K.S. v. Detroit Public Schools
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
153 F. Supp. 3d 970 (2015)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Khody Sanford (plaintiff), a student of Detroit Public Schools (DPS) (defendant), was sexually harassed by Charles Pugh (defendant). Sanford reported the harassment, but DPS failed to take appropriate action. Sanford sued Pugh and DPS. Sanford asserted claims for emotional, psychological, and physical injuries and permanent and serious impairment of his social and academic development against both Pugh and DPS. Sanford asserted a Title IX claim solely against DPS based on physical injuries; mental and emotional distress; pain, grief, and anguish; medical expenses; and lost earning capacity. Sanford also asserted claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress solely against Pugh, alleging emotional, psychological, and physical injuries; permanent and severe impairment of his social and emotional development; and severe emotional distress. DPS settled the Title IX claim for $350,000. A jury found Pugh liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded Sanford a $250,000 verdict. Pugh argued that allowing Sanford to collect both the jury verdict and the DPS settlement would violate the one-recovery rule. Therefore, Pugh requested that the court reduce the verdict against him by the amount of the DPS settlement and enter a judgment against him for $0. The court considered Pugh’s request.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lawson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.