IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No.

: 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH

T.A. AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF MINOR CHILD, H.S.,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, LINDA ) BRADSHAW, JOHN DOES 1-10, AND ) MICHAEL ANDREW ALEXANDER, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

ANSWER (Jury Trial Demanded)

Now come defendants, Burke County Public Schools Board of Education (hereinafter Board) and Linda Bradshaw (hereinafter Bradshaw), and answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. It is admitted upon information and belief that law enforcement officers discovered a child pornography ring. It is further admitted that defendant Alexander has been arrested, charged and sentenced for various crimes under North Carolina law. Except as admitted, these answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and they are thus denied. 2. It is admitted that defendant Alexander was a teacher with the Boards school system for approximately 12 years. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 3. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 3 regarding sexual abuse of H.S. by defendant Alexander and these allegations are thus denied. The remaining allegations of paragraph 3 are denied. It is specifically denied that H.S. went to defendant Bradshaw with reports of being bullied in relation to Alexander. It is also specifically denied that any student ever reported to defendant Bradshaw that Alexander was inappropriately touching them. 4. Denied.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 14

5. Denied. 6. These answering defendants deny that they denied help to H.S. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 6 and they are thus denied. 7. Liability for the violations outlined in paragraph 7 are denied as to these answering defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Paragraph 8 constitutes a legal conclusion and is denied as to these answering defendants. 9. Paragraph 9 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. 10. Paragraph 10 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. 11. Paragraph 11 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied as to these answering defendants. PARTIES 12. Admitted upon information and belief. 13. Admitted. 14. It is admitted that the North Carolina General Statutes cited are a matter of public record and are the best evidence of their contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 are denied. 15. Admitted. 16. It is denied that defendant Bradshaw is a resident of Burke County. The remaining allegations paragraph 16 are also denied. 17. Admitted. 18. The allegations of paragraph 18 are denied. It is specifically denied that any John Roes as described in paragraph 18 exist or have ever existed. 19. Admitted upon information and belief. 20. Admitted.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 14

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 21. Admitted. 22. It is admitted that defendant Alexander was H.S.s third-grade teacher at Hildebran. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 22, including all of its sub parts, and they are thus denied. 23. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 23 and they are thus denied. 24. Denied. 25. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number 25, including all of its sub parts, and they are thus denied. 26. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number 26 and they are thus denied. 27. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph number 27 and they are thus denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. It is admitted that defendant Bradshaw had the ability to take action to protect H.S. if H.S. had ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the alleged abuse by defendant Alexander. It is specifically denied that H.S. ever notified defendant Bradshaw of the abuse alleged in the plaintiffs complaint. It is also further denied that any other students reported abuse by Alexander to Defendant Bradshaw. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 are denied. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 35. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 35 are denied. 36. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 are denied.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 3 of 14

37. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 are denied. 38. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 38 are denied. 39. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 39 are denied. 40. The policy manual speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 40 are denied. 41. The Communication Plan speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 41 are denied. 42. Denied. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 46. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander was arrested and removed from his teaching post. Except as admitted, denied. 47. It is admitted that Alexander admitted guilt to some crimes that upon information and belief, did not include H.S. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. 48. Denied. 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. 52. Admitted upon information and belief. 53. Paragraph 53 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. 54. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 54 and they are thus denied. 55. Denied.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 4 of 14

COUNT I Violation of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 56. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 55 as if fully set forth herein. 57. Denied. 58. Denied. 59. These defendants deny John Roes 1 10 exist, or have ever existed. Further, these defendants deny any knowledge of abuse, sexual assault, or other such acts or omissions against Jane Doe. As such, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 59 are denied. 60. Admitted. 61. These defendants deny John Roes 1 10 exist, or have ever existed. Further, these defendants deny any knowledge of abuse, sexual assault, or other such acts or omissions against Jane Doe. As such, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 61 are denied. 62. Denied. 63. Paragraph 63 and all of its sub parts are hereby denied. 64. Paragraph 64, including all sub parts, is denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT II Violation of the Educational Amendments of 1973 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1981, et seq. (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 65. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 64 as if fully set forth herein. 66. Paragraph 66 and all of its sub parts are hereby denied. 67. Denied. 68. These answering defendants did offer, provide and coordinate health and psychological counseling for plaintiff and H.S. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 68 are denied. 69. Paragraph 69, including all sub parts, is denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT III Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights Special Relationship (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10)

