By Betsy Finklea
A lawsuit has been filed against the former Latta High School Band Director Matthew Tyler Hutto, Dillon County School District Three and the Latta School District.
The lawsuit has been filed in  U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, Florence Division,  and the plaintiff is one of the victims in a case against Hutto.
Hutto pled guilty in 2011 to three counts of disseminating obscene material, two counts of sexual battery with a student, one count of assault and battery first degree, and one count of criminal solicitation of a minor. There were three victims in the case.
He received the following sentence at that time: On the charges of criminal solicitation of a minor, assault and battery first degree, and three counts of unlawful distribution of obscene material, Hutto received 10 years suspended to 2 1/2 years and five years probation. He must register on the sex offender registry and the child abuse register. He must have no contact with the victims. On the two counts of sexual battery with a student, Hutto received five years suspended to 2 1/2 years and five years probation concurrent.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on April 11th says that this is an action to “redress the deprivation of (the victim’s) constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments” and “to redress quid pro quo and hostile educational environment sexual harassment” and “to recover for state law claims arising under the South Carolina common law, all of which arise out of the same common nucleus of facts.”
There are six  causes of action listed in the lawsuit against Hutto and nine causes of action listed against the school district.
The lawsuit says that the “district was responsible for the screening, hiring, and supervision of all teachers within the district” and “was responsible for supervising students attending Latta High School.” It states that Hutto, the former music instructor and band director at Latta High School, “was acting within the course and scope of his employment and as as an agent for the district.”
It states that the plaintiff, who was then a student at the school, attended the school “with the reasonable expectation that she would be in a safe environment at all times, …that the “district owed a duty to the plaintiff to provide a safe environment with such duty to include the proper screening, hiring and supervision of its employees, “ and  that the “plaintiff has a reasonable expectation that the teachers in the district would not engage in sexual contact with minor children.”
The lawsuit alleges that “during the course of the school year (2010-2011), the district knew or should have known that  Hutto was known to ‘hang out’ with his students and frequently interacted more like a student’s peer than as a supervising teacher,” and that “during the course of the school year, the district knew or should have known that Hutto was frequently seen interacting in a ‘flirty’ or other inappropriate manner with the minor child and clearly was developing a relationship that went beyond a teacher/student relationship.”
It alleges that in spite of this knowledge that the district allowed “Hutto to be a supervisor of Latta High School students, including the plaintiff, at the time a minor child, at various times during the school year, including after school hours.”
The lawsuit alleges that “beginning in the month of May or June 2010, Defendant Hutto, while in the scope and course of his employment with the district, began trying to seduce the minor child (plaintiff) and convince her to engage in a sexual relationship with him. He was  ultimately successful after much pressure, coercion, and persuasion. Hutto then instructed the minor child not to tell anyone. In the ensuing weeks and months, Hutto continued to exercise direct authority and control over the minor child at school and Hutto exhibited behaviors which exceeded appropriate interaction between a teacher and student. The inappropriate relationship between Hutto and the plaintiff was so open and obvious that at least two different employees of the district made inquiries about it. In approximately March or April of 2011, Hutto’s wife discovered the relationship, and the minor child admitted to having sexual intercourse with Hutto. The case was
investigated by the Dillon Police Department.” Hutto was charged and later pled guilty.
Because of all of this the lawsuit alleges that “the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged. She has suffered physical, mental, and emotional anguish with permanent harmful effect with such damages having been a proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants. The plaintiff has incurred medical expenses as a result of the acts and/or omission of the defendant.”
Under the various causes of action against Hutto and the district, the lawsuit alleges the following:
—that the “minor child has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to embarrassment, humiliation, ostracism by friends, family, and the community, anxiety, grief, emotional upset, stress and other psychological injuries.”
—that the “defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence, recklessness, and willfulness. Specifically, the defendants conduct was grossly negligent in the following particulars:
a. “Failing to properly screen prospective employees to insure that they are training and suitable to interact and supervise students.”
b. “In failing to properly supervise the minor child and other students for who the defendants were responsible and under the direct guidance and supervision of the defendants.”
c. “In allowing the minor child and other students to be in a position where such harm and danger could be inflicted upon them”
d. “In failing to properly supervise Defendant Hutto.”
e. “In failing to properly investigate its admitted ‘suspicions’ concerning the inappropriate relationship between Hutto and the minor child and taking appropriate actions to intervene and ensure such conduct did not occur again.”
f. “In failing to have a policy or program of training and prevention to prohibit such incidents and to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations, statutes, code, industry standards and other guideline and specifications.”
g. “In failing to have a policy or program of training and supervision or other necessary programs or seminars addressed to the school faculty to ensure a safe environment for plaintiff and other children.’
The lawsuit also alleges that ”the minor child was subjected to an assault and battery upon her person and Hutto continued to force himself upon her and forced her to submit to improper, illegal, and immoral sexual advances on more than one occasion, both on school property and at his home.”
The lawsuit’s allegations continue by stating that:
—the “defendants did intentionally and recklessly inflict severe emotional distress upon the minor child” and that the emotional distress was “so severe and extreme that no reasonable person, and in particular no young female students, could be expected to endure it.”
—the “acts of the defendants were in violation of the minor child’s right to privacy. The conduct set forth in this complaint was such as to amount to a wrongful intrusion in the minor child’s life. In addition, the conduct consisted of publicizing private matters involving the minor child of no legitimate public concern. The action of the defendants in invading the privacy of the minor child and her body constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the psychological solitude or seclusion of the minor child.”
The plaintiff is asking for a judgment “for actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.”