COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.

OF THE TRIAL COURT
CWILACTIONNO.
1449
)
JANE DOE, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
TOWN OF STOUGHTON, JULIETTE )
MILLER, AND MARGUERITE )
RIZZI. )
Defendants )
)

COMPLAINT AND JURY CLAIM

1) Plaintiff, Jane Doe (hereafter Ms. Doe) resides in Stoughton, Massachusetts.

2) Defendant, Town of Stoughton (hereafter Stoughton) is a governmental body corporate

and politic located in Norfolk County.

3) Juliette Miller (hereafter Miller). at all relevant times, was employed by Stoughton as

the principal of Stoughton High School.

4) Marguerite Rizzi (hereafter Rizzi), at all relevant times, was employed by Stoughton as

the Superintendent of Stoughton Public Schools.

5) Timothy Norton (hereafter Norton), at all relevant times, was a teacher employed by

Stoughton in the Stoughton Public Schools.

6) At all relevant times, Stoughton educational professionals were mandated reporters who

were required to report abuse, sextial abuse, neglect, or sexual exploitation whenever they

had reasonable cause to believe a child suffered from such abuse as required by M.G.L. c.

1
 119 51A, the common law, the policies of the Stoughton schools and all other applicable

laws and regulations.

7) At all relevant times, Stoughton and its agents and employees had a duty pursuant to the

common law, M.G.L. c. 71, 37L and all other applicable laws and regulations to inform

and train and supervise Norton and all other mandatory reporters with respect to their

reporting requirements.

8) Stoughton and its agents and employees had duties under the common law, M.G.L. c.

151C, the state and federal due process clauses and Title IX (20 Usc 1681 et seq.) to

provide a program of educational study for Ms. Doe which protected her bodily integrity

and well-being and did not involve sexual harassment. abuse. or rape.

9) Stoughton and its agents and employees had duties pursuant to common law, M.G.L. c.

71 370 and the regulations adopted under said statute, and pursuant to all other

applicable laws and regulations. to prohibit and prevent its students and staff from

conduct causing physical or emotional harm to victims, from conduct that places a victim

in fear, from conduct that creates a hostile environment at school for the victim and for

conduct that infringes on the rights of the victim at school. Stoughton had the duty to

formulate and implement a plan to prevent such conduct throughout its curriculum and

school activities.

10) Stoughton and its agents and employees had a duty to protect and preserve Ms. Does

civil rights pursuant to M.G.L. c. 12 1 1H-I.

11) Beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year, Ms. Doe became involved in the Destination

Imagination program at Stoughton High School for which Norton was the club advisor.

2
12) Destination Imagination is an after-school club program which is part of a national
21st
nonprofit educational organization that teaches century skills and science,

technology, mathematics and engineering in which the students work together in teams to

develop solutions to open-ended challenges and present their solutions at tournaments.

13) In order to prepare for the competitions, Destination Imagination team members would

spend many after-school hours at school under the supervision of Norton working

together and formulating their solutions primarily in his classroom.

14) During her 2014-2015 academic year as ajunior in high school, Ms. Doe was a student in

Nortons project management class and also participated in the Destination Imagination

after-school program under Nortons supervision.

15) Stoughton provided Norton with a classroom where the after-school sessions took place

in and around his classroom. The classroom also had an attached back room with a door

which had limited availability for people to see what was going on in the back room.

16) During the 20 14-2015 academic year, while participating in the Destination Imagination

program, Norton began engaging in substantial noticeable grooming behavior of Ms. Doe

including, but not limited to, allowing her to keep her personal and school belongings in

his classroom. allowing her to rest in the backroom of his classroom during class rather

than participate in the classroom activities, engaging in intimate one-on-one

conversations with Ms. Doe in which they would discuss her home life and non

educational matters while in the presence of other students, texting Ms. Doe individually

on a regular basis on non-educational matters, and spending time with Ms. Doe during

school hours and spending time one-on-one with Ms. Doe outside of school hours.

3
17) Beginning in the 2014-2015 school year and continuing until her graduation, Norton

would provide Ms. Doe with passes to enable her to spend a significant amount of time in

his classroom and would provide written requests to other teachers removing her from

her academic classes to spend time with him in his classroom.

1$) This excessive time together either for no educational purpose or a pretextual educational

purpose should have been observed and recognized as improper grooming behavior by

teachers, administrative staff and school officials who should have taken measures to

question and stop it.

19) The relationship between Norton and Ms. Doe first became physical in November 2014

and they initially engaged in sexual intercourse in February 2015.

20) In F all 2015, Miller commenced an investigation into Ms. Does relationship with

Norton after a classmate of Ms. Doe informed his teacher of his observations of Norton

providing Ms. Doe with special treatment. The student, along with the teacher, reported

that they had observed Ms. Doe parking her vehicle at the nearby school and

subsequently getting into Nortons vehicle.

21) At this time, Miller questioned Ms. Doe, who was then 17 years old, without notifying

her parent or guardian, regarding the statement from her classmate and questioned her in

her office about Ms. Does relationship with Norton for between 15-3 0 minutes.

22) After Ms. Doe was interrogated, Miller subsequently interviewed Norton regarding the

matter and the students statement regarding him providing Ms. Doe with special

treatment and apologized to Norton for having to ask him questions regarding the

allegations surrounding his relationship with Ms. Doe.

4
23) Neither Ms. Doe nor Norton was disciplined as a result of this investigation and their

relationship continued beyond Ms. Does graduation through the beginning of her

undergraduate career.

