Ed Law Briefly: School Officials Had No Actual Knowledge of Harassment

X
Story Stream
recent articles

RCEd Commentary

Background: A high school freshman basketball player accused four senior teammates of physically harassing him in the locker room and again on a bus trip on the way home from a game. The freshman claimed that in the locker room the upperclassmen grabbed his genitals, flashed their own genitals, dragged him into the showers while pulling down his pants, and taunted him with sexual innuendos almost every day. On the bus ride home from the game, three of the four students sat on his face and tried to pull down his pants. One of the seniors tried to stick a finger through his pants.

The freshman said nobody helped him, despite the fact that he screamed out.  At the time, all of the coaches were seated toward the front of the bus and the bus was very loud. After the bus incident, a mother of another student called the school nurse to report the abuse. This report was given to administrators who then contacted the police department.

All four of the students were eventually suspended and expelled. The victim’s father withdrew his son from the school district because three of the four seniors were allowed to re-enroll. A lawsuit against the school system followed, alleging that the school let the sexual harassment to occur. The federal district court (the trial court that originally heard the controversy) granted the district’s request to dismiss the case, setting up this appeal.

Issue:  The freshman basketball player’s parents sued the school district and alleged violations under United States Code Section 1983 (which allows individuals to sue in federal court for such violations as equal protection, due process “state-created danger,” failure-to-train) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for peer-harassment.  This summary of the case will focus only on the Title IX claim.

Legal Principles: Under Title IX, school officials can be liable for peer harassment if they knew about the harassment, were deliberately indifferent in responding to the harassment, and the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

Outcome:  The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision favoring the district. The court found it legally noteworthy that school officials had no actual knowledge of the harassment at the time, and only learned the full facts after the mistreatment stopped. The parents did not present any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, citing a 2003 case, the court noted that a school district cannot be held responsible unless it is fully aware of the harassment and intentionally fails to do anything meaningful (deliberately indifferent) to intervene.

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

  • For a school district to be liable under Title IX for peer harassment, school officials must know about the harassment.  In this case there was no evidence school officials knew about the offensive activities before they ended.
  • When a student reports that s/he has been harassed, school officials must promptly investigate and take action if necessary.

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
Davis v. Carmel Clay Schs., 570 Fed. Appx. 602 (7th Cir. 2014).

Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. Federal and other court decisions can differ depending on what region of the country you live in. State laws also weigh in on certain issues. All cases are for educational purposes only, and meant to demonstrate how courts or administrative agencies have acted in specific instances as well as to provide information that can bolster the overall legal literacy of teachers and administrators. Local school attorneys can provide more detail about local law.

Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles