they had never acted.
117. Indeed, students have a clearly established right not to be sexually abused
by their teachers or sexually harassed and bullied by students and teachers, and that
supervising school officials clearly violate students’ rights, as they did here, if their
conduct somehow approves of or assists the abusers’ actions.
118. These affirmative acts (or failures to act) were gross abuses of authority
which caused Jane Doe substantial and forseeable harm.
119. Jane Doe has suffered physical and emotional harm and monetary loss and
is entitled to and seeks all available damages recoverable against CASD, Dr. Dusman,
18
Dr. Padasak, Ms. Barnhart, Mr. Hand and John Does 1-5, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Past, present and future loss of earnings;
b. Past, present and future loss of earning capacity;
c. Past, present and future reduction in earning capacity;
d. Past, present and future loss of work life expectancy;
e. Past, present and future medical expenses of an undetermined

amount;
f. Loss of pleasures and enjoyment of life, past present and future;
g. Past, present and future physical and mental pain, suffering and
inconvenience with respect to the above injuries;
h. Impairment of Plaintiff’s general health, strength and vitality;
i. Loss of feeling of wellbeing;
j. Diminished quality of life;
k. Worry, anxiety, apprehension, embarrassment and frustration;
l. Undue mental anguish and personal indignity;
m. Diminished reputation or status; and
n. Attorney’s fees, costs and interest.
120. Additionally, the conduct of Dr. Dusman, Dr. Padasak, Ms. Barnhart, Mr.
Hand and John Does 1-5 (who have all been named in their individual capacity as well)
warrants the imposition of punitive damages, as each individual’s conduct involved
reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others, including Jane
Doe.
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally for all available
damages in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, together with interest, costs,
attorney’s fees and any other appropriate or available relief.
COUNT II - Sexual Harassment in violation of Title IX
Plaintiff v. Chambersburg Area School District
121. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 120 as if fully set forth herein.
122. There is an implied private right of action for monetary damages under
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
123. Jane Doe was subjected to sexual harassment in violation of Title IX.
124. Mr. Hand unquestionably engaged in sexual harassment of Jane Doe, as
Mr. Hand was convicted of the corruption of a minor and institutional sexual assault of
Jane Doe.
125. Additionally, Jane Doe experienced severe, pervasive and objectively
offensive and outrageous harassment, bullying and humiliation on the basis of her sex at
the hands of Ms. Barnhart and various students who were encouraged to do so by Ms.
Barnhart.
126. This on-going harassment created a disparately hostile and abusive
educational environment that was so severe, persistent, pervasive and objectively
offensive that it severely limited Jane Doe’s ability to participate in or benefit from the
educational program - thus effectively denying her equal access to educational resources
and opportunities.
20
127. As discussed herein at length, CASD had actual notice of the on-going
sexual harassment and intentionally failed to act when it had a clear duty to act to protect
CASD students including Jane Doe.
128. One or more of John Does 1-5 were aware of Mr. Hand’s prior history of
reported sexual harassment and misconduct with female students.
129. Mr. Hand’s prior conduct demonstrated to CASD a pattern of and
propensity for sexual harassment.
130. Moreover, upon information and belief, one or more of John Does 1-5
were aware of, at the very least, rumors of Mr. Hand’s inappropriate relationship with
Jane Doe prior to the final assault on December 13, 2016.
131. Nonetheless, CASD failed to investigate the rumors or to adequately
monitor or discipline Mr. Hand.
132. John Does 1-5 were appropriate persons that possessed the authority to
institute corrective measures with respect to teacher misconduct and investigate
complaints.
133. Upon information and belief, Dr. Padasak and Dr. Dusman, the principal,
were aware of the sex harassment Jane Doe was experiencing, which was being
encouraged by Ms. Barnhart.
134. Dr. Padasak and Dr. Dusman possessed authority to supervise and
investigate complaints of student and teacher misconduct and undertake disciplinary or
other corrective action, yet they intentionally failed to take any action to end Ms.
Barnhart’s conduct.
21
135. The response to the harassment by the CASD, through Dr. Padasak, Dr.
Dusman and one or more of John Does 1-5, however, amounted to deliberate
indifference.
136. Indeed, their responses were clearly unreasonable in light of known
circumstances.
137. Further, their responses caused Jane Doe to be more vulnerable to the
continued harassment.
is entitled to and seeks all available damages recoverable against CASD, including but
not limited to the following:

amount;
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all available damages in an
amount in sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, together with interest, costs, attorney’s fees
and any other appropriate or available relief.
COUNT III - Retaliation in violation of Title IX
Plaintiff v. Chambersburg Area School District
140. Jane Doe participated in protected activity when she told Dr. Dusman and
others during the December 14, 2016 meeting that Mr. Hand had engaged in sexual
intercourse with her, which was a felony.
141. Jane Doe’s statements and identity became known broadly to the CASD
faculty, including its school board, administration, teachers and staff due to the
intentional violation of promised confidentiality by Dr. Dusman.
142. Thereafter, as described throughout the Complaint, Jane Doe was
subjected to retaliation and adverse actions by CASD.
143. Jane Doe was humiliated during the December 14, 2016 meeting and after
she was identified by Dr. Dusman to the CASD faculty in intentional violation of the
promised confidentiality.
144. CASD teacher Ms. Barnhart humiliated, harassed and bullied Jane Doe by
engaging in gossip sessions and encouraging others to harass, humiliate and bully Jane
Doe, which caused her significant harm and distress.
23
145. Such conduct amounted to adverse actions, as it might have dissuaded a
reasonable person from engaging in protected activity such as opposing or reporting the
sexual harassment to which Jane Doe had been and was being subjected.
146. And, despite CASD’s principal Dr. Dusman and CASD Superintendent
Dr. Padasak having direct knowledge of Ms. Barnhart’s retaliatory conduct and on-going
harassment and bullying, nothing was done by either of them to stop it.
147. Jane Doe’s reporting of her sexual assault by. Hand and the gross
mishandling of the reported incident by CASD was the catalyst for Ms. Barnhart’s
wretched conduct and the on-going bullying and harassment of Jane Doe by Jane Doe’s
peers.
148. Accordingly, Jane Doe has suffered physical and emotional harm and
monetary loss and is entitled to and seeks all available damages recoverable against
CASD, including but not limited to the following:

