DOCKET NO.: FST—CV- l 5-602613 l S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ANNA IZABELA PALOSZ AND FRANCISZEK
`
`PALOSZ, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
`ESTATE OF BARTLOMIEJ F. PALOSZ
`
`J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`TOWN OF GREENWICH and TOWN OF
`
`GREENWICH BOARD OF EDUCATION
`
`MAY 6, 2016
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`FIRST COUNT:
`
`(AS TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF GREENWICH BOARD OF
`EDUCATION)
`
`1. Plaintiffs Anna Izabela Palosz and Franciszek Palosz, Co-Administrators of the Estate
`
`of Bartlomiej F. Palosz, bring this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of their son,
`
`Bartlomiej F. Palosz, a fifteen year-old boy who committed suicide on August 27, 2013 — the
`
`first day of his second year at Greenwich High School — after being subjected to a years-long
`
`history of unremitting bullying in the Town of Greenwich school system.
`
`2. Plaintiffs base this action on the following facts:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Bart was subj ected to constant bullying throughout his years at Western
`Middle School and into his first year at Greenwich High School;
`
`This bullying was well known to the administrators, teachers and
`counselors at Bart’s middle school; was specifically reported to Greenwich
`High School personnel pursuant to the Middle School Sharings program
`upon Bart’s transfer to the High School; and was continued at the High
`School thereafter;
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ANNA IZABELA PALOSZ AND FRANCISZEK
`
`PALOSZ, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
`ESTATE OF BARTLOMIEJ F. PALOSZ
`
`J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
`
`AT STAMFORD
`
`TOWN OF GREENWICH and TOWN OF
`
`GREENWICH BOARD OF EDUCATION
`
`MAY 6, 2016
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`FIRST COUNT:
`
`(AS TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF GREENWICH BOARD OF
`EDUCATION)
`
`1. Plaintiffs Anna Izabela Palosz and Franciszek Palosz, Co-Administrators of the Estate
`
`of Bartlomiej F. Palosz, bring this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of their son,
`
`Bartlomiej F. Palosz, a fifteen year-old boy who committed suicide on August 27, 2013 — the
`
`first day of his second year at Greenwich High School — after being subjected to a years-long
`
`history of unremitting bullying in the Town of Greenwich school system.
`
`2. Plaintiffs base this action on the following facts:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Bart was subj ected to constant bullying throughout his years at Western
`Middle School and into his first year at Greenwich High School;
`
`This bullying was well known to the administrators, teachers and
`counselors at Bart’s middle school; was specifically reported to Greenwich
`High School personnel pursuant to the Middle School Sharings program
`upon Bart’s transfer to the High School; and was continued at the High
`School thereafter;
`
`
`
`-
`
`Despite mandatory anti-bullying policies adopted by the Board of
`Education and in effect at all applicable times, school administrators,
`teachers and counselors, first at Western Middle School and then at
`Greenwich High School, failed to comply with the necessary
`procedures to protect Bart from this ongoing bullying and to provide him
`with emotional support and integration at each school.
`
`3. Defendants — the Town of Greenwich and the Town of Greenwich Board of Education
`
`— through their officials, have publicly admitted their knowledge of the continuous bullying
`
`inflicted on Bart. The Town Attorney for the defendant Town of Greenwich has publicly stated,
`
`“It is clear from our investigation that [Bart] was subjected to acts by students or groups of
`
`students directed against him with what I would define and describe as an intent to ridicule,
`
`humiliate or intimidate him.
`
`It was also clear
`
`that the school system was aware of those
`
`difficulties Bart was having.” The Town of Greenwich Superintendent of Schools acknowledged
`
`publicly at the time of Bart’s death that there was considerable information about Bart’s troubles
`
`dating back to his elementary school years and that “We knew Bart.” And, as Town of
`
`Greenwich Selectman Drew Marzullo stated publicly seven months after Bart’s death: “We as a
`
`community failed this child.”
`
`*>l<>l<*
`
`4. The defendant Town of Greenwich -(the “Town”) is a municipality established
`
`pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut and is responsible for providing public education
`
`
`
`to residents of the Town and, through the Town of Greenwich Board of Education, for
`
`maintaining control of all of the public schools in the Town.
`
`5. The defendant Town of Greenwich Board of Education (the “Board”) is established
`
`pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut and serves as the agent of the defendant Town to
`
`maintain control of all of the public schools in the Town.
