PAXTON, Ill. (WCIA) — A new lawsuit has been filed by an individual referred to as Jane Doe against the Paxton-Buckley-Loda School District and a teacher/coach, Robert Pacey. The complaint accuses Pacey, who is also a City of Paxton alderman and currently suspended, of inappropriate touching both in school hallways and during track practices. It also alleges the school district failed to take adequate action to prevent such incidents.

According to WCIA’s partners at the Ford County Chronicle, this is the third lawsuit initiated by Chicago civil rights attorney Bhavani Raveendran, representing five anonymous individuals. The lawsuit seeks $50,000 in damages for each claim, citing willful and wanton conduct, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breaches of the Illinois Gender Violence Act.

The latest lawsuit names not just the school district and Pacey, but also Junior High principal Josh Didier, as well as former superintendents Travis Duley and Cliff McClure, as defendants.

Raveendran expressed concern over the district’s response, stating, “With more families and individuals coming forward, it’s unclear what measures the school district will take to ensure a safer environment for students in the upcoming school year. The culture of ignoring complaints and instances of inappropriate behavior is unacceptable, especially in places tasked with the care and education of young students.”

The new lawsuit’s plaintiff, labeled as Jane Doe E, attended both junior and senior high schools within the district. She claims that Pacey began inappropriately touching and sexually battering her in 2009, during her 6th-grade year, continuing until 2013.

Jane Doe E alleges that Pacey made over 50 unwanted contacts with her in school hallways and engaged in sexual contact with her and others during track practices. Despite her objections, Pacey allegedly persisted, questioning her resistance with comments like, “Well, why can’t I?”

Jane eventually quit the PBL track and field program in order to distance herself from Pacey, the lawsuit said.

“Jane Doe E was incredibly uncomfortable with Pacey, but as the contact occurred frequently in front of other staff and teachers, she did not believe anyone would help her,” the lawsuit reads.

In addition, the lawsuit says Jane believed that if she came forward with her complaints, she believed Pacey would be protected and she would get in trouble. That’s what Jane said happened when she made a Facebook page supporting Pacey at his direction. She received detention while Pacey was not disciplined.

The lawsuit further alleges that the school district was aware of complaints against Pacey 16 years ago and dismissed them, doing nothing to stop his conduct, enforce its own policies and procedures or report the complaints to DCFS as required by Illinois law.

Pacey remained employed and on full status as a teacher until April of this year. One of the other Janes Does revealed her experiences with him to a therapist in January, who contacted DCFS. The new lawsuit says DCFS filed a report and began an investigation into Pacey for the first time, but school district still did nothing until April, when Pacey was finally placed on administrative leave.

“As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions set forth, Jane Doe E suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent psychological, educational, and emotional injures and damages,” the lawsuit reads. “All of which caused and continue to cause Jane Doe E great pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, and have resulted in her diminished ability to enjoy her life.”

Pacey, meanwhile, has denied all wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. He remains an elected alderman and is still on paid administrative leave from PBL.

The Ford County Chronicle reported that since the filing of all three lawsuits in McLean County, Raveendran asked Judge Rebecca Foley to consolidate them into one case. During a hearing last month, Foley allowed for the continued use of the names Jane Does A, B and C in the case and also set a deadline of Aug 29 for the defendant’s attorneys to file responsive motions.

Those motions and all others will be considered during a status hearing on Sept. 11.