FHKA attorney David Riepenhoff recently obtained a successful ruling from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Butler County, Ohio. In Printup v. Dungey, et al., Chavonne Printup alleged Butler County violated her rights by erroneously designating her as an “indicated” child abuser. The Court of Appeals found that her claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations and dismissed her case.
Printup was a teacher/staffer at St. Aloysius, an alternative school that received students from the public schools with substantial behavioral problems. On December 14, 2012, Printup and other staffers used two physical restraints on one of the students, C.M., after the child engaged in unruly behavior. Afterward, C.M. claimed his shoulder hurt and he was examined by a nurse, who did not find any physical injury. When C.M. went home, he developed some bruises and scratches, which potentially related to the restraints.
C.M.’s grandmother contacted the Hamilton Police Department, and ultimately the Butler County Children Services Board (“BCSB”). The Hamilton Police Department declined to file criminal charges against Printup. The BCSB also investigated. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the BCSB noted Printup on the State of Ohio’s central registry for child abuse and neglect as an “indicated” perpetrator. Printup claimed she lost her job at St. Aloysius as a result.
Printup challenged the designation by requesting a hearing before the BCSB Ombudsman. On February 11, 2013, the Ombudsman issued a decision upholding the designation. Printup appealed the Ombudsman decision to state court. On January 27, 2014, the state court reversed the administrative child-abuse finding. Printup claims she could not get her job back at St. Aloysius.
On February 10, 2015, Printup filed a Complaint in U.S. District Court against Butler County and Cynthia C. Dungey, Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Printup alleged the County failed to train and supervise its hearing officer and social workers, and that these failures deprived Printup of constitutional rights and damaged her. She argued the County deprived her of her liberty and property by designating her a child abuser on the Central Registry. The County moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the acts were barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to her claims. The District Court dismissed the case on those grounds and Printup appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. On appeal, Printup argued her injury was not complete (and did not start the statute of limitations) until, at the earliest, the Ombudsman issued his decision affirming child abuse indication. The Court found Printup’s injury occurred when she lost her job as a result of the child abuse designation and her name’s placement on the Central Registry. Since that act occurred more than two years before she filed her lawsuit, her claim was time barred. It did not matter that the BCSB Ombudsman affirmed the designation inside of the two-year statute of limitations period. The state defendant, Cynthia Dungey, was dismissed by the District Court because Printup’s indication on the central registry had already been removed by the time Printup filed her Complaint. Printup did not appeal that dismissal.