`
`6. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board was responsible for adopting and
`
`implementing policies and procedures for the provision of public education in the defendant
`
`Town and, in particular, policies and procedures to protect and safeguard students in the
`
`Greenwich public school system.
`
`7. At all times mentioned herein, school employees in the Greenwich public school
`
`system employed by the defendant Board — including ( 1) teachers, substitute teachers, school
`
`administrators, school superintendents, guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers,
`
`nurses, physicians, school paraprofessionals and coaches in the Greenwich public school system
`
`to provide public education to residents of the Town and (2) other individuals who, in the
`
`performance of his or her duties, had regular contact with students and who provided services to
`
`or on behalf of students enrolled in a public elementary, middle or high school, pursuant to a
`
`contract with the Board — were required to comply with the policies and procedures adopted by
`
`the defendant Board, including, in particular, policies and procedures to protect and safeguard
`
`
`
`students in Greenwich’s schools, including, without limitation, the Whole Student Development
`
`policy adopted by the defendant Board in April 2009 and strengthened in July 2012.
`
`8. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board employed administrators and
`
`other supervisory personnel who were responsible for supervising and training the Board’s
`
`school employees in the Board’s policies and procedures and in overseeing the proper
`
`implementation of such policies and procedures, including the Whole Student Development
`
`policy adopted by the defendant Board in April 2009 and strengthened in July 2012.
`
`9. In August 2013, Bartlomiej F. Palosz (“Bart”) was fifteen years old and was entering
`
`his second year of high school at Greenwich High School, a secondary school in the Greenwich
`
`public school system. Bart had completed his first year at Greenwich High School the previous
`
`year. Bart’s sister, Beata Palosz, had been a senior at Greenwich High School during Bart’s
`
`freshman year at the school. Beata Palosz had graduated in 2013 and had started college out-of-
`
`state in August 2013.
`
`10. Prior to attending Greenwich High School, Bart had been a student at Western
`
`Middle School, a middle school in the Greenwich public school system. As of August 2013,
`
`Bart had been a student in the Greenwich public school system for seven years.
`
`11. Through Bart’s middle and high school years in the Greenwich public school system,
`
`§ 10-222d of the Connecticut General Statutes required the defendant Board to develop and
`
`
`
`implement a policy or safe school climate plan to address the existence of bullying in its schools.
`
`Prior to and as of 2011 (when, as described below, the Connecticut General Assembly
`
`strengthened the anti-bullying protections of § 10-222d and the requirement of an anti-bullying
`
`“policy” was changed to require the adoption of a “safe school climate plan”) and continuing
`
`through August 2013, § 10-222d(b)(6) [formerly §l0—222d(5)] mandated that such plan “shall”
`
`include a prevention and intervention strategy for school staff to deal with bullying; § 10-
`
`222d(b)(1 1) [formerly §lO—222d(9)] provided that such plan “shall” direct the development of
`
`case-by—case interventions for addressing repeated incidents of bullying against a single
`
`individual; § 10-222d(b)(4) provided that such plan “shall” require the appropriate school
`
`personnel to investigate such reports of bullying; and § 10-222d(b)(8) [formerly §l0—222d(7)]
`
`further provided that such plan “shall” also require the school to notify the parents or guardians
`
`of those involved in an act of bullying (i. e., the parents or guardians of both the perpetrator and
`
`the victim) of the bullying incident and to invite them to at least one meeting.
`
`12. Connecticut’s anti-bullying statute was specifically strengthened effective July 1,
`
`2011 to require, pursuant to § 10-222d(b)(3), that a school board’s safe climate plan “shall”
`
`require that staff orally report acts of bullying within one school day after receiving the report
`
`and file a written report within two school days thereafter. Section 10-222d(b)(9) of the 2011
`
`amendment provided that a school board’s safe climate plan “shall” also require the school,
`
`
`
`K\
`
`,/\_
`
`within 48 hours after the completion of the appropriate investigation, to invite the parents or
`
`guardians of those involved in an act of bullying (i. e., the parents or guardians of both the
`
`perpetrator and the victim) to a meeting to communicate to such parents or guardians the
`
`measures being taken by the school to ensure the safety of the student against whom such act was
`
`directed and to prevent further acts of bullying.
