Judge Favor Austin School in a Student Sex Case

In winter 2003, was the time a former student that attending James Bowie High school, claimed he had a sexual relationship with the color guard instructor, James Scott Johnson. In 2004, Johnson was fired after the mother showed the school principal phone records between the teacher and student. The former student filed a suit against the school stating that the district didn’t protect the student after the teacher made a comment to other employee that he was “coming out,” therefore it violated the Title IX of the federal education code. The U.S. District Court Judge ruled that there were no evidences of their relationship nor did other employees knew of their relationship.

Johnson claimed that he was just being a friend to the student because the student had problems with the parents finding out the student was gay. The student claimed that they had several sexual interactions, in the school’s closet, at Johnson’s apartment and car (it was in the article).

The suit was filed in January 2007, when the incident claimed to occur in winter 2003. Even though, the mother had phone records of the two exchanging calls. The only hard evidence the student has is the phone records from 2003. The student did not have any evidences of other employees knowing about their sexual relationship.

The student is suiting the district because the “district did not do enough to stop the relationship.” At the time of the incident, the teacher was 25 and the student was 16. In my opinion, the student was not forced into the relationship and was aware of what was going on. I know that it is consider statutory rape, and there is not statue of limitation on statutory rape. But it makes it hard to believe that the student will file the case four years later.

If I was the U.S. District Court Judge, I would rule for the school to because there was just not enough evidence in favor of the plaintiff. I think that if the case was filed after the phone records was presented to the principle, the student would have been favored over the defendant.