Jamie S. Nabozny v. Mary Podlesny, William Davis, Thomas Blauert
92 F.3d 446, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18866 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school's deliberate indifference to severe, student-on-student harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the failure to protect is motivated by discrimination based on the victim's gender or sexual orientation.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1988, Jamie Nabozny, a student in the Ashland Public School District, was subjected to continuous verbal and physical abuse by fellow students after they learned he was homosexual.
- Nabozny and his parents repeatedly reported numerous specific incidents of assault and harassment to school administrators, including principals Mary Podlesny and William Davis, and Assistant Principal Thomas Blauert.
- After students performed a mock rape on Nabozny in a classroom, Principal Podlesny dismissed the incident, stating "boys will be boys" and that Nabozny should "expect" such behavior for being "openly gay."
- Following another assault where a student urinated on Nabozny in a school restroom, Principal Davis ordered Nabozny to go home and change clothes without taking disciplinary action against the perpetrators.
- In a separate incident, a group of students kicked Nabozny in the stomach for several minutes, causing internal bleeding. When Nabozny reported this, Assistant Principal Blauert laughed and told him he deserved such treatment because he was gay.
- School officials consistently failed to discipline Nabozny's attackers, despite having an anti-harassment policy that they enforced in other situations, such as male-on-female harassment.
- The years of abuse led Nabozny to attempt suicide, and he was eventually diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder before withdrawing from the school district.
Procedural Posture:
- Jamie Nabozny filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court against several school officials and the Ashland Public School District.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence for the discrimination claims and granting qualified immunity to the individual defendants.
- Nabozny, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 public school's deliberate and differential failure to protect a student from severe peer harassment, based on the student's gender or sexual orientation, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Eschbach, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A public school's deliberate and differential failure to protect a student from peer harassment based on the student's gender or sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Clause prohibits state actors from selectively denying protective services to certain disfavored minorities without a legitimate governmental objective. Nabozny provided sufficient evidence that school officials, contrary to their established practice of addressing harassment, were deliberately indifferent to his pleas for help. The officials' comments—such as "boys will be boys" and that Nabozny deserved the abuse for being gay—strongly suggest this disparate treatment was motivated by discriminatory animus based on both his gender and sexual orientation. Such discrimination lacks any rational basis, and because the constitutional prohibition against invidious discrimination was clearly established, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the equal protection claims. However, Nabozny’s due process claims fail, as circuit precedent establishes no affirmative duty for schools to protect students from private violence, and there was insufficient evidence that the officials' inaction created or exacerbated the danger.
Analysis:
This landmark case was one of the first to successfully apply the Equal Protection Clause to student-on-student harassment based on sexual orientation. It established that schools could be held liable for creating a discriminatory environment by selectively enforcing anti-harassment policies. The decision provided a crucial legal path for students suffering from anti-gay bullying, distinguishing such equal protection claims from due process claims that typically fail under the precedent of DeShaney v. Winnebago County. This ruling heavily influenced subsequent litigation and school policies, reinforcing the principle that schools have a constitutional obligation not to discriminate in providing a safe educational environment.
