Failure to Address Harassment Supports Discrimination Claims

Jane Doe v. Riverside Sch. Dist., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231380 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 23, 2024).  After a classmate was convicted for sexual assault of a student outside of school, the student’s family alleged the School District took no action to protect the student from ongoing harassment by the perpetrator of the assault. In rejecting the school district’s motion to dismiss, the Court held that these allegations were enough to support discrimination claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection clause of the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution.

SUMMARY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Jane Doe (“Doe”) was a student within Riverside School District (“District”). A classmate (“Classmate”) sexually assaulted Doe outside of school, and a juvenile court found Classmate guilty of the assault, adjudicating him delinquent. Doe and her family subsequently filed a complaint against the District (the “Complaint”) alleging that following the adjudication the District failed to remove or otherwise separate the Classmate from Doe while the two were at school. The Complaint alleged the family notified the District that Classmate, along with other students and teachers, continually harassed Doe but the District took no action to address the harassment.

The Complaint included claims for discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of 14^th Amendment Rights of equal protection and due process. The District filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint and the Court denied the motion in part, finding the allegations by the family, if true, supported claims for discrimination under Title IX and under the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution.

The Complaint alleged that following the sexual assault and adjudication, Doe’s family notified District administration and the District superintendent of the following: 1) Both Doe and Classmate attended a semi-formal dance and Classmate sat at the table next to Doe and harassed her for the entire event, claiming Doe “made the whole thing up;” and 2) Classmate mockingly shouted at Doe in the hallways of the school building. According to the complaint, at the meeting between the family and District administrators, the administrators stated, “Nothing could be done and if [Doe] was having issues, she could move to a different school district.”

The Complaint alleged following this meeting, the District took no action to protect Doe from ongoing harassment and took actions that enabled further harassment including:

1. Placing Doe and Classmate in the same lunch period, during which Classmate continued to ridicule Doe;
2. Placing Doe in a class taught by a teacher who was friends with Classmate’s family.  This teacher allegedly ridiculed Doe in front of the rest of the class and the District denied Doe’s request to transfer out of this class;
3. Putting Classmates picture on a banner located on Doe’s route to school;
4. Threatening to remove friends of Doe from the football team after they spoke up on Doe’s behalf.

The Complaint alleged that Doe suffered physical harm, emotional harm, and declining grades due to the harassment and the response by the District.

DISCUSSION

A showing of “deliberate indifference” was the key element to both the Title IX and Equal Protection claims alleged by Doe and her family against the District. The Court held the allegations, if true, were enough to prove deliberate indifference because the District failed to take action to protect Doe from harassment and facilitated a hostile school environment.

Additionally, the Court held the Complaint adequately pled a loss of educational opportunity as part of the Title IX claim, by asserting Doe suffered physical harm, emotional harm, and declining grades due to the harassment and the response by the District.

The Court also held the Complaint adequately pled a Monell claim for municipal liability under the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment, for failure to adequately implement its nondiscrimination policies and to adequately address the complaints of sexual harassment.

PRACTICAL ADVICE

This case underlines the importance of promptly and reasonably addressing allegations of student-on-student harassment. Title IX requires school districts to undertake reasonable measures under the circumstances to prevent ongoing sexual harassment and retaliation.

Independent of a school district’s obligations under Title IX, Pennsylvania Act 110 of 2020, provides that if a student enrolled in a public school is convicted or adjudicated delinquent of committing a sexual assault upon another student enrolled in the same public school entity, the public school must undertake one of the following actions: (i) expel the convicted or adjudicated student, (ii) transfer the convicted or adjudicated student to an alternative education program, or (iii) reassign the convicted or adjudicated student to another school or educational program within the public school entity.