The School Board of Alachua County (SBAC) and the city of Alachua have both filed motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them last fall. 

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 30, 2024, surrounds alleged sexual harassment, abuse and neglect suffered by a sophomore at Santa Fe High School during the 2022-23 school year. The complaint, in the name of the unnamed student’s parent, states that baseball coach and school media specialist Travis Yeckring sexually harassed the student. 

The complaint alleges that athletic director Michele Faulk, former principal Tim Wright and former assistant principal Mac Rendek had received reports of Yeckring’s behavior and did not act. 

The four counts included in the suit include negligent supervision, negligent retention, negligence and res ipsa loquitur. 

Both the city of Alachua and the SBAC filed motions to dismiss the case on Dec. 20. 

Alachua’s motion focused on the inapplicability of the accusations to the city and states that the suit “improperly comingles facts alleged against the City and the School Board, referring to them repeatedly as ‘Defendants’ although they are two separate and distinct entities.” 

In addition to a motion to dismiss standard, raising a question of whether the alleged facts are enough for a cause of action, the city of Alachua’s response states that the plaintiff “failed to allege sufficient facts for the City to determine what is being alleged against them and how to respond.” 

On behalf of the city, attorneys Leigh Rosenbloom and Susan Erdelyi also stated that the plaintiff failed to name a cause of action for negligence or negligent supervision against the city, and failed to comply with sovereign immunity statutory notice requirements, because notices of intent were dated May 22, and the complaint was filed less than six months later, on Oct. 30. 

The school board and city of Alachua both included motions to dismiss standard, stating that conclusory allegations, unsupported by facts, are insufficient for the court to accept. 

Both motions to dismiss state that “res ipsa loquitor,” which the suit lists as its fourth count, is not a cause of action in Florida. Res ipsa loquitor is a legal doctrine which holds that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence, but the motions to dismiss state that it does not constitute a separate cause of action. 

The school board’s motion to dismiss, filed by attorneys Kayla Platt Rady and J. David Marsey, is almost three times longer than the city’s, throwing six major points into its response, starting with the motion to dismiss standard and moving quickly to a statement that the lawsuit is barred by the impact rule. 

“Plaintiff’s request for recovery is purely non-economic damages. However, notably absent from the Complaint is any physical impact or injury sustained… before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact,” the motion states. 

The third major point in the motion is that the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim fails to state a cause of action. The school board’s motion states that the SBAC is entitled to sovereign immunity where its employees acted “maliciously,” and that an intentional sexual harassment cannot be a negligence tort because “there is no such thing as a negligent intentional tort.” 

The motion also states that the school board “owes no duty” to ensure that its employees follow the law, or to enact specific policies or procedures. 

“The assumption that a particular form of Board action – enacting and enforcing certain policies in a specific way – might have prevented the minor Plaintiff’s injury does not establish the common law duty required to hold the Board accountable,” the motion states. 

The fourth major point in the school board’s motion to dismiss states that the plaintiff’s direct liability claims fail to state a cause of action. The motion states that the plaintiff failed to allege an underlying tort committed by a school board employee, and the complaint is missing an allegation that the school board employee’s underlying tortious conduct was committed outside the course and scope of employment. 

The motion also states that the direct liability claims fail because the complaint is missing any allegation that the school board knew of prior similar misconduct from Rendek, Wright and Faulk. The motion states that the negligent hiring claim and negligent training claim fail to allege the ultimate facts necessary to state a cause of action and that Counts 2 and 3 should be dismissed as redundant and duplicative of Count 1. 

After saying the res ipsa loquitur claim fails to state a cause of action, the motion moves to its final major point, stating that the plaintiff’s demand for attorney fees is meritless.