## Facts

- Betsy Sue Johnson, a former student, alleged that high school guidance counselor Wayne Stevens sexually harassed and abused her over roughly two years.
- The alleged conduct included letters, roses, cards and suggestive correspondence, attempts to hug and kiss, and fondling.
- Johnson sued Stevens and school administrators (the school district, school board, and superintendent) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort theories.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the administrators on the § 1983 claims for lack of evidence that they knew or should have known of Stevens’s propensity for abuse in time to prevent harm.
- Claims against Stevens proceeded to a jury trial, which returned a unanimous verdict for Stevens.
- Johnson moved for a new trial, citing (among other things) an opening statement reference that Stevens had never been arrested and the exclusion of a coworker’s testimony about a prior incident offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 415; the motion was denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district, school board, and superintendent could be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to prevent alleged sexual abuse absent proof they knew or should have known of a substantial risk and acted with deliberate indifference.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding proffered prior-act testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 415 (and, alternatively, under Rule 403).
3. Whether defense counsel’s opening and closing statements required a mistrial or new trial despite curative instructions and trial court management.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district, school board, and superintendent on the § 1983 claims.
- The court held Johnson failed to produce credible evidence that administrators knew or should have known of Stevens’s propensity for sexual abuse at a time when they could have acted to prevent harm.
- The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of Johnson’s motion for a new trial after the verdict for Stevens.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding the coworker’s testimony offered as Rule 415 evidence, including on Rule 403 grounds.
- The court held the trial judge’s prompt curative instruction regarding the “no arrests” remark and control of argument were sufficient, and no reversible trial error warranted a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Supervisory or municipal liability under § 1983 for employee sexual misconduct requires evidence of actual or constructive notice of a substantial risk and deliberate indifference; negligence, hindsight, rumors, or ambiguous information are insufficient.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 415 permits evidence of other sexual assaults in qualifying civil cases only if a reasonable jury could find the prior act occurred and fits Rule 413(d)’s definition of “sexual assault.”
- Even when Rule 415 is potentially applicable, the trial court retains discretion to exclude evidence under Rule 403 when probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or wasting time.
- A mistrial or new trial based on attorney statements is generally unwarranted where the trial court promptly gives curative instructions and the remarks do not materially affect the fairness of the proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that school administrators were not liable under § 1983 without evidence they had timely notice of a substantial risk of abuse and responded with deliberate indifference, and it upheld the trial court’s evidentiary and trial-management rulings, including exclusion of contested Rule 415 testimony and denial of a new trial after a defense verdict.


Johnson v. Elk Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002)