On Oct. 9 Cook County Circuit Court Judge Frank Andreou dropped Riverside Brookfield High School District 208 as a defendant in the lawsuit filed by a former RBHS student, identified only as Jane Doe, alleging that she was sexually abused by Gary Prokes, the former director of RBTV, while she was a student at the school. Doe had sued both Prokes and RBHS.
“We received notice that Judge Andreou granted our Motion to Dismiss in the Gary Prokes case,” said RBHS Community Engagement Coordinator Kiley Fletcher in an emailed statement. “The motion was granted because there were no facts establishing that the district had any knowledge of the alleged misconduct. While we appreciate the judge’s decision, we take all allegations related to student safety very seriously and remain committed to ensuring a safe and supportive environment for all students.”
However, because the judge made his ruling “without prejudice,” the plaintiff can file an amended complaint which a lawyer for Jane Doe said he was planning to do. The judge gave Doe until Nov. 10 to file an amended complaint.
“The plaintiff, Jane Doe, will be filing an amended complaint within a couple of weeks, and we will spell out in greater detail the district’s knowledge, and involvement and participation in the claims that are set forth” said Tom Cronin, a lawyer for Doe.
RBHS’s motion to dismiss asked that the judge dismiss the charges against RBHS with prejudice which, had the judge chosen to do that, would have precluded filing a new complaint against RBHS. Regardless Prokes remains a defendant in the case. Prokes’s attorney declined to comment on the case.
Cronin said this kind of preliminary ruling is not unusual in a case of this type.
“I don’t really see it as a setback at all,” Cronin said. “This is not unusual and we’re certainly happy to provide additional details.”
Cronin said the legal process of discovery is just getting started in the case.
“This is a process of discovery and, you know, facts will come out as time goes on so we are certainly able and willing on behalf of the plaintiff to file an amended complaint,” Cronin said.
In their memorandum of law filed in support of their motion to dismiss the case against RBHS the school’s lawyers argued that, as a matter of law, “the district had no special duty to protect plaintiff from Prokes’ alleged criminal misconduct, as a matter of law. The complaint is devoid of any specific factual allegations supporting an allegation that the district knew or should have known Prokes posed any danger to plaintiff prior to or during the alleged abuse.”
The memorandum of law also argued that RBHS did take action once it learned that Prokes and the student might have had too close a relationship.
“Finally, upon notice of the student’s report of Doe and Prokes hugging, plaintiff alleges the district took immediate action to investigate the allegation, which shows a conscious regard for plaintiff and precludes a finding of willful and wanton conduct regardless of whether their investigation, in hindsight, did not prevent further abuse,” the lawyers memorandum of law states.
An assistant principal questioned Doe but, according to the memorandum of law, Doe denied that anything inappropriate was going on between her and Prokes and said that “it was just a hug.”
“[T]he assistant principal immediately investigated, and plaintiff specifically denied any inappropriate relationship or harm,” the memorandum of law states. “This investigation affirmatively shows a conscious regard for plaintiff’s welfare and further precludes a claim on willful and wanton conduct, as a matter of law.”
The memorandum of law also argued that school officials were not aware of any particular danger to Doe while she was a student at the school.
“Here, there are no facts to allege or infer that the district was uniquely aware of a particular danger or risk to plaintiff prior to or during the abuse,” the memorandum of law states. “Plaintiff fails to adequately allege the district had any notice of Prokes’ misconduct to which his sexual relationship with Doe was foreseeable. Accordingly, the district had no duty to protect her from the alleged criminal misconduct by Prokes, as a matter of law.”
RBHS’s lawyers also argued that the school does not have a specific duty to protect students from unforeseeable criminal attacks from its employees. Their memorandum of law argued that a public entity such as a school district “does not owe a student a special duty to protect unless it is uniquely aware of any particular danger or risk to that student.”
The school’s lawyers argued that without specific knowledge schools do not have a specific duty to protest students from criminal attacks by its employees.
“Relatedly, it is well-established that school boards owe no specific duty to protect students from criminal attacks by others, even if the actor is subject to the district’s authority because such acts are inherently unforeseeable,” the memorandum of law states.
The memorandum of law also argued that the school’s failure to report the conduct of Prokes to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services does not create any liability for RBHS arguing that the school does not have a common law duty to report sexual misconduct.
“[T]he common law duty of care owed by the school administrators to the students in their care and custody does not include a duty to report suspected child abuse to authorities,” the memorandum of law states.
