Monteiro ex rel. Jane Doe v. Tempe Union High School District
98 Daily Journal DAR 10902, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7838, 158 F.3d 1022 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district's decision to require the reading of literary works with educational value that contain racial slurs does not, by itself, constitute discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI. However, a school district may be liable for damages under Title VI for student-on-student racial harassment if it has notice of a severe and pervasive hostile environment and is deliberately indifferent to it.
Facts:
- Jane Doe, an African-American student, was a freshman in an English class at McClintock High School, part of the Tempe Unified Union High School District.
- The class's required reading list included Mark Twain's novel 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' and William Faulkner's short story 'A Rose for Emily.'
- Both literary works contain repeated use of a profane and racially derogatory term for African-Americans.
- Prior to and during the assignment of these books, Doe and other African-American students were subjected to racial harassment by white students, including being called the racial slur and seeing it in graffiti.
- The racial harassment by white peers allegedly increased in frequency and intensity after the literary works were assigned.
- Doe's mother, Kathy Monteiro, and other parents complained to school and district officials about both the required books and the ongoing racial harassment.
- The school district offered to allow Doe to study in the library during class discussions of the works but refused to remove the books from the mandatory curriculum.
- School district officials allegedly refused to accept the complaints about racial harassment or take any appropriate remedial measures to stop it.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathy Monteiro sued the Tempe Unified Union High School District in the U.S. District Court on behalf of her daughter, Jane Doe, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.
- The district court granted the School District's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding it lacked specific allegations of discriminatory intent.
- The district court entered a final judgment dismissing the entire action on the same day.
- Monteiro filed a motion for a new trial, to which she attached a proposed amended complaint containing more specific allegations about the hostile racial environment.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling that the proposed amended complaint also failed as a matter of law to state a valid claim.
- Monteiro, the appellant, appealed both the dismissal and the denial of her motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the School District as the appellee.
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 violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by (1) requiring students to read literary works that contain racial slurs but are deemed to have educational value, and (2) failing to take adequate remedial action in response to a racially hostile environment created by student-on-student harassment?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt, J.
No, as to the assignment of literary works, but Yes, as to the failure to address the hostile environment. The assignment of a literary work with educational value cannot be the basis for a discrimination claim, but a school district's deliberate indifference to known student-on-student racial harassment can create liability under Title VI. Regarding the books, the court held that allowing lawsuits based on the content of educational materials would create a chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms and a school's discretion to set its curriculum. Courts should not act as 'literary censors,' and allowing such claims would invite endless litigation over any book that might offend a particular group. However, regarding the hostile environment, the court adopted the Department of Education's three-part test for Title VI liability. The complaint sufficiently alleged: (1) a 'racially hostile environment' that was severe, pervasive, or persistent; (2) the school district had notice of the harassment through complaints from students and parents; and (3) the district's refusal to act or accept complaints constituted 'deliberate indifference' to the students' right to a non-discriminatory educational environment.
Concurring - Boochever, J.
Yes. The majority's holding regarding the assignment of books is correct in this context, but it should be read narrowly. This case involves classic literary works. A different analysis might be required if a school assigned materials with overt messages of racial hatred, such as propaganda from the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation, without any critical classroom discussion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical bifurcation in how courts analyze race-based claims against school districts. It insulates curricular decisions from discrimination lawsuits based solely on the content of established literary works, thereby protecting academic freedom and a school's First Amendment-related interests. Simultaneously, it solidifies a school's affirmative duty under Title VI to police student-on-student racial harassment, establishing that deliberate indifference to a known hostile environment is a form of actionable discrimination. The ruling forces plaintiffs to separate claims based on curriculum from claims based on the school environment, setting a high bar for the former while affirming a clear path to liability for the latter.
Unlock the full brief for Monteiro ex rel. Jane Doe v. Tempe Union High School District