By: Grace Andrews-Becker  

The Supreme Court of Maryland held the federal Coverdell Act does not preempt state negligence claims against school board administrators and teachers for the acts or omissions committed within the scope of their employment.  Gambrill v. Bd. of Educ. of Dorchester Cnty., 481 Md. 274, 308-09, 281 A.3d 876, 896 (2022).  Specifically, the court held that the Maryland procedural law for asserting negligence claims against school staff falls “squarely within” the provisions of the Coverdell Act.  Id. at 308, 281 A.3d at 895-96.  The court also refused to expand the educational malpractice doctrine to include negligence claims against school employees when such claims do not involve educational decisions.  Id. at 312, 281 A.3d at 898.   

Sixth-grader S. Gambrill (“S.”) was the subject of physical and verbal bullying by her peers at Mace’s Lane Middle School (“Mace’s Lane”) during the 2016-2017 school year.  After the first bullying incident, S.’s parents (collectively “the Gambrills”) notified the Assistant Principal of Mace’s Lane, Ms. Woolford, who assured them the bullying would be “handled.”  When the bullying persisted, the Gambrills also notified the Principal of Mace’s Lane, Dr. Collins, and the Supervisor of Student Services, Dr. Bell.  Despite the Gambrills’ repeated notifications to Mace’s Lane and school board staff, the bullying worsened.  By June 2017, S. had sustained two concussions, developed antisocial behaviors, and subsequently transferred to another school.  

The Gambrills filed a complaint against Dr. Bell, Dr. Collins, Ms. Woolford, two substitute teachers, and the Board of Education (“the Board”) in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County.  The court granted summary judgment for the Board and its staff, holding the Coverdell Act provided immunity to the individual defendants, and the educational malpractice doctrine barred negligence claims involving educational decisions against the Board.  The Gambrills appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, which affirmed the lower court’s holding and reasoning.  The Gambrills filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court of Maryland granted.

The Supreme Court of Maryland addressed three issues: (1) whether the federal Coverdell Act preempts Maryland law and immunizes teachers and school board administrators from liability in negligence actions, (2) whether the educational malpractice doctrine barred the Gambrills’ negligence claim, and (3) whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment. Gambrill, 481 Md. at 296, 281 A.3d at 888-89. 

The Supreme Court of Maryland began its analysis with an overview of preemption, explaining that “federal law is supreme over state law.”  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 298, 281 A.3d at 890.  However, there is a general presumption in tort actions that Congress did not intend federal law to preempt state law.  Id. at 299, 281 A.3d at 890 (citing Columbia Venture, LLC v. Dewberry & Davis, LLC, 604 F.3d 824, 830 (4th Cir. 2010)).  The court held the Coverdell Act’s plain language and provided exceptions do not overcome this presumption. Gambrill, 481 Md.at 302, 281 A.3d at 892.

The court then examined the plain language of the Coverdell Act in its preemption analysis. Gambrill, 481 Md. at 307, 281 A.3d at 895.  The Coverdell Act provides that “no teacher in a school shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of the teacher.”  Id. at 307, 281 A.3d at 895 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 7946(a)) (emphasis added).  The court distinguished “liability for damages” from “immunity from suit” and determined the Coverdell Act protects teachers against the monetary damages associated with their negligence.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 307, 281 A.3d at 895.  

Next, the court reviewed the Coverdell Act’s exceptions and whether Maryland law fits within an exception.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 308, 281 A.3d at 895-96.  The Coverdell Act permits states to create laws that hold schools liable for the conduct of their teachers proportionate to an employer’s liability for the conduct of its employees.  Id. at 308, 281 A.3d at 896 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 7946(b)(2)).  Maryland’s procedural law for asserting tort claims against school boards and employees provides that a school employee, acting within the scope of their employment, cannot be held personally liable for the monetary damages that result from their conduct.  Gambrill, 481 Md.at 308, 281 A.3d 896(citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-518 (LexisNexis 2015)).  Instead, Maryland law requires that the school board is joined as a party to indemnify the employee for their monetary damages.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 308, 281 A.3d at 896.

