A federal appeals court has ruled a school district in Wisconsin shouldn't be on the hook in a lawsuit accusing officials there of not doing enough to stop a middle school girl from being sexually abused by a school security guard, because schools are not inherently liable for claims of sex discrimination just because officials didn’t properly consider the risk of future misconduct.
In an opinion issued May 10, a full complement of judges from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the decision could be used to clarify inconsistencies in its own case law with respect to school liability under Title IX of the federal civil rights law, as well as claims involving allegations of school employees committing abuse and harassment.
Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judges Diane Sykes, Joel Flaum, Daniel Manion, Ilana Rovner, Diane Wood, Amy St. Eve.
Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote his own opinion, not fully joining the majority, with concurrence from Judges Michael Kanne, David Hamilton and Michael Brennan.
According to Scudder, a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, held discrimination victims qualify for monetary damages from a school only if “an official of the school district who at a minimum has authority to institute corrective measures on the district’s behalf has actual notice of, and is deliberately indifferent to, the teacher’s misconduct.”
U.S. District Judge Barba Crabb had granted summary judgment to Madison Metropolitan School District, as the district sought to end a lawsuit brought by a family who asserted school officials had violated Title IX when they allegedly didn't do enough to stop the sexual abuse of their daughter at the hands of a security guard, identified as Willie Collins.
The family challenged Judge Crabb's ruling on appeal.
Scudder wrote the allegations of prolonged and repeated sexual abuse by Collins, which happened at Whitehorse Middle School during the child’s eighth-grade year in 2013-2014, were “horrific.” The record does not include allegations anyone witnessed the abuse, which the girl reported in August 2014, when she was in high school.
“If eighth grade were the whole story, it is clear that Collins’ alleged abuse, even if proven, could not give rise to liability for the school district,” Scudder wrote, explaining Principal Deborah Ptak had no knowledge of the situation. However, he continued, the family’s complaint alleges other school officials saw warning signs during the girl’s seventh-grade year and reported concerns to Ptak.
According to the court narrative of the case, Ptak, who also observed questionable conduct, then confronted Collins about his relationships with students in April 2013.
In granting summary judgment, Judge Crabb determined “no reasonable jury could find that the seventh-grade conduct of which Principal Ptak had actual knowledge amounted to sexual harassment or discrimination within the meaning of Title IX,” Scudder wrote. “The record is clear that this response was not so unreasonable as to amount to ‘deliberate indifference to discrimination’ under Gebser.”
The majority agreed with Crabb that Ptak didn’t have indications Collins would reject her warnings to establish strong boundaries with students and therefore she wasn’t obligated to take further action, and as such the school didn’t take on liability for the abuse that allegedly ensued entirely outside the purview of any other school employees.
“The law in this area is hard and messy, no doubt reflective of the immense challenges school administrators face when confronted with the alleged sexual abuse of a student,” Scudder wrote. “It is up to district and circuit courts to apply that framework along clear and workable lines, ever mindful of the delicate educational settings in which facts unfold. We hope this opinion contributes to that effort.”
Easterbrook, however, said he believed the majority went too far. Although concurring with the finding that “Principal Ptak neither knew of any misconduct by Collins nor was deliberately indifferent to the implications of what she did know,” foreclosing any Title IX liability, he said guidance is “is the job of officials in the Department of Education with the power to issue regulations. Our job is to decide the case at hand.”
The majority opinion concludes “three risqué text messages do not suffice for liability, while four or five may do so,” Easterbook wrote. That distinction should come from a federal regulation, he said, noting the case on appeal has no reference to any text messages between parties.
Eastebrook took specific issue with the majority’s assertion “liability is possible only if the responsible official knows ‘that misconduct rising to the level of sex discrimination has occurred. Only then does Title IX impose an obligation to act.’ That is not what Gebser says. The justices wrote that liability is possible when the responsible official ‘has actual notice of, and is deliberately in-different to, (a) teacher’s misconduct.’ My colleagues take the unmodified word ‘misconduct’ and turn it into ‘misconduct rising to the level of sex discrimination.’ I think that we should leave Gebser without the amendment.”
Title IX violations don’t inherently involve sexual misconduct, Easterbrook continued, pointing to college sports funding or psychological injuries. He implied the majority gives “Title IX an unduly narrow focus on sexual transgressions.”
“What if the school’s counselors had told Ptak that they perceived ‘grooming’ in the actual events of seventh grade?” Easterbook asked. “It is easy to imagine variations that could add up to knowledge of misconduct even though Collins had yet” to physically violate the student, and as such he said courts should wait to make determinations based on the facts of individual cases.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett had heard arguments during earlier hearings before she was appointed to the high court by President Donald Trump. She did not participate in the new decision. Newly appointed Seventh Circuit Judges Thomas Kirsch and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi joined the Seventh Circuit after the oral arguments and weren’t involved with the proceedings or the new decision.