Gambrill v. Board of Education: Maryland Bullying Cases Clear Two Defense Roadblocks
Few calls are harder to take than the parent whose child dreads school — not because of classes, but because of sustained, violent bullying that the adults in the building knew about and failed to stop. For years, Maryland families who brought those cases met two defenses that ended them before any jury heard what the school knew: a federal statute said to immunize school employees, and a doctrine with the dismissive name "educational malpractice." Late last month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland took both roadblocks down.
In Gambrill v. Board of Education of Dorchester County, decided August 26, 2022, the parents of a middle schooler subjected to violent, sustained bullying sued the school board and individual school employees for negligent supervision. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defense. Maryland's highest court, in an opinion by Judge Booth, reversed.
Roadblock one: the federal Coverdell Act does not preempt Maryland negligence claims
The federal Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act shields teachers from liability in certain circumstances, and school defendants have argued it wipes out state-law negligence claims against school employees. The Court held it does not preempt the claims here — which proceed under Maryland's own framework, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 5-518. That framework matters for families and educators alike: it channels the money judgment to the school board, which must indemnify its employees. The teacher does not pay personally; the institution answers for negligence in its building. The Coverdell Act, the Court concluded, does not displace that Maryland scheme.
Roadblock two: "educational malpractice" does not swallow supervision claims
Maryland, like most states, does not recognize claims for "educational malpractice" — courts will not second-guess pedagogy, curriculum, or academic judgment. Defense lawyers had stretched that doctrine into something much broader: an argument that anything happening at school is an unreviewable educational decision, including how a school responds to one child repeatedly assaulting another. The Court drew the line where it belongs. A negligent-supervision claim — the allegation that school staff failed to use reasonable care to protect a student from known, ongoing peer violence — does not ask a jury to grade the school's teaching. It asks whether the adults met the ordinary standard of care in keeping a child safe. That claim, the Court held, may proceed.
Why this decision matters
| Before Gambrill | After Gambrill |
|---|---|
| Coverdell Act routinely raised to knock out claims against school employees | Maryland negligence claims against school employees proceed; the board indemnifies under CJP § 5-518 |
| "Educational malpractice" invoked against any school-supervision claim | The doctrine is confined to true academic-judgment claims; supervision and safety claims are ordinary negligence |
Bullying is not a rite of passage. It is a known, foreseeable hazard that schools are equipped — and required — to manage with reasonable care. Gambrill does not make school systems insurers of every playground scrape, and it does not decide that the Dorchester County defendants were negligent; it holds that the family is entitled to try to prove it. That is all most families ever asked.
The timing could hardly be more pointed. Maryland schools have spent two years absorbing pandemic disruption, and educators report student conflict at levels that worry everyone in the building. Schools maintain anti-bullying policies, reporting systems, and state-mandated procedures precisely because peer violence is predictable — and those same policies now do double duty in litigation, supplying the measuring stick for what a reasonable response to a known bully looks like. A school that follows its own protocols has little to fear from Gambrill. The decision has teeth only for schools that documented the danger and did nothing.
What this means for injured people in Maryland
- Documented complaints are the spine of the case. Emails to teachers and administrators, counselor visits, incident reports — the record of what the school knew, and when, decides these cases.
- Individual employees can be named, with the school board standing behind the judgment under § 5-518 — the structure Gambrill confirms.
- Government-claim procedures still apply. Claims involving school boards carry their own notice and procedural requirements with short deadlines — get advice early.
- The doctrine has limits. Purely academic grievances remain non-actionable. The claims that survive are about safety, not pedagogy.
If your child has been seriously hurt by bullying a school failed to address, Maryland law after Gambrill is clearer than it has been in years: the courthouse door is open. The case itself now returns to the trial court, where the family will have the chance to prove what the school knew and when — the chance the dismissed rulings had denied them.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.
Update: The court reissued its opinion on November 30, 2022; the decision is reported at 481 Md. 274.