Olathe district claims consent in lawsuit for teacher’s sexual assault of student
The Olathe School District is arguing in court records that some claims in a lawsuit saying a student was sexually assaulted by a teacher are barred because of consent and the “negligence and fault” of the student.
The argument came in the district’s response to the lawsuit filed last month in Johnson County District Court. The lawsuit, originally filed in October, argues the district was negligent and failed to keep a student safe on school premises.
The lawsuit stemmed from a September 2018 sexual assault by Justin Adrian, a 35-year-old social studies teacher at Olathe East High School. The victim, a student, was over the age of 18.
Adrian was convicted of committing aggravated battery and sexual battery against the student last year. He was sentenced Wednesday to 60 days in jail and 36 months of probation.
Although the student was over 18, Kansas law prohibits sexual activity between teachers and students at the schools they work at, even if it is consensual.
According to the suit, another family had previously reported concerns about Adrian’s conduct to school administrators.
The student’s attorney, Carrie Brous, called the district’s defense “victim shaming.”
“It’s disturbing and kind of horrifying to think about as a parent to say that there was somehow consent by a student to sexual interaction by a teacher,” Brous said.
The district’s spokesperson said he was unable to answer questions about pending litigation.
Sexual assault
According to the lawsuit Adrian, the head of the school’s Gay-Straight LGBTQ Club, first spoke with the male student over the online dating app Grindr.
After sending a series of sexually explicit messages, Adrian allegedly asked the student to meet him in his classroom.
When the student arrived in Adrian’s classroom the teacher locked the door and sexually assaulted the student for several minutes before giving him a pass to be late to his next class, the suit says.
Although the incident occurred within the school, the district’s response to the suit stated that Adrian’s alleged conduct was “outside the course and scope of his employment” with the district.
An amended complaint filed in November claims another family had “complained about Mr. Adrian’s inappropriate influence and grooming” of their child before the alleged assault.
The suit says that the district should have seen “red flags” in Adrian’s conduct and taken steps to keep student’s safe.
The district’s response either denies, or says it does not have sufficient information to admit or deny, most of the allegations in the suit.
The response claimed the student’s “injuries and damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence and fault of the plaintiff and others” and that consent bars one or more of the student’s claims.
Brous said it’s concerning that the school took that position when “even the defendant” said in court that he knew his actions were wrong immediately.
The case is scheduled to go go to trial in February 2021.
