Brief of Monroe v. Davis
written by
for
EOL 469
AURELIA DAVIS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF LASHONDA D., (PLAINTIFF) v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. (DEFENDANT)
No. 97-843
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
119 S. Ct. 1661; 1999 U.S. LEXIS 3452; 143 L. Ed. 2d 839; 67 U.S.L.W. 4329; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3861; 99 Daily Journal
DAR 4931; 12 Fla. Law W. Fed. S 280; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2948
January 12, 1999, Argued
May 24, 1999, Decided
FACTS:
On May 4, 1994, plaintiff Aurelia Davis filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the Monroe County Board of Education, Charles Dumas, the school district's superintendent, and Principal Querry. Davis sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. Davis alleges that the Defendant's deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment of her daughter, LaShonda by G.F., a fifth-grade classmate at a public elementary school is in violation of Title IX provisions.
Davis alleges that her daughter, LaShonda, was the victim of repeated acts of harassment by G.F. over a period of five months at Hubbard Elementary School. The harassment began in December 1992, when G. F. allegedly attempted to touch LaShonda's breasts and genital area and made vulgar statements such as "I want to get in bed with you" and "I want to feel your boobs." Similar events allegedly occurred on or around January 4 and January 20, 1993. LaShonda reportedly told both her mother and Diane Fort, her classroom teacher. Davis then contacted Fort, who reported that the incident had been reported to the school principal, Bill Querry. During physical education class in early February 1993 , G.F. allegedly placed a doorstop in his pants and acted in a sexually suggestive manner toward LaShonda. LaShonda reported this to her physical education teacher, Whit Maples. G.F. allegedly harassed LaShonda about one week later under the supervision of Joyce Pippen, another classroom teacher. LaShonda allegedly reported this incident to her teacher, and Davis, again, contacted the teacher to follow up. Two more alleged incidents of sexually harassing conduct by G.F. to LaShonda took place. One occurred again in physical education class in early March, about which LaShonda alleges to have told both Maples and Pippen. The other occurred in the hallway in mid-April, and LaShonda allegedly reported this to Fort. In mid-May1993, G.F. was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, sexual battery for his conduct toward LaShonda.
It is alleged that other girls in the class were also victims of G.F.'s misconduct, yet when LaShonda and these other females tried to speak with Principal Bill Querry, they were allegedly denied this request by a teacher with the response, "If [Querry] wants you, he'll call you." Davis alleged that no disciplinary action was taken against G.F., and that, in response to Davis' inquiry, Querry simply stated, "I guess I'll have to threaten him a little bit harder." Additionally, Davis alleges that Querry asked her why LaShonda "was the only one complaining." Davis also contends that although LaShonda and G.F. sat next to each other in class, it was only after three months of LaShonda's complaints that she was permitted to change seats.
In April 1993, LaShonda's father discovered that she had written a suicide note, and Davis alleges that at one point LaShonda commented that she "didn't know how much longer she could keep [G.F.] off her." And finally, LaShonda's high grades allegedly dropped as an indirect result of the harassment.
The Federal District Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, citing that, "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provides no ground for a Title IX private cause of action for damages. In response to this action, Davis filed an appeal to a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in May 1996. This court affirmed the dismissal of the Federal District Court. This case was then finally brought to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where it was decided on May 24, 1999.
ISSUE:
Does the inaction of a school board merit Title IX damages in cases student-on-student harassment?
THE RULE:
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits a student from "being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
HOLDING:
Does the inaction of a school board merit Title IX damages in cases student-on-student harassment? yes
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the decision to dismiss the case and found that schools may be liable for damages in cases of student-on-student sexual harassment.
Judges Joining the Opinion of the Court: O'Conner, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer
Judges Dissenting the Opinion of the Court: Kennedy, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas
COURT'S REASONING:
1) Schools had warning, referring to a1993 National School Boards Association publication, that peer sexual harassment might trigger Title IX liability.
2) The school's decision not to act is, in effect, an act in and of itself. By not acting to remedy this situation, the school becomes part of the problem.
3) The harassment occurred "under the operations of" the funded institution since agents of the institution (the teachers) were in charge of G.F.
4) It is recognized that the Board exercises significant control over the harasser since it has disciplinary control over its students.
5) Title IX's language states that if a recipient (Monroe) does not engage in harassment directly, it may not be liable for damages unless its deliberate indifference "subjects" its students to harassment.
6) Title IX encompasses a claim for damages due to a sexually hostile educational environment created by a fellow student or students when the supervising authorities knowingly fail to act to eliminate the harassment.
DISSENT:
A very lengthy and thought-provoking dissent was offered by Justice Kennedy. He addresses the impending doom of this decision by stating, "The only certainty flowing from the majority's decision is that scarce resources will be diverted from educating our children and that many school districts...will adopt whatever federal code of student conduct and discipline the DOE sees fit to impose upon them."