Allegations Lead to Title IX Claim against School District

by | Jul 1, 2016 | Student Education and Discipline

A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts has allowed a legal claim against city and school administrators for peer-on-peer sexual harassment under Title IX. Several of the plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed, but the Title IX harassment claim was allowed to proceed. The case will be pursued in the U.S. District Court.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination and harassment in education:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

In Harrington v. City of Attleboro, student Noelle Harrington alleges years of sexual harassment from school bullies and, along with her mother, is suing the school district. Harrington attended Brennan Middle School in Attleboro from 2008 to 2010, where she first experienced harassment from a student who repeatedly called Noelle offensive names related to her sex and to sexual stereotyping. Two other students joined in the name calling as well. The bullying escalated to a physical assault, resulting in bruising, a sprained ankle, and a fractured wrist. The Harringtons had notified school principals, assistant principals, and the school psychologist and were told that the problems would be dealt with. They also contacted the Attleboro Police Department, who said that this was a school issue and did not intervene.

The name calling and comments continued when Noelle went to Attleboro High School in 2010. As a matter of school policy, documentation of the boys’ conduct was not transferred from the middle school. Noelle was placed in classrooms with the same boys, and the harassment continued by them and other students as well. In January 2012 the school prepared a “Safety Plan” for Noelle, giving her the right to report harassment to administrators, to access the nurse “in times of stress,” and to leave class early in order to avoid the students in the hallways. In February 2012, the student who had physically assaulted Noelle in middle school followed her from the library to her home. When her mother told a school administrator, she was told that the school would not address this conduct because it occurred outside of school and off the school property. Also that month students shined a laser pointer into Noelle’s eyes. She went to the nurse, who contacted Noelle’s mother. The Harringtons again contacted the police department and were told that the school police officer would have to handle the complaint. The Harringtons allege that the school police officer failed to respond to their complaint. The Harringtons then informed school administrators that they wanted to transfer Noelle to another school but allege that the school did not assist in placing Noelle elsewhere. When Noelle posted on Facebook about suicide, her mother consulted a crisis team, who instructed Noelle not to return to the high school. Noelle was registered at a treatment center for psychotherapeutic care. Her mother withdrew her from school on March 1, 2012.

Harrington v. City of Attleboro is a Title IX claim on the basis of sexual harassment – which includes sexual stereotyping – in education. To state a claim under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show the following elements:

  1. He or she was subject to “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” sexual harassment by a peer.
  2. The harassment caused the plaintiff to be deprived of educational opportunities or benefits.
  3. The funding recipient (the school) knew of the harassment.
  4. The harassment took place in school programming or activities.
  5. The school was deliberately indifferent to the harassment such that the response, or lack of a response, was unreasonable given the nature of the known circumstances.

In allowing this claim to proceed, the US District Court acknowledges that the Harringtons have a plausible Title IX claim. Allegations for sex-based discrimination must show that the harassment was because of the person’s sex. The court noted that the students’ conduct was severe, not just “tinged with offensive sexual connotations,” and appears to be based on sexual stereotyping, such as appearance, mannerisms, and sexual preference.

The standard of deliberate indifference is stringent and requires more than allegations that a school should have done more. However, the First Circuit has suggested that a school’s failure to take additional measures after its initial measures were ineffective might constitute deliberate indifference. In Harrington v. City of Attleboro, the district court allowed this Title IX claim because the Harringtons’ allegations suggest that the school “failed to take additional reasonable measures after it learned that its initial remedies were ineffective.”

What This Means to Your District

The standard of deliberate indifference is not simply a standard of doing nothing to prevent discrimination or harassment. A school may take action yet the action not be found reasonable given the known circumstances. As the known circumstances increase and intensify, the action the school takes should increase and intensify accordingly. Ennis Britton attorneys are available for consultation with Title IX issues as with other school-related issues.

Harrington v. City of Attleboro, — F.Supp.3d –, (D. Mass. 2016) 2016 WL 1065804

HB 64 Budget Bill Items Now in Effect

by | Sep 25, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management, Special Education, Student Education and Discipline

As with most other provisions of the budget bill (Am. Sub. HB 64) some significant provisions impacting Ohio school districts go into effect on September 29, 2015, including the following:

  • The maximum amount of a scholarship awarded under the Autism or Jon Peterson scholarship programs increases to $27,000 (up from $20,000).
  • School districts must offer real property it intends to sell first to a “high performing community school,” then to other community and college preparatory boarding schools located in the district.
  • ODE, in conjunction with an Ohio educational service center association and an Ohio gifted children’s association, must complete and submit a feasibility study for establishment of sixteen regional community schools for gifted children.
  • The State Board must develop rules waiving any additional coursework requirements for renewal of an educator license for teachers who are consistently high performing.
  • The duration of a pupil activity permit for individuals holding a valid educator license is changed from three (3) years to the same number of years as the educator license.
  • The State Board of Education will develop a standards based framework for the evaluation of school counselors. Furthermore, all school districts must adopt a counselor evaluation policy by September 30, 2016, that conforms to the framework and will be implemented beginning in the 2016-2017 school year (will include annual evaluations with ratings of accomplished, skilled, developing, and ineffective just like OTES).
  • The alternative teacher evaluation framework is revised to decrease SGM to 35%, maintain the performance rating at 50%, and authorize school districts to determine the appropriate measure or combination of measures for the remaining 15%.
  • Exemplary community schools may now operate a preschool program for general education students.
  • School districts may enroll under interdistrict open enrollment policies an adjacent or other district student who is a preschool child with a disability. ODE will deduct $4,000 from the resident district and pay that same amount to the enrolling district.
  • School districts cannot appropriate monies to purchase an assessment developed by PARCC for use as the state elementary or secondary achievement assessments. Additionally testing for the 2015-2016 school year is reduced.
  • Safe harbor provisions in effect during the 2014-2015 school year for state report cards are extended by two years.
  • School districts may now enter into a contract with a health care provider for the provision of health care services for students.
  • The new requirements for issuance of diplomas to home school students and students from non-chartered nonpublic schools are now in effect.
    STEM schools can now enroll out-of-state students.
  • Schools may install security doors or barricades as part of an emergency management plan.
  • The filing date for financial disclosure statements with the Ohio Ethics Commission is May 15 (instead of April 15).