`
`13. The intervention requirements of Connecticut law were also strengthened in the 2011
`
`amendment to § l0—222d to require, pursuant to § l0—222d(b)(13), that each school board’s safe
`
`school climate plan “shall” direct the development of student safety support plans for students
`
`against whom an act of bullying was directed that address safety measures the school will take to
`
`protect such students against filrther acts of bullying.” The amendment (effective as of Bart’s
`
`freshman year at Greenwich High School) also clarified prior language in § l0—222d [eliminated
`
`from the amended § 10-222d(b)] that, to the extent that the definition of bullying required
`
`“repeated” acts causing physical or emotional harm, such repetition need not occur in the same
`
`school year, but is established by an act of bullying in the current academic year combined with
`
`acts of bullying against the same victim in pril academic years.
`
`14. Section 10-222d originally required school boards to submit the anti-bullying policies
`
`required by the statute to the Department of Education for approval no later than February 1,
`
`2009. School boards were required to submit the safe school climate plan required by the 2011
`
`
`
`amendment to § 10-222d to the Department of Education for approval no later than January 1,
`
`2012.
`
`15. Consistent with the statutory imperatives of § l0-226d, the defendant Board adopted
`
`in April 2009 and strengthened in July 2012 a Whole Student Development policy directed to
`
`bullying prevention and intervention in the Greenwich school system, including prohibitions on
`
`bullying, requirements with respect to reporting, investigation, response to verified acts of
`
`bullying, intervention and protection of students, discipline of students who commit acts of
`
`bullying, notification to students of the Student Behavior Code anti-bullying and anti-violence
`
`provisions, and other regulations of student behavior of and staff response to bullying.
`
`16. The Whole Student Development policy, as effective July 2012 (and, on information
`
`and belief, as in effect prior thereto), included mandatog policies and procedures directed to
`
`bullying prevention and intervention in the Greenwich school system, including prohibitions on
`
`bullying, requirements with respect to reporting, investigation, response to verified acts of
`
`bullying, intervention and protection of students, discipline of students who commit acts of
`
`bullying, notification to students of the Student Behavior Code anti-bullying and anti-violence
`
`provisions, and other regulations of student behavior of and staff response to bullying.
`
`17. In particular, pursuant to § 11 of the Whole Student Development policy adopted by
`
`the defendant Board, bullying behavior was strictly prohibited in Town schools, and the Board
`
`
`
`developed a Safe School Climate Plan, set forth in §§ A through XIII of § 11 of the Whole
`
`Student Development policy, as required by the 2011 amendment to § 10-222d(b), to help create
`
`and maintain a physically, emotionally and intellectually safe educational environment free from
`
`bullying, harassment and discrimination.
`
`18. The defendant Board’s “School employees,” defined in § 11—H of the Whole Student
`
`Development policy to mean (1) teachers, substitute teachers, school administrators, school
`
`superintendents, guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers, nurses, physicians, school
`
`paraprofessionals and coaches in the Greenwich public school system to provide public
`
`education to residents of the Town and (2) other individuals who, in the performance of his or
`
`her duties, had regular contact with students and who provided services to or on behalf of
`
`students enrolled in a public elementary, middle or high school, pursuant to a contract with the
`
`Board, were responsible for implementing the Board’s bullying prevention and intervention
`
`policies.
`
`19. Pursuant to § ll-IV-A of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development policy,
`
`the Board’s Superintendent was required to appoint a District Safe School Climate Coordinator
`
`for each school year commencing with the July 1, 2012 school year, and pursuant to such
`
`provision, such District Safe School Climate Coordinator was mandated to (a) be responsible for
`
`implementing the district’s Safe School Climate Plan; (b) collaborate with Safe School Climate
`
`
`
`Specialists appointed by the Coordinator to prevent, identify and respond to bullying in district
`
`schools; (C) provide data and information, in collaboration vvith the Superintendent, to the
`
`Department of Education regarding bullying; and (d) meet with Safe School Climate Specialists
`
`at least twice during the school year to discuss issues relating to bullying in the school district
`
`and to make recommendations to the district’s Safe School Climate Plan.
`
`20. Pursuant to § 11-IV-B of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development policy,
`
`as effective beginning with the July 1, 2012 school year, the principal of each school (or the
`
`principal’s designee) was mandated to serve as the Safe School Climate Specialist for each
`
`school and was required to investigate or supervise the investigation of reported acts of bullying
`
`and to act as the primary school official responsible for preventing, identifying and responding to
`
`reports of bullying in the school.
