COURT DENIES CIVIL RIGHTS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CLAIMSARISING FROM INAPPROPRIATE STUDENT PHOTOGRAPH

K. L. v. Dunmore School District, et. al. No. 3:24-cv-01461, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188083 (M.D. Pa. September 24, 2025). District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania denies federal claims under various civil rights and special education laws arising from a student cellphone photograph inside a school bathroom stall. 

BACKGROUND

Maintaining the privacy of students in a school building is a challenge administrators face. This issue is magnified with the misuse of social media, particularly if a special education student is involved. The Federal Court from Middle District of Pennsylvania, however, indicated in a recent decision in K. L. v. Dunmore School District, et. al. No. 3:24-cv-01461, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188083 (M.D. Pa. September 24, 2025), that there could be limits to this responsibility by schools. 

K.L. was a 14-year-old eighth grade student at Dunmore Middle School in the Dunmore School District, Lackawanna County. Another student, J.M., used his cellphone to photograph K.L. inside of a bathroom stall while he was urinating and thereby exposing himself. J.M. shared the photograph with other students via Snapchat, a social media application. Allegedly, the principal spoke with the student who took the photograph about the incident, but no disciplinary action was taken against him, primarily beacause the school could not track down the photograph shared on Snapchat. 

As a result of this incident, K.L. was allegedly bullied by other students and suffered severe and permanent psychological damage, physical harm, and emotional distress, including hospitalization for suicidal ideation. The minor student then brought an action for damages against the district, the middle school principal, and against the mother of the student who took the photograph. Specifically, the student asserted federal civil rights claims under Section 1983, the 14^th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title IX, as well as various state law claims. The student claimed the bathroom incident could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable diligence by the district and the principal, and both failed to take appropriate action to prevent further harm after learning about the photograph. The school district and principal filed motions to dismiss the claims. 

DISCUSSION

The court initially addressed counts that the district and principal failed to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), as required under the IDEA, including the district’s defense that the court did not have jurisdiction because the student failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the IDEA. The court rejected this defense because while exhaustion is typically required for claims seeking IDEA relief, exhaustion was unnecessary here because the student sought only monetary damages on its IDEA claims, a remedy unavailable under the IDEA statute itself. But this was a pyrrhic victory for the student because the court dismissed the substantive IDEA and Section 1983 claims, holding that as monetary damages are unavailable under IDEA to begin with, Section 1983 cannot be used as an avenue for monetary damages based on IDEA violations. 

Plaintiff’s claims for damages under Section 1983 and the due process clause were allegedly based on a violation of the student’s right to personal security and bodily integrity. But the court concluded that the due process claim under the 14^th Amendment simply failed to provide relief. In the same vein, plaintiff’s 14th Amendment substantive due process claims were dismissed because denial of FAPE cannot serve as the basis of a constitutional violation, as education is not one of the rights afforded explicit protection under the constitution. The court understood the student’s claim that all individuals have a liberty interest in personal bodily integrity. However, this interest was not implicated here because there was no allegation of an intrusion of the student’s bodily integrity. The complaint set forth only that the other student surreptitiously took a photograph of K.L.’s genitalia and later shared it on social media, but there was no physical contact whatsoever. 

Continuing on this topic, the court recited that the state has no duty to protect its citizens from private harms, with a major exception: under the “state-created danger doctrine,” liability may attach where the state acts to create or enhance a danger that deprives a person of due process rights. The court held the exception, however, did not apply here because to characterize the school and principal’s behavior as affirmative exercises of authority would permit the state-created danger exception to swallow the entire rule, and all failures to act would be changed into affirmative exercises of authority. 

As to other counts in the complaint, the equal protection claim was rejected because an alleged failure to provide FAPE to a particular student does not automatically trigger a violation of the equal protection clause, especially as it was not alleged that the plaintiff received different treatment than other similarly situated students. The court also rejected claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act  or Rehabilitation Act, because for such claims to succeed, intentional discrimination or actions under a deliberate indifference standard must be shown. Here, however, the suit did not allege that policy makers were aware of a pattern of similar prior incidents involving students taking photos of other students in school restrooms. Likewise, the Title IX claim failed because the district learned of the students harassment only after the photograph was taken, and no prior similar incidents involving either child was alleged. The court also dismissed the student’s failure to train claim because an underlying constitutional violation did not occur. 

Because the court dismissed all the federal claims, it also dismissed the state law claims. However, because it was not clear that amendment of the students claims would be futile, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

PRACTICAL ADVICE

The court ruled in the school defendants’ favor largely because no claims were made that the school and principal purposely acted to harm the student. Also, there was nothing alleged in the complaint showing a history of improper treatment or indifference toward the student by the school. However, it is recommended that policies and practices of the districts are reviewed and enforced to ensure  that potential incidents involving students are minimized to preclude the potential of lawsuits.