Davis, Aurelia v. Monroe County Board of Education (05/24/1999)

By: Tiffani Helberg, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities, encompasses a cause of action for peer hostile environment sexual harassment.

Brief

Fifth grader LaShonda Davis contemplated ending her life at age 10. Despite eight complaints to Hubbard Elementary School officials, the sexually aggressive comments, groping and actions of her classmate, ""G.F.,"" persisted, sending LaShonda into a suicidal state in which her grades began to plummet, according to her attorneys. LaShondas mother, Aurelia Davis, also registered several complaints at meetings with school officials.

After three months of harassment, the school finally agreed to change LaShonda's seat assignment, moving her away from the seat next to ""G.F."" Nonetheless, ""G.F."" continued, on one occasion rubbing up against Davis' chest and on another occasion, trying to touch her private parts, according to court documents.

On May 19, 1993, ""G.F."" was arrested and charged with sexual battery after Aurelia Davis filed a complaint with the sheriff's department. ""G.F."" pleaded guilty to the charges in court.

Aurelia Davis sued the Monroe County Board of Education for failing to curb ""G.F.'s"" harassment and alleged that the board's inactions created a hostile environment at school for her daughter.

The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the school is not responsible under Title IX, which prohibits a person from being discriminated against or denied benefits under a federally funded educational program.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Davis' complaint, holding that the school was responsible for failing to prevent ""G.F."" from harassing Davis.

The school board appealed for an en banc review. The full court of appeals reversed, holding that the school was not responsible.

Judge Gerald Tjoflat, on behalf of the en banc panel, wrote, ""The appellant argues that a school employee is intentionally discriminating on the basis of sex when he or she fails to prevent one student from sexually harassing another. Hence, the appellant asserts that the school board here had sufficient noticeÉthat it could be held liable. We disagree."" He added, ""Agency principles are useless in discussing liability for student-student harassment under Title IX because students are not agents of the school board.""

The court found that the school board was unaware that it could be held liable in this situation and that if the school board is made liable, an overflow of student on student sexual harassment cases would flood the system.

Four appeals judges dissented. For the dissenters, Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote, ""Hostile environment sexual harassment is a form of intentional discrimination which exposes one sex to disadvantageous terms or conditions to which members of the other sex are not exposed."" She added, ""Title IX was designed to protect individuals from sex discrimination by denying federal financial aid to those educational institutions that bear responsibility for sexually discriminatory practices.""

The federal circuit courts were split on whether student on student sexual harassment can violate Title IX, with the 9th circuit holding that it can and the 5th circuit holding that it cannot. In addition many of the district courts had different rulings on the issue.

Sixty-five percent of public school students in the eighth through eleventh grades in 1993 were victims of sexual harassment by a fellow student, according to a survey by the American Association of University Women's Educational Fund.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Sept. 29, 1998, limiting review to the question presented above.

On May 24, 1999, a divided Court reversed, holding that parents can sue school districts under Title IX for student-on-student harassment if the school's deliberate indifference to the harassment is ""so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victims access to an educational opportunity or benefit.""

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that the allegations of harassment of LaShonda Davis were sufficiently egregious that she should be allowed a trial on the merits under Title IX.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissent for Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.