Art Teacher's 'Teasing' of First-Grader Not Constitutional Violation

An art teacher's singling out one first-grade student and repeatedly referring to her as his "girlfriend" is not conduct so "severe, pervasive and objectively offensive" that it can be considered sexual harassment in violation of civil rights laws, a federal court in Peoria, Ill., has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade granted summary judgment to the teacher on the student's claim that his treatment of her violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

As the same time, Judge McDade concluded that the student's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress would be better addressed by an Illinois state court because of the novelty of the issues involved.

According to the opinion, Gerald Huddleston was an art teacher in the Prairie Central School District and taught art to first-graders at Westview Elementary School two days a week.

One student, identified as Jane Doe, said Huddleston made her extremely uncomfortable by placing a heart-shaped photograph of her among pictures of other students around the doorframe of his classroom, by calling her his "girlfriend" and by saying he loved her. Other students allegedly teased Jane about being Huddleston's "girlfriend."

During the school year, Jane suffered from stress and anxiety that caused crying, vomiting and bed-wetting, according to judge's opinion. Her parents eventually removed her from Westview and home-schooled her because, they told the school, they were concerned about her problems adapting to the school routine.

Jane's parents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against Huddleston, the school district, the board of education and individual board members, alleging violations of Jane's right to due process and equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois state law.

The complaint alleged teacher-on-student harassment, assault and battery, and violation of the Illinois Hate Crime Act against Huddleston. It also alleged sexual harassment based on teasing from other students in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Judge McDade granted summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims and declined jurisdiction over the emotional-distress claim. A Section 1983 claim may be brought by private individuals under federal civil rights law for deprivation of their rights.

The District Court is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which has found that sexual harassment can amount to gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Judge McDade noted first.

In a school setting, that harassment must be so severe and pervasive that it detracts from the victim's educational experience, he explained.

In this case, the conduct at issue, while uncomfortable for Jane and not proper teacher-student conversation, did not rise to the level of sexual harassment, Judge McDade found.

He also said that although Jane had difficulty adjusting to her new school situation, neither Jane nor her parents complained specifically about Huddleston's actions.

Based on the facts of this case, Judge McDade said, no reasonable jury could find that Huddleston's conduct toward Jane was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it violated her constitutional right to equal protection and an education.

Even if Huddleston's conduct amounted to actionable sexual harassment, he was entitled to qualified immunity from those claims as a state employee, the judge said.