concluding that a high school student capable of functioning at only a first-grade level sufficiently pled deliberate indifference under Title IX by alleging that she was subjected to a month-long pattern of severe sexual assault, that specific school personnel had actual knowledge of the incidents but refused to discipline the harasser or inform the student’s mother, and that the principal retaliated against the mother’s complaints by suspending the disabled student, despite the student having suffered psychological harm requiring her hospitalization and assignment to home-bound services
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a high school student capable of functioning at only a first-grade level sufficiently pled deliberate indifference under Title IX by alleging that she was subjected to a month-long pattern of severe sexual assault, that specific school personnel had actual knowledge of the incidents but refused to discipline the harasser or inform the student’s mother, and that the principal retaliated against the mother’s complaints by suspending the disabled student, despite the student having suffered psychological harm requiring her hospitalization and assignment to home-bound services
- recognizing that school superintendents may have the power to intervene in Title IX violations, but declining to list the job titles of those officials who do or do not possess such control “[b]ecause officials’ roles vary among school districts” and it is “necessarily [a] fact-based inquiry … [to] decid[e] who exercises substantial control for the purposes of Title IX liability”
- stating that school district is hable only where it has made a conscious decision to permit sex discrimination, and precludes liability where the school district could not have remedied that harassment because it had no knowledge of it or had no authority to respond to it
- concluding that the plaintiff stated a claim for supervisory liability for sexual harassment under § 1983 by alleging that the supervisors “knew about [the harassment] and acquiesced in that conduct by refusing to reasonably respond to it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
The majority wisely “declinefs] ... to name job titles that would or would not adequately satisfy” Davis ’ requirement that the school have control over the harassing student for a finding of Title IX liability. Maj. op. at 1247. Davis did not answer this question precisely, leaving liability limited in general terms to cases involving “an official decision by the [Title IX] recipient not to remedy the violation.” — U.S. at-, 119 S.Ct. at 1671 (quoting Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 , 118 S.Ct. 1989 , 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998)); see also Davis, — U.S. at —, 119 S.Ct. at 1688 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“[T]he majority says not one word about the type of school employee who must know about the harassment before it is actionable.”).
I write separately to point out that given the facts of this case, some of the language in the majority’s Title IX analysis is unnecessarily broad. After concluding that Principal Johnston’s alleged deliberate indifference and actual knowledge are enough to trigger liability under Title IX, the majority proceeds to state that “teachers may well possess the requisite control necessary to take corrective action to end ... discrimination.” Maj. op. at 1248. So stating, the majority implies that a single teacher’s inaction may in some circumstances be enough to trigger Title IX liability. That question is not before us in this case, at least not at this juncture. There is simply no need for such employee-by-employee analysis, given that the facts alleged clearly amount to an “official decision” by Principal Johnston, the highest-ranking school official, “not to remedy the violation.” Davis, — U.S. at —, 119 S.Ct. at 1671. A single teacher’s sexual misconduct was not enough to subject a recipient to liability in Gebser , and I believe it is still an open question after Davis whether a single teacher’s indifference is ever sufficient for recipient liability, notwithstanding the Davis dissent’s characterization of the opinion, see Davis, — U.S. at —, 119 S.Ct. at 1689 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (postulating that a district might “be held liable for a teacher’s failure to remedy peer harassment.”).
Moreover, with respect to Ms. Murrell’s Equal Protection Clause claim against the principal and the teachers individually, I emphasize that the “deliberate indifference” standard provides a high hurdle for plaintiffs. Such a high hurdle is necessary, given the myriad contacts which occur daily in this country between teachers and students and between students and their peers. The allegations in this case are so egregious, however, that I agree that Ms. Murrell has stated a claim against the principal and the teachers under the Equal Protection Clause. Whether less egregious facts will suffice in future cases remains to be seen.