`
`21. Pursuant to the defendant B0ard’s Whole Student Development policy, E-002, in
`
`effect as of January 1, 2012 and thereafter, the defendant Board prohibited any form of bullying
`
`behavior and mandated that the Superintendent or his/her designee(s), along with the Safe School
`
`Climate Coordinator, were responsible for developing and implementing the Safe School Climate
`
`Plan in furtherance of the Whole Student Development policy prohibiting any form of bullying
`
`behavior.
`
`
`
`22. Paragraphs 1 1-VI-C & D of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development
`
`policy with respect to procedures for reporting and investigating complaints of bullying
`
`specifically mandated, as of July 2012 and thereafter, that,
`
`C.
`
`School employees who witness acts of bullying or receive reports of
`bullying shall orally notify the Safe School Climate Specialist or another
`school administrator if the Safe School Climate Specialist is unavailable,
`not later than one (1) school day after such school employee witnesses or
`receives a report of bullying. The school employee shall then file a
`written report not later than two (2) school days after making such oral
`
`report.
`
`investigate or supervise the
`The Safe School Specialist shall
`investigation of all reports of bullying and ensure that such
`investigation is completed promptly after receipt of any written
`reports. (bold in original; underscoring added.)
`
`23. Paragraphs 1 1-VII-A, B, C & D of the defendant Board’s Whole Student
`
`Development policy for responding to verified acts of bullying further expressly mandated, as of
`
`July 2012 and thereafter, that,
`
`A.
`
`Following investigation, if acts of bullying are verified, the Safe
`School Climate Specialist or designee shall notifl the parents or
`guardians of the students against whom such acts were directed as
`well as the parents or guardians of the students who commit such
`acts of bullying... of the finding not later than forty-eight hours
`after the investigation is completed. This notification shall include
`a description of the school’s response to the acts of bullying.
`
`In any instance in which bullying is verified, the Safe School Climate
`Specialist or designee shall also invite
`the parents or guardians of the
`student who commits any verified act of bullying and the parent or
`
`10
`
`
`
`guardian of the student against whom such act was directed to a meeting to
`communicate the measures being taken by the school to ensure the safety
`of the student/victim and to prevent further acts of bullying.
`
`If bullying is verified, the Safe School Climate Specialist or
`designee shall develop a student safety plan for any student against
`whom an act of bullying was directed. Such support plan will
`include safety measures to protect against fiirther acts of bullying.
`
`A specific written intervention plan shall be developed to address
`repeated incidents of bullying against a single individual ...The
`written intervention plan may include counseling, discipline and
`other appropriate remedial actions as determined by the Safe
`School Climate Specialist or designee, and may also incorporate a
`student safety support plan, as appropriate. (Bold in original;
`underscoring added.)
`
`24. Paragraph 1 1-D of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development policy further
`
`expressly mandated, as of July 2012 and thereafter, that “[s]tudents who engage in bullying
`
`behavior in violation of Board Policy and the Safe School Climate Plan shall be subject to school
`
`discipline. (Underscoring added.) The defendant Board’s Whole Student Development policy, E-
`
`002 at 3, reiterated that “[s]tudents who engage in bullying behavior shall be subject to school
`
`discipline.” (Underscoring added.)
`
`25. Paragraph 1 1-IX-C2 of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development policy
`
`contains fiirther provisions with respect to student conduct and discipline that the defendant
`
`Board’s personnel were required to comply with in regard to anti-bullying measures to protect
`
`students.
`
`ll
`
`
`
`26. In addition to the provisions of the defendant Board’s Whole Student Development
`
`policy, the defendant Board — through oral policies and procedures — required school employees
`
`to intervene to protect students from repeated bullying.
`
`27. Throughout his years in the Greenwich public school system, Bartlomiej F. Palosz
`
`was subjected to severe and continuing bullying.
`
`28. School employees, including supervisory employees, at Western Middle School and
`
`Greenwich High School were, prior to August 2013, long aware that Bart was being subjected to
`
`severe and continuing bullying.
`
`29. In particular, in 2012 the Greenwich public school system conducted a Middle
`
`School Sharings program to apprise Greenwich High School administrators, teachers and
`
`counselors of pertinent facts about incoming students. The record of the Middle School Sharings
`
`conducted in conjunction with Bartlomiej F. Palosz’s transfer from Western Middle School to
`
`Greenwich High School in 2012 expressly documents that Bart was “bullied regularly” and that
`
`intervention by school personnel was necessary. The handwritten notations about Bart on the
`
`Middle School Sharings form document state explicitly:
`
`Kids pick on him, Very socially akward (sic.), bullied regularly, annoying
`
`to peers.
