Ed Law Brief: Schools Not Liable If Unaware of Sexual Harassment by Senior Basketball Players Against a 9th Grader

RCEd Commentary

Background: M.D. was a ninth grade basketball player who was repeatedly harassed by four senior teammates.  M.D. testified that the four seniors taunted him with sexual innuendos, grabbed his genitals, and flashed their private parts at him on a nearly daily basis in the locker room. In addition, on a team bus ride at the back of the bus, the seniors sat on his face and tried to pull down his pants. G.M. also testified that although he called for help, no one helped him. After the bus incident, the mother of another student reported the assault to the school nurse, who informed the school administration. School officials notified the police, immediately investigated, and suspended the four seniors from school. When M.D.’s father learned that the seniors would be re-enrolled, he withdrew his son and sued the school.

The parents asserted that the coaches knew or should have known of the harassment in the locker room and on the bus. Therefore, they sued on several grounds: for peer sexual harassment under Title IX; as well as for a due process “state-created danger” claim along with a “failure-to-train” claim, both under 42 United States Code Section 1983. School officials responded that they should not be held legally liable, since they took appropriate action as soon as they learned about the harassment.

Issue: Could the school district be held liable for the sexual harassment and assault against M.D. by the four seniors on the basketball team?

Legal Principles: Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, public schools cannot be held liable for peer sexual harassment unless there is evidence that they have actual knowledge of the harassment and their response is clearly unreasonable.

-- Under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, individuals can obtain damages against government officials who violate their clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

-- To prevail on a “state-created danger” claim under Section 1983, plaintiffs must present evidence that state officials acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the individual.

-- To establish a “failure-to-train” claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove that officials acted with deliberate indifference in failing to train its staff to prevent violations of an individual’s rights.

Outcome: The federal appeals court ruled in favor of the school. First, the peer sexual harassment claim failed because a school can only be held liable under Title IX for failing to prevent harassment about which it had actual knowledge.  The evidence indicated that the school had knowledge about M.D.’s harassment “only after the mistreatment occurred.”

On the “state-created danger” claim, M.D. failed to prove that officials acted with deliberate indifference to his rights. Logically speaking, officials could not be indifferent to M.D.’s mistreatment if they lacked actual knowledge. The court explained that it is not enough to show that government officials should have known of the danger that their action or inaction created. Rather a plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual knowledge of impending harm, “which he consciously refused to prevent.”

Third, M.D. did not win on his “failure-to-train” claim because it requires evidence that school officials acted with deliberate indifference by failing to train teachers and coaches to prevent the violation of M.D.’s rights. In this case, officials did not learn of the assaults against M.D. until after they occurred (and there was no evidence of a widespread pattern or practice of similar violations).  Therefore, school officials had no basis to think its training was obviously inadequate and consequently the school cannot be liable under a “failure-to-train” theory.

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

• Under 42 U.S Code Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, school officials can be held personally liable for violating the clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of students or teachers.  

• This could include a school’s liability for failure to train teachers or coaches to prevent violations of students’ rights when there is actual knowledge or a pattern and the system’s training is obviously inadequate.

• Schools could be held liable under a state-created danger theory when there is evidence school officials acted with deliberate indifference to the violation of constitutional or statutory rights about which they were aware and failed to take reasonable action to prevent.

• Schools can be held liable under Title IX for peer sexual harassment when officials have actual knowledge of the harassment and are found to be deliberately indifferent because their response to the harassment is clearly unreasonable.Citation: 

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Davis v. Carmel Clay Schools, 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.