Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education
526 U.S. 629 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A recipient of federal education funds can be held liable for damages under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment only where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment that are so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that they effectively bar the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit.
Facts:
- Beginning in December 1992, a fifth-grade student, G.F., engaged in a prolonged pattern of sexual harassment against his classmate, LaShonda, at Hubbard Elementary School.
- The harassment included G.F. attempting to touch LaShonda's breasts and genital area, making vulgar statements, and rubbing his body against hers in a sexually suggestive manner.
- This conduct continued for approximately five months.
- LaShonda and her mother repeatedly reported the incidents to her teachers and the school principal, Bill Querry.
- School officials took no disciplinary action against G.F. and made no effort to separate him from LaShonda, only allowing her to change her classroom seat after more than three months of complaints.
- Other female students were also harassed by G.F. and were denied an opportunity to speak with the principal about his behavior.
- As a result of the harassment, LaShonda's grades dropped, she was unable to concentrate, and she wrote a suicide note.
- G.F. was eventually charged with and pleaded guilty to sexual battery for his misconduct against LaShonda.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the Monroe County Board of Education and school officials, seeking damages and injunctive relief under Title IX.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that Title IX does not provide a cause of action for student-on-student harassment.
- The petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- A panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal.
- The Eleventh Circuit then granted the Board's motion for a rehearing en banc, which vacated the panel's decision and affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The petitioner was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school board's deliberate indifference to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive student-on-student sexual harassment, of which it has actual knowledge, create liability for damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. A recipient of federal funds may be liable in a private damages action under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment where the recipient is deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment that are so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that they deprive the victim of access to educational opportunities. The Court reasoned that while a funding recipient is only liable for its own misconduct, a recipient's own 'deliberate indifference' to known harassment constitutes its own failure to act, not vicarious liability for the student harasser's actions. Extending the standard from Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., which involved teacher-student harassment, is appropriate because schools exercise substantial custodial and tutelary control over students and the environment in which the harassment occurs. For liability to attach, the recipient’s response, or lack thereof, must be 'clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances,' and the harassment itself must be so severe that it has a systemic effect of denying the victim equal access to an educational program or activity.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. Title IX does not provide the clear and unambiguous notice required by the Spending Clause to hold schools liable in damages for failing to remedy student-on-student harassment. The dissent argued that Title IX prohibits discrimination 'under' the recipient's program, which refers to the recipient's own actions or those of its agents, not the actions of third-party students over whom the school's control is limited and complex. The majority's 'deliberate indifference' standard is amorphous and fails to give states clear notice of their potential liability when they accept federal funds. This ruling will unleash an 'avalanche of liability,' divert scarce resources from education to litigation, and improperly entangle federal courts in the day-to-day disciplinary decisions of local schools, upsetting the federal balance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the scope of Title IX by establishing that educational institutions have an affirmative duty to address known student-on-student sexual harassment. By extending the 'deliberate indifference' standard from the teacher-student context of Gebser, the Court created a new basis for private damages actions against schools for the misconduct of third parties under their control. This precedent forces schools to implement and enforce robust anti-harassment policies and training to avoid liability. Future litigation would center on defining the contours of 'severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive' harassment and what constitutes a 'clearly unreasonable' response from school administrators.
