Rost Ex Rel. K.C. v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 School District
2008 WL 54772, 511 F.3d 1114, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 177 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district is not liable for damages under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment unless it has actual knowledge of the harassment and its response is deliberately indifferent. A school's response is not deliberately indifferent if it defers to a law enforcement investigation for primarily off-campus conduct, even if the school takes no independent disciplinary action after prosecutors decline to press charges.
Facts:
- K.C., a middle school student with a brain injury requiring special education services, was enrolled in the Steamboat Springs School District starting in August 2000.
- Beginning in seventh grade, several male students, including Steven Thomas and Nick Mangione, coerced K.C. into performing various sexual acts at private, off-campus locations.
- The boys persistently harassed K.C., called her names like 'retard,' and threatened to spread rumors and distribute naked photographs of her.
- In the spring of 2002, K.C.'s mother, Kristine Rost, told school counselor Margie Briggs-Casson that she was concerned because K.C. did not want to attend school. K.C. told the counselor only that 'these boys were bothering me.'
- In the fall of 2002, Ms. Rost informed the high school principal that K.C. was afraid to go to a math class attended by Steven Thomas and that boys were bothering her and calling her retarded.
- On January 16, 2003, K.C. explicitly disclosed to a high school counselor, Ann Boler, that Steven Thomas was coercing her into sexual conduct with threats.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristine Rost, on behalf of her daughter K.C., filed suit in U.S. District Court against the Steamboat Springs School District and four male students.
- The complaint alleged violations of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses against the school district, and various state tort claims against the students.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district on all federal claims.
- The district court then dismissed the pendent state law claims against the individual students without prejudice.
- Rost (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the school district as the Defendant-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 act with deliberate indifference under Title IX when, after gaining actual knowledge of off-campus student-on-student sexual harassment, it refers the matter to law enforcement for investigation and takes no independent disciplinary action after the prosecutor declines to file charges?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Paul Kelly, Jr.
No. The school district's response was not deliberately indifferent under Title IX because its actions were not clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. A school district is liable only if it has actual knowledge of sexual harassment and responds with deliberate indifference. The district did not have actual knowledge until January 16, 2003, as K.C.'s prior generalized complaints that boys were 'bothering her' were insufficient to constitute notice of sexual harassment. Once the district gained actual knowledge, its response—immediately contacting the school resource officer to conduct a criminal investigation—was not clearly unreasonable. Deferring to law enforcement was appropriate given that the conduct was serious, potentially criminal, and occurred primarily off-campus. The school was not required to conduct a parallel investigation or impose discipline, particularly when the district attorney declined to prosecute and the victim's family, on advice of counsel, ceased communication, preventing further inquiry.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge McConnell
Yes. While the school district did not have actual knowledge before January 2003, its complete inaction after confirming the harassment constituted deliberate indifference. Although relying on a police officer for the investigation was reasonable, the school’s failure to take any action in response to the investigation's findings was 'clearly unreasonable.' A prosecutor's decision not to file criminal charges, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, does not absolve a school of its independent duty under Title IX to address known sexual harassment. The school's failure to impose any discipline or take other remedial measures to ensure a safe environment effectively excluded K.C. from her educational opportunity, as she could not return to a school where her known harassers faced no consequences.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing 'deliberate indifference' in Title IX cases involving student-on-student harassment. It provides schools with a degree of legal protection when they defer to law enforcement for serious, off-campus misconduct, suggesting that such a response is not 'clearly unreasonable' even if no internal discipline follows. The case highlights the distinction between a school's potential negligence and the much higher standard of deliberate indifference required for liability. The dissent, however, presents a strong counterargument that a school's Title IX obligations are distinct from the criminal justice process, suggesting this area of law may continue to evolve.