amount;
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally for all available
damages in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, together with interest, costs,
attorney’s fees and any other appropriate or available relief.
COUNT IV - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Plaintiff v. Barnhardt and Hand
150. As described in detail throughout the complaint, Ms. Barnhardt and Mr.
Hand engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally and/or recklessly
caused Jane Doe to suffer severe emotional distress.
151. Jane Doe has suffered physical and emotional harm and is entitled to and
seeks all available damages recoverable against Ms. Barnhardt and Mr. Hand, including
but not limited to the following:

amount;
25
152. Additionally, the conduct of Ms. Barnhardt and Mr. Hand warrants the
imposition of punitive damages, as each individual’s conduct was objectively offensive
and outrageous and involved reckless or callous indifference to the rights of Jane Doe.
amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, together with interest, costs, attorney’s fees
COUNT V - Sexual Assault and Battery
Plaintiff v. Hand
154. As set forth in detail throughout this complaint, Mr. Hand engaged in the
illegal sexual intercourse and contact with Jane Doe when she was a 17-year-old high
school student.
155. In so doing, Mr. Hand also intended to cause a reasonable apprehension of
immediate harmful and offensive contact to Jane Doe.
26
156. Mr. Hand’s conduct was unlawful, incapable of being consented to and
constituted institutional sexual assault and corruption of a minor.
157. As a result of Mr. Hand’s illegal conduct, Jane Doe sustained physical,
mental and emotional injuries,
is entitled to and seeks all available damages recoverable against Mr. Hand, including but
not limited to the following:

amount;
27
159. Further, Mr. Hand’s conduct was reckless, outrageous, willful, wanton,
and intentional; thus, punitive damages are warranted.
amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff, together with interest, costs, attorney’s fees
BRACKEN LAW FIRM, LLC
By /s/ Robert A. Bracken

Robert A. Bracken
PA ID 206095
BNY Mellon Center
500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel. (412) 278-7402
Fax (412) 533-7030
28
Case 1:19-cv-00895-UN1 Document 1-1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 1

Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Hand Et Al

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Hand Et Al

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1:19-cv-00895-UN1 Document 1 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JANE DOE, CIVIL ACTION

CHAMBERSBURG AREA SCHOOL

Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Jane Doe is an adult individual that resides in Franklin County,

has not yet reached the age of 20.

2. Defendant Chambersburg Area School District (“CASD”) is a

governmental entity and/or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

located at 435 Stanley Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201. CASD provides public

education to students that reside within the school district.

3. Defendant Cathy Dusman, presently and at all times relevant, was

her official capacity.

4. Defendant Joseph Padasak, presently and at all times relevant, was

his official capacity.

5. Defendant Katherine Barnhardt, presently and at all times relevant, was

her official capacity.

6. Defendant Jeffrey Hand, is an adult individual currently serving a one to

in his official capacity.

and/or appropriate persons with decision-making authority employed by CASD. Claims

Jurisdiction and Venue

8. Plaintiff brings these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. and state law.

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

10. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a

Association (“CYSA”) at times during his employment with CASD.

soccer player at the time of her sexual assault by Mr. Hand.

was her CYSA soccer coach.

15. Mr. Hand is approximately twice Jane Doe’s age.

of her senior year of high school.

camps and competitions.

did have such dinners with Jane Doe.

television and Jane Doe did go to his apartment.

applications and Jane Doe did go to his apartment.

the divorce of her parents during their private time together.

sexual acts with Jane Doe.

assisting her off the field.

Jane Doe, while often plying her with alcohol.

30. Most of the sexual encounters occurred at Mr. Hand’s apartment.

about December 13, 2016.

32. Mr. Hand’s conduct was unlawful sexual assault.

33. On or about February 7, 2018, Mr. Hand was convicted of felony

anyone under the age of 18.

CASD was Aware of Prior Allegations of Inappropriate Relationships Between Hand

during the investigation.

knowledge of these accusations about Mr. Hand.

39. Upon information and belief, following CASD’s internal investigation,

coaching without appropriate monitoring or discipline.

40. Subsequently, Mr. Hand was witnessed engaging in inappropriate

behavior with female soccer students.

varsity soccer coach reporting to newly hired Head Coach Ed Franchi.

decision to hire and retain Mr. Hand.

44. As should have been expected, Mr. Hand continued to engage in

inappropriate conduct with female students after he was hired by CASD.

varsity soccer coach.

continued employment of Mr. Hand despite multiple “disturbing” incidents involving

safety of Jane Doe and her teammates.

“disturbing” behavior brought to their attention amounts to a reckless indifference to the

safety of CASD students.

reasonable suspicion of sexual assault or the corruption of its students to authorities as

investigate reports of inappropriate conduct by other teachers, coaches and school

discipline if a teacher, coach or school administrator demonstrates inappropriate conduct