Legal Clips, [October 2007]The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (ME, MA, NH, RI, P.R.) has ruled that a Massachusetts school district was not liable for student-on-student sexual harassment under Title IX because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the school had exhibited deliberate indifference to reports of the harassment. Jacqueline Fitzgerald, a kindergarten student, informed her parents that an older male student was subjecting her to inappropriate sexual contact. Her parents reported the allegations to the principal of Jacqueline’s school. Because her description of the alleged perpetrator was sketchy, it took school officials a few days to identify the male student. During questioning by the principal and the school district’s prevention specialist, the student denied the allegations. School officials also interviewed the bus driver and a majority of the students who regularly rode the bus and were unable to corroborate Jacqueline’s version of events. During this time, the police department conducted a separate investigation, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to proceed criminally against the male student. Relying in part on this decision and in part on the results of the school's own investigation, the principal reached a similar conclusion as to any possible disciplinary measures. Instead, the school offered to place Jacqueline on a different bus or, alternatively, to leave rows of empty seats between the kindergarten students and the older pupils on the original bus. Eventually, her parents filed suit in federal district court against the Barnstable School Committee (BSC) claiming that BSC was liable under Title IX for peer sexual harassment. The suit also raised claims under § 1983 for violation of Jacqueline’s Title IX and equal protection rights. The district court ultimately dismissed all of the parent’s claims.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Addressing Title IX, the appeals court took issue with the lower court’s conclusion that Title IX liability only attaches after a school district receives actual notice of harassment and the school district subsequently "causes" the victim to be subjected to additional harassment. However, the appeals court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that school officials’ handlings of the post-notice allegations were deliberately indifferent. The plaintiffs had suggested that the adequacy of BSC’s response was "undermined by its offer of unsuitable remedial alternatives." They contended that their proposed remedial measures, such as the placement of a monitor on Jacqueline's school bus, were measures "that an educational institution, acting in good faith," should have embraced. The appeals court, disagreed concluding "this line of argument misconstrues the nature of Title IX liability for peer-on-peer sexual harassment." It stated: "the statute does not require an educational institution either to assuage a victim's parents or to acquiesce in their demands." The appeals court noted "[t]o avoid Title IX liability, an educational institution must act reasonably to prevent future harassment; it need not succeed in doing so." Turning to the § 1983 claims, the First Circuit found that comprehensive nature of Title IX precluded the plaintiffs from bring an action under § 1983 as those claims were "virtually identical to those that could be brought under" Title IX.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, No. 06-2596 (1st Cir. Oct. 5, 2007)