`
`Bart gets bullied on a regular basis but he doesn’t tell anyone, needs to be
`connected, wants to be liked.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Observations recorded on the form by a second school staffer elaborate on the nature of
`
`the bullying:
`
`Shoelaces tied together — Stitches in head - hit w/locker. He won’t
`tell on kids. No self advocacy. Very tall and awakward (sic.), will
`stare at other kids. Wants to be liked.
`
`And, the form further contains the notation:
`
`* * * social work needed. * *
`
`[A copy of the Middle School Sharings form prepared in connection with Bart’s matriculation at
`
`Greenwich High School is attached as Exhibit A.]
`
`30. Greenwich public school records from Bartlomiej F. Palosz’s years at Western
`
`Middle School fully substantiate the observations on the Middle School Sharings form. Those
`
`records reflect multiple incidents in every year of middle school, including name-calling and
`
`teasing, repeated incidents of property theft and several incidents of physical violence.
`
`Significantly, on several occasions, the reports of bullying came not from Bart or his family, but
`
`rather originated either with members of the school administration or from other students who
`
`observed and complained about the bullying (including one report by a fellow student
`
`immediately after an anti-bullying film was shown at the school).
`
`31. The Western Middle School records further reflect that the concerns about the
`
`bullying that Bart endured were communicated to the highest level of the school administration,
`
`13
`
`
`
`including to at least two different assistant principals at Western Middle School, Albert Sackey
`
`and Jarret Pepe. In May 2012, after Bart was injured as a result of an incident by his locker,
`
`Assistant Principal Sackey recorded notes of a conversation with Bart in which Bart conveyed an
`
`extensive litany of bullying incidents:
`
`4"‘ period last week someone kicked him.by his locker.
`
`[redacted] smacked him at the back of the neck.
`
`[redacted] yells at him
`
`Everyone treats him bad because he pushes peoples button. Everyone is mean
`
`to him.
`
`Apparently [redacted] or [redacted] hit him with locker.
`
`[redacted] [redacted] hits him in class. Slap’s (sic.) him with his hand. In
`the neck or the arm. People still (sic. — steal) his pencil and throw it at
`him.
`
`32. The bullying documented by Assistant Principal Sackey continued until, literally,
`
`Bart’s last day at Western Middle School, including at least three separate incidents in the last six
`
`weeks of school. On November 19, 2012, Bart’s counselor at Clark House at Greenwich High
`
`School described the history of bullying that Bart had endured during middle school in an email
`
`sent to all of Bart’s classroom teachers at Greenwich High School:
`
`14
`
`
`
`I wanted to make you aware that Bart was pretty severely bullied in middle
`school. He would not report any of the incidents to the school, so the only
`way it was brought to light was if it was observed or if he told at home.
`
`33. And these bullying incidents continued at Greenwich High School. Less than two
`
`months into Bart’s ninth grade year, a classmate in Bart’s biology class smashed Bart’s brand
`
`new Android phone.
`
`34. Notwithstanding their knowledge of the substantial bullying that Bart had been and
`
`was being subjected to, the defendant Board’s administrators, supervisory personnel and other
`
`school employees failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the defendant Board’s anti-
`
`bullying policies and procedures described in paragraphs 10 through 26 above, including the
`
`following:
`
`(a) to report to the Safe School Climate Specialist or another. school administrator
`
`orally within one day and in writing within two days thereafter the repeated instances of bullying
`
`that they became aware Bart was subjected to, as required by the Board’s anti-bullying policies
`
`and procedures;
`
`(b) to investigate the repeated incidents of bullying, as required by the Board’s
`
`anti-bullying policies and procedures;
`
`15
`
`
`
`(c) to notify Bart’s parents and the parents or guardian of the student(s) who
`
`committed acts of bullying of the findings of any such investigation, as required by the Board’s
`
`anti-bullying policies and procedures;
`
`(d) to meet with Bart’s parents and the parents or guardian of the student(s) who
`
`committed verified acts of bullying to communicate appropriate remedial measures being taken
`
`by the school to ensure Bart’s safety and prevent further acts of bullying, as required by the
`
`Board’s anti-bullying policies and procedures;
`
`(e) to develop a student safety support plan in response to all verified acts of
`
`bullying with safety measures to protect against further acts of bullying, as required by the
`
`Board’s anti-bullying policies and procedures;
`
`(f) to develop a specific written intervention plan to address the repeated instances
`
`of bullying against Bart, as required by the Board’s anti-bullying policies and procedures;
`
`(g) to direct appropriate discipline of the student(s) who committed acts of
`
`bullying against Bart, as required by the Board’s anti-bullying policies and procedures; and
`
`(h) to properly oversee and implement the provisions of the defendant Board’s
`
`anti-bullying policies and procedures.