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 5 of 14

70. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 69 as if fully set forth herein. 71. It is admitted that Defendants Bradshaw and Alexander were employees of the Board. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 71 are denied. 72. Denied. 73. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. 74. Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. 76. (Sic) Denied as to these answering defendants. The actions alleged as to Defendant Alexander were outside of and beyond the scope of his employment by the Board. 77. Denied. 78. Denied. 79. Denied as to these answering defendants. 80. Denied. 81. Denied as to these answering defendants. 82. Paragraph 82, including all sub parts, is denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT IV Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights State-Created Danger (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 83. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 82 as if fully set forth herein. 84. Denied. 85. Denied. 86. Denied. 87. Denied. 88. Denied, including all sub parts.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 6 of 14

COUNT V Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights Failure to Train (Defendants School Board and John Roes 1-10) 89. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 88 as if fully set forth herein. 90. Paragraph 90 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 91. Paragraph 91 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 92. Paragraph 92 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that the Board violated any of its duties. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 93. Denied. 94. Denied. 95. Denied. 96. Denied, including all sub parts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT VI Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights (Defendant Alexander) 97. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 - 96 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 97-101 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 97-101. 98. Denied. 99. Denied as to these answering defendants. 100. Denied as to these answering defendants. 101. Paragraph 101 and all of its sub parts are denied as to these answering defendants.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 7 of 14

COUNT VII Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity Special Relationship (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 102. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 101 as if fully set forth herein. 103. It is admitted that Alexander and Bradshaw were employees of the Board during the time period of H.S.s alleged injuries. It is specifically denied that, as alleged, defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 -10 exist. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 103 are denied. 104. Denied. 105. It is specifically denied that defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions as alleged were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 105 are denied. 106. Denied as to these answering defendants. 107. Denied as to these answering defendants. 108. Denied. 109. Denied. 110. Denied. 111. Denied as to these answering defendants. 112. Denied as to these answering defendants. 113. Denied, including all sub parts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT VIII Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity State-Created Danger (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 114. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 113 as if fully set forth herein. 115. Denied.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 8 of 14

116. Denied. 117. Denied. 118. Denied. 119. Denied as to these answering defendants. 120. Denied, including all sub parts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT IX Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity Failure to Train (Defendants School Board and John Roes 1-10) 121. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 120 as if fully set forth herein. 122. Paragraph 122 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 123. Paragraph 123 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 124. Paragraph 124 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 125. Denied. 126. Denied. 127. Denied. 128. Denied. 129. Denied, including all sub parts. COUNT X Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity (Defendant Alexander) 130. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 129 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 130 - 135 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 130-135

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 9 of 14

131. Denied. 132. Denied as to these answering defendants. 133. Denied as to these answering defendants. 134. Denied as to these answering defendants. 135. Denied, including all sub parts, as to these answering defendants. COUNT XI Violation of North Carolina Constitution, Article I, 19 Deprivation of Educational Property Rights (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 136. Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 135 as if fully set forth herein. 137. It is admitted that Alexander and Bradshaw were employees of the Board during the time period of H.S.s alleged abuse. It is specifically denied that, as alleged in the complaint, defendant Alexander was acting under the color of state law. Alexanders actions as alleged were outside of and exceeded the scope of his employment with Board. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 -10 exist. Except as admitted, the remaining allegations of paragraph 137 are denied. 138. Denied. 139. Denied. 140. Denied. 141. Denied, including all sub parts. COUNT XII Violation of North Carolina Constitution, Article I, 19 Deprivation of Right to Bodily Integrity (Defendants School Board, Bradshaw, and John Roes 1-10) 142. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 141 as if fully set forth herein. 143. Paragraph 143 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. It is further specifically denied that these answering defendants failed in their duties in any way. It is specifically denied that Alexander was acting within the course and scope of his duties and under the color of law. 144. Denied.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 10 of 14

