Ayanna Blue v. District of Columbia Public
421 U.S. App. D.C. 14
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Weismiller, a long‑time teacher with prior misconduct, was hired by DCPS in 2008 to teach at a school for emotionally disturbed students where Blue, then 18, was a student.
- Blue alleges a consensual sexual relationship with Weismiller, resulting in a child born in late 2009; pregnancy tests occurred in December 2008.
- DCPS investigated the relationship in May 2009 but acquitted Weismiller of misconduct; Weismiller was later terminated in October 2009 for system‑wide reductions in force.
- Blue filed suit in 2010 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, and DC tort laws; claims against DCPS and Rhee were settled/dismissed, leaving only the District of Columbia as defendant.
- The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim; on appeal, the court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and reviews de novo.
- The court ultimately affirmed dismissal, holding no viable Monell or Title IX claim and no proper DC tort notice under § 12‑309.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blue pleads a Monell claim based on a single final policymaker decision. | Blue argues a single policymaker decision to hire Weismiller without proper background checks establishes a municipal policy. | District contends a single act is insufficient without final policymaker authority and a plausible policy. | Not plausibly pled; Blue failed to plead a final policymaker decision or a cognizable policy. |
| Whether the District’s retention after investigation shows a municipal policy of indifference. | Blue asserts that not firing Weismiller after investigation demonstrates deliberate indifference. | No causal link since the relationship had ended before the investigation; no evidence of deliberate indifference creating policy. | Dismissed; single‑employee conduct and causation do not support Monell liability. |
| Whether Blue states a plausible failure‑to‑screen policy under Monell. | Blue contends the District’s background screening failures reflect a policy. | Argument relies on a generic custom; insufficient to plead a final policymaker‑level policy. | Insufficient under Iqbal; not pleaded as a final policymaker policy. |
| Whether Blue states a Title IX deliberate indifference claim based on actual notice. | Blue claims school officials had actual notice of harassment via pregnancy test and witnesses. | No evidence officials knew harassment was ongoing; notice not established under Davis v. Monroe Bd. of Ed. | Failure to plead ongoing, known harassment; Title IX claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)
- City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) (policymaker liability for single acts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; plausibility requirement)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (actual notice and deliberate indifference in Title IX)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (title IX damages when appropriate official had notice and deliberate indifference)
- Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121 (2010) (final policymaker requirement for single‑act liability (Third Circuit))
- Pitts v. District of Columbia, 391 A.2d 803 (1978) (mandatory notice requirement under § 12‑309; narrowly construed)
- Owens v. District of Columbia, 993 A.2d 1085 (2010) (§ 12‑309 notice strict compliance; police report exception limited)
- Campbell v. District of Columbia, 568 A.2d 1076 (1990) (DC notice requirement interpretation)