`
`35. Indeed, the Middle School Sharings form plainly demonstrates the defendant Board’s
`
`employees’ failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the defendant Board’s anti-
`
`16
`
`
`
`bullying policy and procedures. Although the Middle School counselors specifically reported on
`
`the form the history of bullying that Bart experienced and the need for staff intervention, NONE
`
`of the required steps to protect and help Bart indicated on the form were undertaken, nor were
`
`any of the steps listed on the form even addressed.
`
`36. And, even after Bart’s cell phone was destroyed by another student in October 2012
`
`(Bart’s ninth grade year), even after Bart’s grades began declining precipitously in the spring of
`
`2013 and he stopped turning in homework, and after he began biting his hands in class —
`
`responses to the stress he was under observed by one of Bart’s teachers and his Clark House
`
`guidance counselor ~ the defendant Board’s personnel failed to intervene to protect Bart’s safety
`
`or to provide necessary emotional support, as required by the school system’s anti—bullying
`
`policy.
`
`37. By failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of the defendant Board’s anti-
`
`bullying policy and procedures as aforesaid, the defendant Board’s employees left Bart
`
`unprotected and unsupported. Had the defendant Board’s employees complied with the
`
`mandatory provisions of the Board’s policies and procedures (as described above), as required,
`
`Bart would have received counseling, including appropriate encouragement to advocate on his
`
`own behalf (which school personnel universally recognized Bart could not do). Bart would also
`
`have been protected from his torrnentors and would have been made to feel less isolated. Indeed,
`
`l7
`
`
`
`itis significant that Bart committed suicide on his first day back at Greenwich High School in his
`
`sophomore year — his first day at Greenwich High School when his older sister Beata, who had
`
`graduated the prior June, was no longer available to him asgcompany or protection.
`
`38. On August 27, 2013, the first day of his second year of high school, Bartlomiej F.
`
`Palosz committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a shotgun.
`
`39. The defendant Board and its administrators, supervisory personnel and other school
`
`employees, acting in the scope of their employment by the defendant Board in the Greenwich
`
`public school system, failed to comply in good faith with the mandatory obligations of the _
`
`defendant Board’s policies and procedures with respect to the bullying that Bartlomiej F. Palosz
`
`was subjected to during his years at Western Middle School and Greenwich High School.
`40. The failure of the defendant Board and its administrators, supervisory ‘personnel and
`
`other school employees to comply with the mandatory obligations of the defendant Board’s
`
`policies and procedures as aforesaid was a substantial factor in causing Bartlomiej F. Palosz to
`
`commit suicide.
`
`41. As a result of the conduct of the defendant Board and the defendant Board’s
`
`administrators, supervisory personnel and other school employees as aforesaid in failing to
`
`comply with the mandatory obligations of the defendant Board’s policies and procedures as
`
`aforesaid, Bartlomiej F. Palosz suffered severe emotional distress, anguish and anxiety.
`
`l8
`
`
`
`42. The defendant Board’s administrators, supervisory personnel and other school
`
`employees failed to act in good faith in the discharge of their duties and engaged in gross,
`
`reckless, wilful or wanton misconduct.
`
`43. The defendant Board failed to act in good faithin the discharge of its duties.
`
`44. At the time of his death, Bartlomiej F. Palosz was fifteen years old, in good health,
`
`and had a normal life expectancy of over sixty-two more years. As a result of his death, Bart’s
`
`ability to engage in and enjoy his normal life’s activities for the remainder of his normal life
`
`expectancy was destroyed.
`
`45. As a further result of his death, Bartlomiej F. Palosz’s future earning capacity was
`
`destroyed.
`
`46. As a result of Bartlomiej F. Palosz’s death, his Estate incurred funeral and burial
`
`expenses, and expenses for the remediation of property damaged by the incident.
