That Sound? A Career Going Down in Flames

The new Iowa Supreme Court opinions are posted here.



Stotts v. Eveleth reiterates the concept that not all slimy behavior is necessarily illegal.



The Facts

Daniel Eveleth was a junior high teacher in the Northwood-Kensett Community School District during the summer of 1997, having left the BCLUW Community School District where he'd taught since 1984 pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment. As part of his voluntary resignation settlement from BCLUW, that district had not informed Northwood-Kensett of the reasons for the resignation. Theresa J. Stotts was a senior at Northwood-Kensett during the 1999-2000 school year. A sexual relationship developed between Eveleth and Stotts beginning in February 2000. By that time, Stotts had reached the age of eighteen. Eveleth was not and had not been one of Stotts’s teachers, and was not her advisor or coach for any of her activities. When the couple engaged in sex, it was always consensual and away from the school premises. Stott's mother eventually sent a complaint to the school district, and an investigation was launched that resulted in Eveleth's termination and his voluntary surrender of his teaching license.



The Issues

Stotts sued both school districts and Eveleth directly. Her theories were that:

1) Eveleth was negligent per se for violating Iowa Code and Administrative Rules:

Iowa Code sections 272.1 and .2 (Supp. 2003)

272.1 defines a student to mean “a person who is enrolled in a course of study at a school . . . .”, and a teacher as a "licensed member of a school’s instructional staff who diagnoses, prescribes, evaluates, and directs student learning in a manner which is consistent with professional practice and school objectives, shares responsibility for the development of an instructional program and any coordinating activities, evaluates or assesses student progress before and after instruction, and who uses the student evaluation or assessment information to promote additional student learning."



Iowa Code section 272.2 creates the board of educational examiners and gives the board “exclusive authority” to license teachers; enforce the board’s rules through revocation or suspension of a license, or by other disciplinary action; establish and adopt rules; deny or revoke a license; and manage other responsibilities enumerated in section 272.2.

Iowa Administrative Code rule 282—12.2(1)(c) (2003), which provides that it is unprofessional and in violation of the board’s criteria for a teacher to be sexually involved with a student, even if the sexual involvement is consensual.

2) Eveleth breached a common law duty of care toward her as a student.



3) Eveleth breached a fiduciary duty to act her best interest as a student.



4) The school districts were also negligent: Northwood-Kensett was negligent and breached fiduciary duties by failing to properly investigate Eveleth’s background; and BCLUW and it's principal were negligent and breached fiduciary duties by (a) failing to forward to the board a complaint found to be true, (b) deliberately suppressing the information they had concerning Eveleth, and (c) misrepresenting the facts concerning educational matters.

The Analysis

1) Regarding the provisions of Iowa Code and the Administrative Rules, the Court found that they did not create a common law cause of action giving Stotts the right to sue:

"[E]ven if the statutes and regulation upon which Stotts relies create a duty, violation of that duty does not necessarily give rise to a tort claim. Sanford v. Manternach, 601 N.W.2d 360, 371 (Iowa 1999). Such a violation gives rise to a private cause of action only when the statute, explicitly or implicitly, provides for such an action. Id.



There is no provision expressly providing a private cause of action in either Iowa Code chapter 272 or Iowa Administrative Code rule 282—12.2(1)(c) for a teacher initiating and continuing a sexual relationship with a student. We therefore employ the following four-factor test to determine whether a private cause of action could be implied from Iowa Code chapter 272:

(1) Is the plaintiff a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted? (2) Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, to either create or deny such a remedy? (3) Would allowing such a cause of action be consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation? (4) Would the private cause of action intrude into an area over which the federal government or a state administrative agency holds exclusive jurisdiction? Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721, 726-27.

. . . .



The administrative rule upon which Stotts relies states that it is unprofessional and in violation of the board’s criteria for a teacher to be sexually involved with a student, even if the sexual involvement is consensual. Iowa Admin. Code r. 282—12.2(1)(c). Section 272.2 clearly suggests that this provision was intended to be a regulatory measure designed to provide the board with authority to suspend or revoke a teacher’s license in those situations when violations of its provisions occur. Section 272.2 provides not even a hint that the legislature intended to provide a private cause of action for such violations. Additionally, section 272.2 gives the board exclusive authority to enforce its rules, which signals the legislature’s intent to deny court enforcement through a private cause of action. . . . Moreover, concerning the fourth factor of the four-factor test, allowing such an action would be tantamount to an intrusion into an area over which a state administrative agency holds exclusive jurisdiction. . . . Because we do not infer a cause of action for violation of section 272.2, we likewise do not infer such an action for the violation of rule 282—12.2(1)(c), implemented to carry out this statutory provision. Our reason for not inferring a cause of action from the rule is that administrative rules cannot go any further than the law permits."

2) On the common law duty of care issue, the Court focused on the relationship between Stotts and Eveleth:

"At all times during her consensual sexual relationship with Eveleth, Stotts was at least eighteen years old, which is above the age of consent as far as our criminal statutes are concerned. So, for all intents and purposes, what we have here is a sexual relationship between two consenting adults that was not contrary to any law at the time. . . . Moreover, there was no special teacher-student relationship between Eveleth and Stotts. Thus, Eveleth was not in a position to exert pressure on Stotts to engage in sex at the risk of dire consequences if she refused. So there was no reasonable foreseeability of harm to Stotts simply because at the time of the sexual contact Eveleth was a teacher and Stotts was a student. While Eveleth’s behavior in having sexual relations with a student is offensive, that offensiveness is not enough to create a duty on the part of Eveleth to refrain from such relations with Stotts."

3) The fiduciary duty issue was likewise analyzed:

"A fiduciary relationship is one in which a person is under a duty to act for the benefit of another as to matters within the scope of the relationship. . . . Here, it is uncontroverted that Eveleth was not Stotts’s teacher and never had been. In addition, Stotts generated no genuine issue of material fact on whether she reposed faith, confidence, and trust in Eveleth; that she relied on his judgment and advice; or that he dominated and influenced her. The uncontroverted facts are that the relationship was simply one of a sexual nature between two consenting adults. We therefore agree with the district court that as a matter of law no fiduciary duty existed."

4) Because the Court found that Eveleth breached no duty as to Stotts, it then dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants as they also had breached no duty to her, dismissing the claims as against all defendants.



Obligatory Blog Comment:

I looked him up in Iowa Courts Online - he was born in 1958. This is no 22-year-old student teacher. Eeeewww, eeeewwww, eeewww, eeeeewwwww! But still not a tortfeasor. Do we have one of those websites that you can warn women to stay away from a particular guy? I've often thought that would be handy.