Civil Rights Monitor
 |
The CIVIL RIGHTS MONITOR is a quarterly publication that reports on civil rights issues pending before the three branches of government. The Monitor also provides a historical context within which to assess current civil rights issues. Back issues of the Monitor are available through this site. Browse or search the archives Volume 10 No. 2 SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT IN STUDENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASEOn January 12, 1999, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in the latest in a series of five sexual harassment cases the Court has considered since last term. The question before the Court in this latest case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, is whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 covers student-to-student sex discrimination, and whether a school district is liable for damages for failing to address the student's complaints of sexual harassment. Background
Title IX is the portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive any federal funds. Title IX states:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Title IX has been instrumental in opening educational doors to females at the high school and college level and is well-known for its impact on athletic programs for female students. If a school has a sports program for men, in order to be in compliance with Title IX, it must be responsive to similar athletic interests of its female students.
In 1979, in Cannon v. University of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that individuals subjected to sex discrimination in violation of Title IX could pursue private enforcement actions in federal court. Previously it had been argued that the only remedy available to victims of discrimination was a complaint filed with a federal agency which could withhold funds or bring a lawsuit if discrimination were found and not remedied. In 1992, the Court ruled in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools that individuals who successfully file suit under Title IX are entitled to a damages remedy. In this case which involved a student who was sexually harassed by a school coach, the Court concluded that damages were appropriate to redress the claims of the aggrieved party.
Last term in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances under which a school district could be held liable for the misconduct of one of its employees. The case involved a teacher-initiated sexual relationship with a student that was never reported to school officials. School officials learned of the relationship only after a police officer discovered the teacher and student engaging in sexual intercourse. The Court ruled that since Title IX is tied to the receipt of federal funds, the school district is liable only if:
This is the standard used in administrative enforcement proceedings involving recipients of federal funds. In contrast, in two other cases of sexual harassment decided by the Court in 1998, the Court held that under Title VII (workplace discrimination), a company is responsible for harassment by its employees even if it did not know of the conduct; and that a legitimate claim can be made even if the complainant did not submit to the harassment nor suffered detriment.
In Davis, the Court is now asked to address whether student-to-student harassment is covered by Title IX, and, if so, the standard by which liability should be judged.
LaShonda Davis, a fifth grade student at Hubbard Elementary School in Forsyth, Georgia, was sexually harassed, verbally and physically, by a male student (G.F.) on several occasions during a five month period from December 1992 to May 1993. LaShonda and her mother complained to LaShonda's teacher repeatedly, and the teacher conveyed the concerns to the principal. LaShonda requested an opportunity to speak with the principal, and Mrs. Davis spoke with the principal. Despite the complaints, no "meaningful" action was taken, and even LaShonda's three requests to change her assigned seat next to the harasser were denied. During this period of time, LaShonda's grades suffered and her father found a suicide note she wrote in April 1993. In May 1993, Mrs. Davis brought a criminal complaint charging G.F. with sexual battery to which he pled guilty.
While there are indications that the principal spoke with G.F., he was never disciplined by the school, and the principal asked LaShonda "why she was the only one complaining." In addition, during the period of the harassment, the Board had no policy prohibiting the sexual harassment of students, nor did it have a plan of action, training or guidance for employees or students.
On May 4, 1994, Mrs. Davis filed a complaint against the school board in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia alleging a violation of Title IX and seeking equitable relief and compensatory damages. On August 29, 1994, the district court dismissed the complaint finding that the Board's failure to respond to LaShonda and Mrs. Davis' complaints was not a violation of Title IX because the student's behavior was not part of a school "program or activity" under Title IX.
On February 14, 1996, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, and held that Title IX encompasses a cause of action when a school district fails to address and remedy a hostile environment created by a student's sexual harassment of which it knew or should have known. The school board was granted a rehearing with the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc (with all judges). The full court reversed the panel, holding that Title IX does not recognize a cause of action for peer hostile environment. The full court recognized that Title IX authorizes individual claims of sexual harassment, but held that its coverage did not extend to student-to-student sexual harassment. It found that Congress did not intend nor provide sufficient notice to educational institutions that they were liable for this form of sexual discrimination under Title IX.
Mrs. Davis appealed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit to the Supreme Court which granted review on October 6, 1998.
|