The court concluded that Maryland law is consistent with the federal Coverdell Act.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 308, 281 A.3d at 396.  Both the Coverdell Act and Maryland law prohibit holding teachers liable for the monetary damages associated with their negligence.  Id.  Moreover, the Coverdell Act’s exceptions permit Maryland’s procedural law requiring the Board to be a party in the action. Id.  Because the Coverdell Act does not provide teachers with “heightened protection,” compared to Maryland law, the court refused to overcome the general presumption and preempt state law.  See id. at 298, 281 A.3d at 890.  

The court next addressed whether the educational malpractice doctrine barred the Gambrills’ negligence claim.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 309, 281 A.3d at 896.  Claims based on educational malpractice ask courts to evaluate educational decisions and whether those decisions breached a standard of reasonableness for an educational program.  Id. at 309, 281 A.3d at 897 (quoting Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 1992)).  Educational malpractice is not a cognizable cause of action because it presents several public policy concerns that courts are reluctant to address.  Gambrill, 481 Md.at 310, 281 A.3d at 897 (citing Gupta v. New Britain Gen. Hosp., 687 A.2d 111, 119 (Conn. 1996)).  These concerns include ambiguity in evaluating the reasonableness of conduct concerning educational decisions, calculating the onset and severity of damages that result from such conduct, and determining what, if any, burdens the doctrine imposes on school systems. Gambrill, 481 Md.at 311, 281 A.3d at 897 (citing Hunter v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 292 Md. 481, 487, 439 A.2d 582, 585 (1982)).

The court held that the Gambrills’ claim was firmly “rooted in negligence.” Gambrill, 481 Md. at 312, 281 A.3d at 898.  Specifically, the claim asked the court to evaluate whether the school employees had a duty to protect S. on school grounds.  Id.  Furthermore, the policy concerns were absent from the Gambrills’ claim.  Id. at 312-13, 281 A.3d at 898.  Asserting negligence provided the court with a well-established standard to evaluate the teacher’s conduct and the customary damages arising from physical and mental harm.  Id. at 313, 281 A.3d at 898-99.  Nor did this claim impose a heightened burden on the school system because Maryland law holds school boards liable for the conduct of their employees.  Id. at 313, 281 A.3d at 899 (citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-518(b)-(c) (LexisNexis 2015)).  Therefore, the court refused to expand the educational malpractice doctrine to the Gambrills’ claim because the claim did not question the educational decisions or present issues the court could not address. Gambrill, 281 Md. at 313, 281 A.3d at 899.   

Finally, the court evaluated whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants.  Gambrill, 481 Md. at 314, 281 A.3d at 899.  The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, finding that because the Gambrills’ claim was neither preempted by the Coverdell Act nor barred under the educational malpractice doctrine, several factual issues remained.  See id. at 322-24, 281 A.3d at 904-05.

The Gambrill decision removed barriers for asserting negligence claims against teachers and school boards for their acts or omissions concerning bullying in school.  While this decision provides bullied students with a cognizable cause of action, it also highlights the competing interests and challenges of families and school staff.  Nearly one-quarter of public school students experience bullying, but Maryland public schools struggle to adequately staff classrooms.  Time will tell whether this holding opens a door to relief for students or a floodgate of litigation against the school system.

Grace Andrews-Becker is a third-year evening student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a first-year Staff Editor for Law Forum. Grace earned her B.S. in Psychology at Mount St. Mary’s University and her M.A. in Political Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She currently works full-time in Student Affairs at Towson University. At UB, she serves as a teaching assistant for Professor Lynch’s Introduction to Lawyering Skills course, and from 2022-2023, she was a member of the National Moot Court Team. This summer, she will be a Summer Associate at McGuireWoods LLP.