24) The statement from the other student and the resulting investigation should have been

recognized as improper grooming behavior by teachers, administrative staff and school

officials, including Miller and Rizzi. who should have taken measures to question and

stop it.

25) Stoughton and its agents and employees neglected their duties and/or were inadequately

trained and supervised as to their duties as a mandatory reporter and did not report the

observable signs of sexual grooming, misconduct and abuse to the appropriate

authorities.

26) Miller neglected her duties and/or was inadequately trained and supervised as to her

duties in conducting investigations in to such allegations and further either neglected her

duties and/or was inadequately trained and supervised as a mandatory reporter and did

not conduct a proper investigation nor report the observable signs of sexual grooming,

misconduct and abuse to the appropriate authorities.

27) Rizzi neglected her duties and/or was inadequately trained and supervised as to her duties

as a mandatory reporter and did not report the observable signs of sexual grooming,

misconduct and abuse to the appropriate authorities.

28) It was the established written policy of Stoughton for all school employees to

immediately report any suspicion of sexual abuse to the immediate supervisors.

29) Norton openly violated the Stoughton fraternization policy, which also prohibits this sort

of conduct after student has graduated from Stoughton High School. Norton failed to

5
 maintain appropriate boundaries with Ms. Doe. His violations of said policy should have

been promptly reported and investigated by Miller, Rizzi, and Stoughton.

30) Recently in September 2017, Ms. Doe and Norton ended their relationship and Ms. Doe

revealed their relationship to Cathy Boulger, another teacher at Stoughton Public

Schools.

31) Immediately afier Ms. Does disclosure to Boulger of her relationship with Norton,

Boulger reported the same to the principal for Stoughton and other administrative

personnel.

32) It was not until this time that Stoughton served Norton with an intention to dismiss

notice and the matter was reported to the Stoughton Police Department.

33) The tortious and/or illegal conduct of the Defendants, their agents and employees was a

substantial factor in causing injury and damage to Ms. Doe. Her injuries and damage

included but are not limited to, mental and physical pain, suffering from distress; the need

for past, present and future counseling; deprivation of a proper educational environment;

shame, embarrassment and humiliation; the loss of enjoyment of her life and her normal

pursuits; the taunts and cruelty of others directed toward her; damage to relationships

with her classmates; sexual abuse and rape.

34) The actions of the Defendants interfered with the rights of Ms. Doe by means of threats,

intimidation and coercion.

35) At all times Defendants Stoughton, Norton, Miller, and Rizzi acted under color of law.

36) At all times, Defendants Stoughton, Norton, Miller, and Rizzi acted with reckless and

careless disregard of and deliberate indifference to the rights of Ms. Doe.

6
37) At all times the actions of the Defendants were shocking to the conscience, and deprived

Ms. Doe of her protected rights and interest in life, liberty, or property.

38) At all times, the actions of Defendant Town of Stoughton constitute a failure to

adequately and appropriately train and/or supervise its employees, said failure to

adequately and appropriately train and/or supervise was a policy, practice or custom of

Stoughton which caused, in whole or in part, its employees to violate the protected

interest of the Ms. Doe.

COUNT I: Jane Doe v. Town of Stoughton

39) Ms. Doe incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38.

40) The Defendant Town of Stoughton is liable to Ms. Doe pursuant to M.G.L. c. 258 for the

tortious conduct alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Jane Doe demands judgment against the Town of Stoughton in an

amount to be determined by a jury.

COUNT II: Jane Doe v. Town of Stoughton

41) Ms. Doe incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38.

42) The Defendant Town of Stoughton is independently and/or vicariously liable to Ms. Doe

for the violations of M.G.L. c. 119 51A, M.G.L. c. 7l37L, M.G.L. c. 151C, Title IX,

M.G.L. c. 71 370, M.G.L, c. 12 H-I. and the state and federal constitutions as alleged

herein for all damages available to her under said statutes and the regulations adopted

under said statutes.

7
p

WHEREFORE Jane Doe demands judgment against the Town of Stoughton in an amount

to be determined by a jury together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

COUNT III: Jane Doe v. Juliette Miller

41) Ms. Doe incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 3$.

42) The Defendant Miller is liable to the Plaintiff Jane Doe for her violation of M.G.L. c. 119

51A, M.G.L. c. 151C, Title IX, M.G.L. c. 71 370, M.G.L. c. 12 H-I, and the state and

federal constitutions as alleged herein for all damages available to her under said statutes

and the regulations adopted under said statutes.

WHEREFORE Jane Doe demands judgment against Defendant Jul iette Miller in an

amount to be determined by a jury together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

COUNT IV: Jane Doe v. Marguerite Rizzi

43) Ms. Doe incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs I through 3$.

44) The Defendant Miller is liable to the Plaintiff Jane Doe for her violation of M.G.L. c. 119

51A, M.G.L. c. 151C, Title IX, M.G.L. c. 71 370, M.G.L. c. 12 H-I, and the state and

federal constitutions as alleged herein for all damages available to her under said statutes

and the regulations adopted under said statutes.

WHEREFORE Jane Doe demands judgment against Defendant Marguerite Rizzi in an

amount to be determined by a jury together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

PLAINTIFF CLAIMS A TRIAL BY JURY.

8
F

The Plaintiff,
JANE DOE,
By Her Attorney,

Richard J.
BBO#: 551944
Eden Rafferty
238 Shrewsbury Street
Worcester, MA 01604
(508) 795-1601
Dated: November 14, 2017