|
Winter 2000
Volume 2, Issue 3
Cureton v. NCAA
Stanley v. University of Southern California
Hayden v. University of Notre Dame
Charpentier v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co. Inc.
Johnny Blastoff Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.
Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Association
Davis v. Monroe Board of Education
Washington v. IHSAA
Davis v. Monroe Board of Education
, 119 S.Ct.1661 (Argued Jan. 12, 1999, Decided May 24 1999).
SUPREME COURT EXPANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT LIABILITY UNDER TITLE IX
This case involved the complaint of a fifth grade student, brought on her behalf by her parents, that
a fellow student repeatedly sexually harassed her on school grounds. These alleged instances of
harassment occurred not only in the primary classroom, but also in gym class and the hallway area of
the school. The harassed student reportedly complained to school officials, including teachers and
the principal after each incident. The student also reported each incident to her mother, who
contacted not only the classroom teacher but also the school principal. She claimed that no action
was taken in response to her daughter's allegations. In fact, at one point the principal informed the
mother that perhaps she would need to be more vocal before measures would be taken against the
offending student.
This perceived indifference was an essential part of Davis' Title IX claim alleging that school
officials' such conduct violated Title IX. Davis claimed that her daughter's grades had dropped
because of the "hostile, intimidating, offensive, and abusive environment created by this harassment."
The district court and the Eleventh Circuit found no grounds for a Title IX private cause of action
based on these allegations.
However, the Supreme Court held that a school could be held liable for peer on peer harassment. The
Court explained that school districts would only be liable if claimants demonstrated "deliberate
indifference" to claims of harassment, as occurred here. Such liability is then limited to situations
where the school district has substantial control over the "harasser and the context in which such
harassment occurs."
In the present case, the harassment occurred during school hours and on school grounds. Because a
school board should have significant disciplinary authority over its students, the school district
may be liable. The Court found it very importance that the student could seemingly demonstrate that
the school board was aware of the incidences of harassment, yet made no effort to investigate or end
the offenses. However, the Court cautioned that its ruling was not an attempt to require school
districts to impose any particular disciplinary measures, which responsibility is within a district's
discretion.
Top of Page
You Make the Call. . . Index
"You Make The Call..." is a newsletter published four times per year (spring,
summer, fall, winter) by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law
School, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53201-1881. (414) 288-5815, fax (414) 288-5818,
munsli@vms.csd.mu.edu. (www.marquette.edu/law/sports/call.html).
This publication is distributed via fax and email to individuals in the sports field upon
request.
|
Editorial Staff:
Paul M. Anderson, Editor & Designer
Kirsten Hauser, Associate Editor
|
Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.
|
