School district may be liable under Title IX for failing to respond to studend-on-student sexual harassment

Law Reporter, Aug 1999

School district may be liable under Title IX for failing to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment.

Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 119 S. Ct. 1661 (1999).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a school district may be liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., for failing to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in any education program receiving federal money.

Here, Davis, a fifth-grade student, was allegedly sexually harassed by a classmate on numerous occasions. Davis notified her teacher of the harassment, who reportedly assured Davis's mother that the school principal had been informed of the incidents. No disciplinary action was taken against the classmate.

Davis's mother sued the school board, the school district's superintendent, and the school principal, alleging violations of Title IX. Plaintiff claimed that defendants' deliberate indifference to the classmate's unwelcome sexual advances created a hostile environment in violation of Title IX. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Title IX does not provide recipients of federal education funding with sufficient notice of a duty to prevent student-on-student harassment.

Reversing, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the regulatory scheme and common law surrounding Title IX provide funding recipients with notice that they may be liable for failing to respond to the discriminatory acts of third parties. Citing Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 118 S. Ct. 1989 (1998), 41 ATLA L. Rep. 230 (Aug. 1998)which held that a school district may be liable under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment by a teacher-the Court held that in the context of student-on-student harassment, damages are available where the behavior is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies its victims access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. The Court emphasized that damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among schoolchildren. Rather, a plaintiff's ability to state a cognizable claim depends on the persistence and severity of the harassing student's actions, as well as the defendant's knowledge and deliberate indifference.

Here, the Court noted, Davis was allegedly subjected to numerous incidents of sexual harassment over a five-month period, including objectively offensive touching. Further, plaintiff contended that the harassment had a concrete, negative effect on Davis's ability to receive an education. Additionally, the school board made no effort either to investigate or to stop the harassment. Thus, the Court concluded, there are allegations in support of the conclusion that the classmate's misconduct was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and plaintiff may be able to show both actual knowledge and deliberate indifference on the part of the school board. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint had been improper.

Accordingly, the Court remanded.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

Verna L. Williams, Washington, D.C.

[ Comment: For another case holding that schools can be liable under Title IX for failing to remedy student-onstudent sexual harassment, see Doe v. University of Ill., 138 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 1998), 41 ATLA L. Rep. 148 (May 1998). Sheryl Jaffee Halpern and James T. Rohlfing, both of Chicago, Ill., represented plaintiffs.]

[Documents in Doe are available through the Court Documents section in the back section of this issue, courtesy of Ms. Halpern.]