145. Denied. 146. Denied. 147. Denied, including all sub parts. COUNT XIII State Law Claims (Defendants Bradshaw and John Roes 1-10) 148. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 147 as if fully set forth herein. 149. Admitted. 150. Denied. It is further specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. 151. Denied. 152. Paragraph 152 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. It is specifically denied that John Roes 1 - 10 exist. It is further specifically denied that these answering defendants failed in their duties in any way. 153. Denied. 154. Denied. 155. Denied, including all sub parts. COUNT XIV State Law Claims (Defendant Alexander) 156. Theses answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 155 as if fully set forth herein. Further, Defendants Board and Bradshaw assert that paragraphs 156-162 are not directed at these Defendants, but at Defendant Alexander; as such, a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, these Defendants deny such allegations, other than those specifically admitted in paragraphs 156-162 below. 157. Denied as to these answering defendants. 158. Denied as to these answering defendants. 159. Denied as to these answering defendants. 160. Denied as to these answering defendants. 161. Denied as to these answering defendants.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 11 of 14

162. Denied, including all sub parts, as to these answering defendants.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY To the extent there is no waiver of immunity, these answering defendants are entitled to sovereign and/or governmental immunity for each and every claim asserted against each of them in the Complaint. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) plaintiff fails to state a claim against theses answering defendants and this action against them should be dismissed. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All actions by the individual defendant Bradshaw were objectively reasonable under the circumstances then and there existing, and she is entitled to qualified immunity. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC OFFICER IMMUNITY Defendant Bradshaw is entitled to Public Officer Immunity. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUNITIVE DAMAGES Punitive damages against local, governmental bodies, their officials and their employees are barred by governmental immunity, state law and otherwise. Further, an award of punitive damages against theses answering defendants is unjustified and unconstitutional. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE Plaintiffs claims against these answering defendants are barred by the Public Duty Doctrine. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STATUTORY IMMUNITY These Defendants assert immunity as outlined and provided in any Federal or State Statute, including but not limited to the immunity granted in NC Code Anno. 115C-44.

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 12 of 14

WHEREFORE , having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff, these Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed or, in the alternative, for a trial by jury, together with the costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. This the 16th day of December, 2013 CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Andrew J. Santaniello Andrew J. Santaniello NC BAR No.: 23532 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 asantaniello@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Ashlee B. Poplin Ashlee B. Poplin NC BAR No.: 45905 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 apoplin@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC /s/ K. Dean Shatley, II K. Dean Shatley, II NC BAR No.: 31782 674 Merrimon Ave., Suite 210 Asheville, NC 28804 828-398-2775 Dean@csedlaw.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 13 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that in conformity with Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a true copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all parties entitled or required to be served by mailing a copy of the document in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage affixed thereto. Alternatively, and further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Civil Rule 5.3 this document has been filed by electronic means in compliance with the rules and service has been effected by electronic means through the Courts transmission facilities as authorized by Rule 5.3 and in conformity of these rules this 16th day of December, 2013. Mr. Michael A. Alexander Offender ID: 1328076 NC Central Prison 1300 Western Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27606 Via ECF:

Crowe & Davis, P.A. H. Kent Crowe P.O. Drawer 1509 121 1st Avenue South Conover, NC 28613 CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC /s/ Andrew J. Santaniello Andrew J. Santaniello NC BAR No.: 23532 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 asantaniello@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education and Linda Bradshaw

Case 1:13-cv-00278-MR-DLH Document 3 Filed 12/16/13 Page 14 of 14