Vance ex rel. Vance v. Spencer County Public School District
231 F.3d 253 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title IX, a school district can be held liable for student-on-student sexual harassment if the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprives the victim of educational opportunities, the district had actual knowledge of the harassment, and the district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.
Facts:
- Alma McGowen enrolled in Spencer County School District in 6th grade in 1992.
- Throughout her time at Spencer schools, Alma faced repeated sexual harassment from other students, including verbal abuse, physical assaults, and sexual propositions.
- Alma and her mother made numerous complaints to teachers, counselors, and administrators about the harassment.
- The school's responses typically involved talking to the accused students, but the harassment continued and often worsened after these interventions.
- In May 1995, Alma filed a formal Title IX complaint with the school district.
- The district took no action on the complaint before the next school year started.
- Alma was diagnosed with depression and withdrew from school in August 1995.
- Alma sued the school district for violating Title IX.
- A jury found in favor of Alma and awarded her $220,000 in damages.
- The school district appealed the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was Spencer County School District deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment of Alma McGowen, despite having actual knowledge of the harassment, in violation of Title IX?
Opinions:
Majority - Keith (J.)
Yes. The school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment Alma faced, in violation of Title IX. The Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education established that a school district can be liable for student-on-student sexual harassment if the harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; the district had actual knowledge; and the district was deliberately indifferent. All three elements are satisfied here. First, the harassment Alma faced was severe and pervasive, including verbal abuse, physical assaults, and sexual propositions that occurred in nearly every class. Second, the district had actual knowledge through the numerous complaints made by Alma and her mother. Third, the district was deliberately indifferent because its responses were clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. The district repeatedly used the same ineffective method of merely talking to the accused students, even after it was clear this approach was not stopping the harassment. The district failed to take any other meaningful action, such as disciplining students, separating Alma from her harassers, or establishing new policies. This continued use of demonstrably ineffective methods amounts to deliberate indifference. The jury instructions, while not identical to the standard later articulated in Davis, were substantially accurate and not prejudicial to the defendant. Therefore, the denial of the district's motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed.
Concurrence - Gilman (J.)
I concur with the majority's decision and reasoning but write separately to address the school district's main complaint about the jury instructions. While the instructions were given before the Supreme Court's Davis decision, they substantially anticipated the proper standard by requiring findings of (1) a hostile sexual environment, (2) actual notice to a school official, and (3) deliberate indifference by the school district. The definition of 'deliberate indifference' in the instructions, while not identical to Davis, correctly focused on the actions of the school district rather than the harassing students. The instructions would have allowed a finding of no liability even if harassment continued, as long as the district did not act with deliberate indifference. This is not substantially different from the Davis standard of a 'clearly unreasonable' response. Therefore, any error in the precise wording of the deliberate indifference definition was harmless.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for school district liability in peer sexual harassment cases under Title IX. It emphasizes that schools must take reasonable and effective action in response to known harassment, not just any action. The decision highlights that continuing to use demonstrably ineffective methods to address harassment can amount to deliberate indifference. This ruling puts pressure on schools to carefully evaluate their responses to harassment complaints and adjust their approaches if initial efforts prove ineffective. The case also demonstrates how pre-Davis jury instructions can be upheld if they substantially capture the key elements of actual notice and deliberate indifference.
Unlock the full brief for Vance ex rel. Vance v. Spencer County Public School District