49 F.4th 1000
6th Cir.2022Background
- Will Bannister, a Farragut High School student, was repeatedly disciplined (suspensions, locker searches, 100-day suspension) in 2016–2017 amid perceptions about his appearance and gender nonconformity; he was reinstated in Feb. 2017 and committed suicide in April 2017.
- Parents sued in state court on April 16, 2018 alleging state-law due-process violations, negligence, and policy violations; the case was removed, remanded, and later refiled in federal court after new counsel added § 1983 and Title IX claims.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice: Tennessee statutory claims for damages were abandoned; federal claims were dismissed as time-barred; plaintiffs now appeal.
- On appeal, the Bannisters argued (1) § 1983 claims were timely under different accrual rules, (2) Title IX claims were timely or tolled by a continuing-violation theory, and (3) the court improperly dismissed state-law equitable relief.
- The Sixth Circuit held the Bannisters waived/forfeited key federal theories (procedural/substantive due process, continuing-violation for Title IX) and affirmed dismissal—also finding the Title IX failure-to-notify theory insufficient because plaintiffs did not plead actual knowledge by school officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 1983 claims / accrual date | Bannister: accrual when Will died or when parents learned of journal entry | School District: accrual when the challenged school acts occurred (pre-suit) | Court: procedural-due-process claim waived; substantive-due-process theory forfeited for failure to develop below; dismissal affirmed |
| Title IX — teacher's failure to disclose journal (failure-to-disclose) | Bannister: teacher’s failure to report suicidal journal entry was sex discrimination (gender‑stereotype theory) and timely when suicide/discovery occurred | School District: accrual runs from discriminatory act; Title IX requires recipient liability and actual knowledge by an official with authority to act | Court: pleaded facts do not show school officials had actual knowledge of the journal entry; claim inadequately pleaded and dismissed |
| Title IX — continuing-violation / hostile environment | Bannister: repeated discriminatory acts created a hostile environment and toll limitations under Morgan continuing-violation doctrine | School District: alleged acts are discrete and none occurred within limitations period; doctrine inapplicable | Court: theory forfeited for failure to develop in district court; court declined to consider on appeal |
| State-law equitable relief under Tennessee GTLA | Bannister: they did not consent to dismissal of equitable (injunctive/declaratory) claims; GTLA does not bar equitable relief | School District: moved to dismiss all state-law claims; plaintiffs conceded damages claims and failed to defend equitable claims below | Court: plaintiffs forfeited the argument; dismissal affirmed on GTLA immunity grounds (standing/unpled prospective-injury issues left unaddressed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudd v. City of Norton Shores, 977 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2020) (standard for accepting complaint allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rule for § 1983 claims; false-imprisonment analogy)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (malicious-prosecution analogy to fix accrual where favorable termination is required)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (must identify specific constitutional right to select analogous common-law accrual rules)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (student attendance as protected property interest for due process)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX damages liability requires actual notice to an official with authority to address misconduct)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing-violation doctrine and accrual for hostile-work-environment claims)
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) (discussion of when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (limits on § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of prior convictions; illustrates use of favorable-termination concept)