Fennell v. Marion Independent School District
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17798, 804 F.3d 398, 2015 WL 5944434 (2015)
Rule of Law:
For a school district to be liable for damages under Title VI for student-on-student racial harassment, the district's response to known harassment must be 'deliberately indifferent,' meaning it was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. A response that is merely ineffective is not necessarily clearly unreasonable.
Facts:
- Kyana Fennell, Kyrianna Adams Fennell, and Kavin Johnson, who are African-American sisters, attended Marion Independent School District (Marion ISD), a predominately Caucasian district.
- Over several years, the sisters were subjected to repeated racial slurs from fellow students, including being called a 'nigger' on the bus, in class, and in text messages.
- In 2011, another African-American student, Doug Giles, found a noose made from a shoelace in his locker.
- In February 2012, the sisters' mother, Lawanda Fennell-Kinney, found a noose next to her daughter Kyana's car in the school parking lot, accompanied by a note containing racial epithets and threats.
- Athletic Director Glenn Davis, while enforcing a hair color policy, commented on Kyana's burgundy-streaked hair by stating, 'I know how much you people spend on your ethnic hair styles.'
- Coach Cynthia Manley left Kyra, the starting shortstop, behind for an away softball game after Kyra was absent for roll call.
- Following a verbal altercation between Kyana and two other students, Coach Manley advised only the other two students that they could file a police report against Kyana.
- The ongoing harassment caused Kyana to suffer from anxiety, requiring alternative study arrangements, and eventually led Fennell-Kinney to withdraw Kyra and Kavin from the school district.
Procedural Posture:
- Kyana Fennell and Lawanda Fennell-Kinney sued Marion Independent School District and two employees in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After the discovery phase, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a full trial.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The Plaintiffs, as Appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 district act with 'deliberate indifference' under Title VI when it takes some responsive measures, such as suspensions, investigations, and new training, in response to severe and pervasive student-on-student racial harassment, even if those measures do not ultimately stop the harassment?
Opinions:
Majority - King, Circuit Judge
No. A school district does not act with deliberate indifference when it takes some reasonable responsive actions, as liability under Title VI requires a response that is clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. The court adopted the 'deliberate indifference' standard from Title IX jurisprudence (Davis v. Monroe County) for Title VI student-on-student racial harassment claims. To be liable, a plaintiff must show the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; the district had actual knowledge; and the district's response was deliberately indifferent. While the court agreed the harassment was severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile environment and deprive the plaintiffs of educational opportunities, it found the school district's response was not deliberately indifferent. Marion ISD took action in response to almost all reported incidents, including suspending students, cooperating with police investigations, providing an escort for Kavin, and allowing Kyana special accommodations. Although some responses were weak and ultimately ineffective, the court held that 'ineffective responses are not necessarily clearly unreasonable' and courts should not second-guess the disciplinary decisions of school administrators. Because the district made attempts to address the issues, its conduct did not rise to the high bar of being clearly unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the high 'deliberate indifference' liability standard from Title IX jurisprudence for student-on-student racial harassment claims under Title VI within the Fifth Circuit. By setting the bar for liability at 'clearly unreasonable' conduct, the ruling provides significant deference to the disciplinary and remedial actions taken by school districts. This makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in hostile environment claims, as they must prove not just that the school's response was negligent or ineffective, but that it was so deficient as to amount to an intentional choice to subject students to harassment. The case reinforces that as long as a school district takes some responsive action to complaints, it is unlikely to be found liable for damages even if the harassment persists.
