Jane and John Doe, as parents and natural guardians of Jane Roe, a minor v. Red Lion Area School District, ET AL., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6 (M.D. Pa. 2025)
(A federal district court refuses to dismiss Title IX and federal claims arising from a five-year-old student being assaulted multiple times by the same male student while riding a school bus)
Background
In October 2023, a five-year-old girl (Roe) in the Red Lion Area School District (District) was reportedly physically and sexually assaulted by a male student while riding a school bus. After this incident, no measures were undertaken to supervise or discipline the male student who had assaulted Roe or to separate her from him. Roe’s mother claims to have informed the elementary school principal about the incident. In addition, the male student in question had purportedly previously assaulted another young girl. A second assault of Roe by the same male student occurred in January 2024, after which Roe’s family removed her from the school district.
Subsequently, Roe’s parents filed suit against the District and alleged a myriad of legal violations, including under Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Pennsylvania law. The District moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim.
Discussion
In its decision, the district court allowed the Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims against the District to proceed, as the court believed that the Plaintiffs met the requirements that 1) the harassment experienced by Roe be “severe or pervasive” and 2) there be “deliberate indifference” on the part of the District. The harassment of Roe was deemed to be severe or pervasive because the same student assaulted her multiple times and she was forced to ride the bus with this student each day. Moreover, the court found sufficient allegations of deliberate indifference to gender-based discrimination because the principal of the elementary school allegedly knew of the male student’s propensity to assault female students and took no action. The complaint asserts that the District failed to take concrete actions to prevent the assault from occurring, such as, for example, suspension, expulsion, staffing the bus in question with monitors, or physically separating the male student from Roe. Thus, the court found Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims plausible and refused to dismiss the complaint.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs put forward multiple claims under federal law. Plaintiffs stated a plausible claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), as the amended complaint argued that the District had a policy of ignoring female victims of assault. The court noted that a plaintiff need only allege facts “showing that the relevant policy–here, turning a blind eye to reports of assault by female students–proximately caused injury.” The court concluded that the Plaintiffs successfully showed an “affirmative link between the policy and the purported violation.” Hence, Plaintiffs stated a plausible claim under Monell.
Plaintiffs also argued a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, relying upon the state-created danger doctrine. This is an exception to the rule that the Due Process Clause typically does not impose a duty on the state to protect against harm done by a private individual. To prevail on a due process claim, a plaintiff would have to prove that a state actor used his authority in a way that created a danger to the citizen or that the state actor’s inaction made the citizen more vulnerable to harm. This would be satisfied if a school district placed a student in a dangerous situation and did not protect that student “from a known or obvious hazard.” Here, the Plaintiffs contended that the elementary school principal knew of the previous assault of Roe but allowed the student who committed the assault to ride the bus with her unsupervised. The court stated that requiring Roe to ride the bus with her abuser without any supervision placed her in serious jeopardy of being assaulted again. Moreover, the District failed to protect her from harm that should have been foreseeable, as she had previously been assaulted by the same male student. Hence, the court ruled that Plaintiffs’ due process claim survived the District’s motion to dismiss.
Also, the Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim was not dismissed by the court. A plaintiff must plausibly plead intentional discrimination and prove 1) harassment because of a protected characteristic, 2) school officials were aware of the harassment, and 3) the school district offered a clearly unreasonable response in light of the circumstances. Here, Plaintiffs alleged the male student in question only attacked female students and that the District had a policy of covering up or ignoring such harassment. Moreover, the only response from the District was to rely on a malfunctioning camera. It was “clearly unreasonable” for the District to rely on one camera of questionable functionality if the District did indeed have prior information regarding the male student’s behavior towards Roe and other female students. Thus, the court did not dismiss the Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.
The court did, however, dismiss multiple claims made by the Plaintiffs, including for emotional distress under Title IX and for negligence liability. The court believed that emotional distress damages were barred under Title IX by the U.S. Supreme Court. Regarding negligence liability, the court stated that the Pennsylvania State Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) barred the Plaintiffs’ claims because the allegations of assault, although serious, were not factually specific enough. Moreover, the exception for institutional sexual assault was not triggered because the male student did not possess the requisite level of control over Roe or other students. Hence, no exception to PSTCA immunity applied under the facts and circumstances that were alleged by Plaintiffs. Thus, the claim for negligence liability was dismissed.
Practical Advice
This case provides a demonstrative blueprint for actions that should and should not be undertaken regarding allegations of assault made by students or their parents or guardians. In its opinion, the district court noted responses that the district could have implemented, such as conducting a thorough investigation, replacing a known malfunctioning camera, removing a perpetrator, separating students, or providing monitors, to ensure that no further assaults occurred. In this instance, had the school district undertaken any such measures, it might have avoided viable claims of liability.
