School District Liability Under Title IX ' Part 2 Davis V. Monroe County Bd. Of Educ.

• Published date: 06 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Cranfill Sumner
• Author: Jack Wright

As was mentioned previously, the purpose of this series of articles is to provide an overview regarding the scope of Title IX liability for school districts and the potential damages they face, which continues to evolve within our court system, especially in the face of changing technology. The first article focused on Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998), which established the current legal standard utilized to impose liability on a school district for Title IX violations where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of teacher-student harassment. This article will focus on a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999), in which the court held that a school district may be liable under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-student harassment.

Facts

LaShonda Davis, a fifth-grade student at Hubbard Elementary School in Monroe County, Georgia, was subjected to repeated sexual harassment of both a verbal and physical nature by one of her classmates. Unlike the situation in Gebser, Davis told several teachers about this harassment, but no disciplinary action was taken in response. This harassment continued over the course of several months, until the offending student was charged with, and pled guilty to, sexual battery for his misconduct. Davis and her mother filed suit seeking damages against the school board, superintendent, principal and teachers pursuant to Title IX for their alleged deliberate indifference to known harassment, thereby creating "an intimidating, hostile, offensive and abus[ive] school environment in violation of Title IX."

The Federal District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Davis' complaint. Specifically, the court dismissed the claims against individual defendants on the ground that only federally funded educational institutions are subject to liability in private causes of action under Title IX. With regards to the school board itself, the district court held that Title IX provided no basis for liability absent an allegation "that the Board or an employee of the Board had any role in the harassment." Davis appealed the decision dismissing her Title IX claim against the Board, and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed the district court, determining that student-on-student harassment was a cognizable cause of action under Title IX. The...