Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-857 / 09-0364 Filed December 30, 2009

V.H., Mother and Next Friend of M.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HAMPTON-DUMONT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and SCOTT SACKVILLE, Individually and as an elected Director of the Hampton-Dumont Community School District, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Brian H. McKinley, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. AFFIRMED.

Andrea Miller of Miller & Miller, P.C., Hampton, for appellant. Beth Hansen of Swisher & Cohrt, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellees.

Heard by Potterfield, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Huitink, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).

2 MANSFIELD, J. This case presents the question whether the Hampton-Dumont

Community School District or a member of its board of directors violated the rights of V.H. and her minor daughter M.M. by disseminating information regarding improper sexual conduct by a former school district employee that involved M.M. After review of this record, we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to withstand the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural Background Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we set forth the facts in the light most favorable to V.H. The summary judgment record included excerpts from various depositions, as well as excerpts from a hearing on V.H.'s earlier request for a temporary injunction, which the district court denied. Tyler Radcliffe, aged twenty-one, was employed by the Hampton-Dumont district as a teaching assistant and coach. During the summer of 2007,

Radcliffe's duties included coaching the freshman and junior varsity softball teams. M.M., who was entering the ninth grade, was a member of those teams. Radcliffe and M.M. exchanged text messages. Radcliffe arranged to have M.M. meet him at his house over the lunch hour on August 20 and 21, 2007. During those two occasions, sexual activity occurred. The next day, August 22, which was the first day of the 2007-08 school year, M.M. confided in her best friend M.B. what had happened. Rumors started to spread among the students about what had occurred between M.M. and Radcliffe. M.M. concedes the rumors started with her friend M.B. In mid-

3 September, V.H. learned of the rumors. On October 15, 2007, M.M. went to Trent Gundmeyer, the principal of the Hampton-Dumont High School, to complain of the rumors. Grundmeyer asked M.M. if the rumors were true. She replied they were not. Grundmeyer subsequently confronted another student, A.J., whom M.M. accused of spreading rumors.1 Later that week, Grundmeyer asked M.M. if the situation had improved, and she replied it had. On October 17, 2007, M.M. and her best friend M.B. were at the house of M.B.'s aunt, J.E. M.M. was upset, and J.E. asked M.M. what was going on. M.M. explained there were rumors going around the school concerning Radcliffe and herself. J.E. asked M.M. if the rumors were true, and she started crying and said, "Yes, the rumors are true." M.M. then told J.E. about the sexual activity involving Radcliffe. On Friday, October 19, 2007, J.E. called V.H. during the day to report what M.M. had told her. V.H. tried to reach Principal Grundmeyer, but when he was unavailable, she called Hampton-Dumont Superintendent Todd Lettow and told him she needed to see him immediately regarding an incident involving M.M. V.H. then picked up M.M. at school and drove to Lettow's office. While en route to Lettow's office, V.H. told M.M. she "knew about it" and asked her to go over the details. M.M. then told her mother what she had previously related to M.B.'s aunt about Radcliffe. When V.H. and M.M. arrived at Lettow's office, M.M. described the incident for Superintendent Lettow. Superintendent Lettow took a page of notes

1

M.M. later conceded that she was aware A.J. had learned of the incident from

M.B.

4 summarizing what he was told, including Radcliffe's name, V.H.'s full name, and M.M.'s first name. Lettow never showed these notes to anyone other than the school district's attorney. At the conclusion of the meeting, Lettow told V.H. and M.M. that he would be speaking with Radcliffe, the school board, and the police. Lettow spoke with Radcliffe that day. Radcliffe denied the allegations, but Lettow informed him that he needed to err on the side of student safety and placed him immediately on administrative leave. Lettow also made a report to the police, who contacted V.H. The following Monday, October 22, V.H. and M.M. went to the police station, where M.M. gave a statement. thereupon commenced a criminal investigation. Lettow spoke the evening of October 19 with all the board members about the incident, informing them Radcliffe had been placed on administrative leave because of sexual activity with a student. Lettow also provided the same The police

information to certain school administrators and office staff. Lettow testified that he did not disclose the identity of the student in any of these discussions with board members or school personnel, but V.H. claims Lettow later admitted to her that he disclosed M.M.'s identity to the board members. Scott Sackville was one of the Hampton-Dumont board members who had been advised by Lettow of Radcliffe's having been placed on administrative leave. Sackville, whose fifth-grade son went to school in the same building as Radcliffe, told his wife what he had been told. Sackville testified that he did not know the name of the student who had been involved in the incident with Radcliffe, or even if it was a male or female student. Sackville testified he did not learn the identity of the student until after the lawsuit was filed.

5 V.H. testified that she discussed the incident with approximately thirteen individuals who were relatives, friends, coemployees, or professionals. M.M. had related the incident to at least one other student besides M.B. On November 1, 2007, Kristy Reynolds, a hairstylist who is V.H.'s friend, told V.H. that gossip about Radcliffe and M.M. was being spread by a teacher at the school and by Sackville's wife. Reynolds had previously been informed of the Radcliffe-M.M. incident by V.H. Reynolds did not have firsthand knowledge that anyone was spreading gossip; this was something that she had heard indirectly. On November 2, 2007, V.H. called Lettow to complain that a board member was talking about the incident in public. V.H. would not disclose the identity of the alleged board member to Lettow. However, Lettow e-mailed the board members reminding them not to discuss the matter. On November 7, 2007, V.H., on her own behalf and as best friend of M.M., brought this action for injunctive relief against the school district, Sackville, and a teacher (who was later dismissed). The petition asserted the defendants had violated Iowa Code chapter 22 (2007) and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). V.H. initially sought a temporary injunction, but the district court denied this request following a one-day hearing. Subsequently, the Hampton-Dumont school district and Sackville moved for summary judgment. On February 12, 2009, the district court granted the defendants' motion. The court reasoned: (1) Superintendent Lettow's notes were not a "confidential public record" within the meaning of Iowa Code section 22.7; (2) Lettow did not violate Iowa Also,

6 Administrative Code chapter 281-102, pertaining to "Procedures for Charging and Investigating Incidents of Abuse of Students by School Employees"; (3) Lettow's communications with district board members and employees were based on his own recollection rather than the notes in any event; and (4) there is no private right of action under FERPA. V.H. appeals the district court's ruling with respect to the claims under Iowa Code chapter 22 and Iowa Administrative Code chapter 281-102. She does not appeal the dismissal of her FERPA claim. II. Standard of Review. We review a district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009). Summary judgment should be granted when the entire record demonstrates there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). The moving party bears the burden to

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and we review the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crippen v. City of Cedar Rapids, 618 N.W.2d 562, 565 (Iowa 2000). We review the district court's interpretation of Iowa Code section 22.7 for correction of errors at law. DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Serv. Comm'r, 554 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1996). However, the district court's application of section 22.7 to the undisputed facts before it is reviewed de novo. Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs. of Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 580 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Iowa 1998); DeLaMater, 554 N.W.2d at 878.

7 III. Analysis. This case calls upon us to decide whether the defendants violated Iowa Code chapter 22. That chapter generally establishes a right of access to the records of or belonging to state or local governmental entities. See Iowa Code

Download V.H., Mother and Next Friend of M.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HAMPTON-DUMONT CO

Iowa Law