`
`47. The defendant Board is liable to the Estate of Bartlomiej F. Palosz for his wrongful
`
`death and damages caused by the conduct of the defendant Board and its administrators,
`
`supervisory personnel and other school employees as aforesaid.
`
`48. Plaintiffs Anna Izabela Palosz and Franciszek Palosz were appointed Co-
`
`Administrators of the Estate of Bartlomiej F. Palosz by the Probate Court for the District of
`
`Greenwich on July 22, 2015 and are duly-serving in such capacity and bring this action on behalf
`
`19
`
`
`
`of the Estate of Bartlomiej F. Palosz in such capacity to recover damages owed the Estate by the
`
`defendant Board.
`
`SECOND COUNT: (AS TO DEFENDANT TOWN OF GREENWICH)
`
`1-6. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the First Count are incorporated as paragraphs 1 through 6
`
`of the Second Count.
`
`7. At all times mentioned herein, school employees in the Greenwich public school
`
`system employed by the defendant Town — including (1) teachers, substitute teachers, school
`
`administrators, school superintendents, guidance counselors, psychologists, social workers,
`
`nurses, physicians, school paraprofessionals and coaches in the Greenwich public school system
`
`to provide public education to residents of the Town and (2) other individuals who, in the
`
`performance of his or her duties, had regular contact with students and who provided services to
`
`or on behalf of students enrolled in a public elementary, middle or high school, pursuant to a
`
`contract with the defendant Board or defendant Town — were required to comply with the
`
`policies and procedures adopted by the defendant Board, including, in particular, policies and
`
`procedures to protect and safeguard students in Greenwich’s schools, including, without
`
`limitation, the Whole Student Development policy adopted by the defendant Board in April 2009
`
`and strengthened in July 2012.
`
`20
`
`
`
`8. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Town employed administrators and other
`
`supervisory personnel who were responsible for supervising and training school employees in the
`
`defendant Board’s policies and procedures and in overseeing the proper implementation of such
`
`policies and procedures, including the Whole Student Development policy adopted by the
`
`defendant Board in April 2009 and strengthened in July 2012.
`
`9. In August 2013, Bartlomiej F. Palosz (“Bart”) was fifteen years old and was entering
`
`his second year of high school at Greenwich High School, a secondary school in the Greenwich
`
`public school system. Bart had completed his first year at Greenwich High School the previous
`
`year. Bart’s sister, Beata Palosz, had been a senior at Greenwich High School during Bart’s
`
`freshman year at the school. Beata Palosz had graduated in 2013 and had started college out-of-
`
`state in August 2013.
`
`10. Prior to attending Greenwich High School, Bart had been a student at Western
`
`Middle School, a middle school in the Greenwich public school system. As of August 2013,
`
`Bart had been a student in the Greenwich public school system for seven years.
`
`11. Through Bart’s middle and high school years in the Greenwich public school system,
`
`§ 10-222d of the Connecticut General Statutes required the defendant Board to develop and
`
`implement a policy or safe school climate plan to address the existence of bullying in its schools.
`
`Prior to and as of 2011 (when, as described below, the Connecticut General Assembly
`
`21
`
`
`
`strengthened the anti-bullying protections of § 10-222d and the requirement of an anti-bullying
`
`“policy” was changed to require the adoption of a “safe school climate plan”) and continuing
`
`through August 2013, § 10-222d(b)(6) [formerly §10-222d(5)] mandated that such plan “shall”
`
`include a prevention and intervention strategy for school staff to deal with bullying; § 10-
`
`222d(b)(l 1) [formerly §10-222d(9)] provided that such plan “shall” direct the development of
`
`case-by-case interventions for addressing repeated incidents of bullying against a single
`
`individual; § l0—222d(b)(4) provided that such plan “shall” require the appropriate school
`
`personnel to investigate such -reports of bullying; and § 10-222d(b)(8) [formerly §10-222d(7)]
`
`fiirther provided that such plan “shall” also require the school to notify the parents or guardians
`
`of those involved in an act of bullying (z'.e., the parents or guardians of both the perpetrator and
`
`the Victim) of thebullying incident and to invite them to at least one meeting.
`
`12. Connecticut’s anti-bullying statute was specifically strengthened effective July 1,
`
`2011 to require, pursuant to § l0-222d(b)(3), that a school board’s safe climate plan “shall”
`
`require that staff orally report acts of bullying within one school
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
