David Long v. Murray County School District
522 F. App'x 576
11th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege disability-based harassment in school and seek relief under §504 and the ADA.
- The district court and this court apply the deliberate indifference standard to evaluate school responses.
- The district court found the school district promptly addressed reported harassment incidents.
- There is no evidence showing the district’s remedial actions were clearly unreasonable.
- Plaintiffs failed to show the district knew remedial action was ineffective or that a jury could find deliberate indifference.
- The court affirms the district court’s judgment on the federal claims; the state-law claim was not appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference standard applied? | Plaintiffs contend district inaction or inadequate action amounted to deliberate indifference. | Defendants argue they promptly addressed incidents and actions were not clearly unreasonable. | No deliberate indifference; standard not met. |
| Evidence of a pattern of indifference? | Plaintiffs assert a pattern showing disregard for harassment reports. | Defendants contend evidence shows prompt responses and no pattern of indifference. | No jury could reasonably find a pattern of deliberate indifference. |
| Knew remedial action was ineffective? | Plaintiffs argue defendants knew their remedial actions were ineffective. | Defendants say there is no evidence they knew actions were ineffective. | Evidence does not support knowledge of ineffectiveness. |
| Davis framework applicability to §504/ADA claims? | Plaintiffs rely on Davis framework to establish liability under §504/ADA. | Defendants adopt the same framework and argue lack of proof of deliberate indifference. | Deliberate indifference standard properly applied; claims fail. |
| Affirmance of district court and appeal of state claim? | Plaintiffs appeal federal claims, seeking relief. | Defendants maintain district court ruling should stand; state claim not appealed. | Federal claims affirmed; state-law claim not appealed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., Fla., 604 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2010) (deliberate indifference standard requires clearly unreasonable response)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (Supreme Court 1999) (deliberate indifference standard for school harassment claims)
- S.S. v. Eastern Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for evaluating harassment/education claims)