Abby Zwerner Wins $10 Million Verdict

The jury has rendered a verdict in the civil trial brought by former teacher Abby Zwerner against former assistant principal Ebony Parker. Deliberations started yesterday with Zwerner asking for $40 million. Today, after about five hours total, the jury came back with an award of $10 million.

The panel of three men and four women sided with former instructor Abigail Zwerner and awarded her $10 million in damages stemming from her wounding on Jan. 6, 2023, at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News.

Zwerner was shot in the hand and chest by the boy, who could’ve been stopped by assistant principal Ebony Parker, the teacher said in her lawsuit…

There were clear school guidelines that called for Parker to take action once the defendant was told about a possible threat, Zwerner’s attorney, Kevin Biniazan, told jurors on Wednesday.

“What does that mean? That means you can’t stick your head in the sand,” he said. “You cannot stick your head in the sand and then come into court and say, ‘I didn’t have the information when it was your job to find it.'”

Also in closing arguments yesterday, Zwerner’s attorney argued that the possibility that a gun was present in an elementary school should have changed Parker’s behavior.

“Dr. Parker’s job is safety,” one of Zwerner’s attorneys said during closing arguments Wednesday. And she didn’t do enough to thwart the shooting after learning of the child having a gun, he argued.

“A gun changes everything. You stop and you investigate. You get to the bottom of it,” attorney Kevin Biniazan said. “You get to the bottom of that backpack. You get to the bottom of his pockets, whatever it is. You get to the bottom of it to know whether that gun is real and on campus.”

What did Parker actually do? Nothing. In fact, when asked for permission to search to boy prior to the shooting, she said no.

Shortly after, two students told a reading specialist that the boy had a gun in his backpack, according to the lawsuit. Zwerner told the specialist she had seen the boy take something out of his bag and put it in his sweatshirt. The specialist then searched the boy’s backpack and did not find a weapon. The reading specialist told Parker about the incident, according to the lawsuit, and Parker responded that his “pockets were too small to hold a handgun” and “did nothing.” 

Another student then told a teacher the boy had shown him a gun in his pocket during recess. When the incident was conveyed to Parker, she said the backpack had already been searched and “took no further action,” according to the lawsuit. When a guidance counselor asked Parker for permission to search the boy again, she allegedly forbade him from doing so, according to the lawsuit.

So what happens now? Well, in theory, the Virginia Risk Sharing Association (VRSA) should agree to cover the award to Zwerner on behalf of Parker. However, there is a big wrinkle here. This case has concluded before a criminal case against Parker who is facing eight counts of endangering children. Often, civil cases follow criminal cases but in this case the order was reversed. If a jury in the criminal case finds Parker guilty, the VRSA could balk at paying Zwerner her award.

Managers of the insurance pool could argue that, with a guilty verdict in hand, criminal action by the defendant took the school employee out of their purview, said University of Richmond law professor Jack Preis.

“There’s times in which the courts will say, ‘Listen, you’ve effectively misbehaved so much that you’ve lost your job, you’ve left your job for that moment, and therefore we’re not responsible for covering anything because you essentially abdicated your role,’ ” Preis told NBC News.

That’s possible but not certain because even though the insurer might want to wash their hands of today’s award, they would also likely face some public backlash for doing so. So they might decide to pay it anyway rather than make themselves the villain.

I still think there is an unspoken racial element to this case which no one wanted to bring it up. The testimony from the defense’s main expert was that Ebony Parker did nothing wrong because assistant principals don’t need to react immediately or strongly to every bit of information they hear. The expert said there was always a possibility of overreaction which in this case might involve tackling the child and calling the police before the facts were clear.

That probably is the kind of overreaction Parker was trying to avoid and I think her concern was particularly acute in this case because this kid was black and had a prior history of violent behavior. Those two things raised the specter of the school to prison pipeline wherein black students are supposedly singled out for more discipline and, as a result, are more likely to have the police called on them at school, leading eventually to potential criminal charges and imprisonment. 

Parker certainly knew about this concept and, as a black assistant principal, probably had hesitations about escalating the situation in a way that would mark this particular kid moving forward. This was a violent, angry kid whose behavior problems were well known. Two days before the shooting, the boy had grabbed and intentionally broken Zwerner’s phone. And after the shooting, he reportedly said this:

A school employee restrained the boy, who said he had “shot that b*** dead,” according to unsealed records…

Zwerner’s lawsuit also alleged that Parker knew the boy “had a history of random violence” at home and school, citing an incident the year before where he “strangled and choked” his kindergarten teacher. Concerns about his behavior were “always dismissed,” the lawsuit claimed, and the boy’s parents did not agree to put him in special education classes with other students with behavioral issues. 

There was a clear pattern here that Ebony Parker was trying very hard not to see. Nothing in the trial (that I’ve seen) attempted to explain why Parker refused to act that day. I think her concerns over putting this kid in the school to prison pipeline is the most likely answer.

Finally, it’s a relief that Zwerner won here. Had she lost, the signal to school officials everywhere would have been that they can do absolutely nothing to prevent a school shooting and never be held accountable. After this verdict, hopefully, there will be some additional training. If you have a job that involves safety at a school, you’re expected to perform when it counts. That doesn’t mean every administrator is always at fault if something happens out of the blue, but it does mean they have a duty to try, to at least seek information if they hear about a student with a gun at school. That strikes me as the right message here.

If you are interested in hearing some of the closing arguments, here’s Zwerner’s lawyer making his case. Defense closing arguments are here.