125 F.4th 507
4th Cir.2025Background
- Davina Ricketts, a Black sophomore at a North Carolina public high school, ran for student council aiming to improve diversity.
- Her candidacy was met with racial harassment and cyberbullying; her and other Black students’ campaign materials were destroyed, and they were left off the election ballot.
- Ricketts and her parent notified school officials of discrimination and harassment, but administration largely failed to intervene or respond meaningfully.
- After a series of racially charged incidents and a re-run election, Ricketts lost, continued facing harassment, and suffered negative academic and mental health consequences.
- Ricketts brought claims under Title VI (racial harassment and retaliation) and the Equal Protection Clause, which were dismissed by the district court; the court denied her motion for leave to amend as futile.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Ricketts’ amended complaint adequately stated claims and if leave to amend should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VI: Deliberate indifference to harassment | School was deliberately indifferent to severe, pervasive racial harassment and failed to respond. | No actionable harassment or deliberate indifference; responses were adequate. | Ricketts sufficiently alleged a claim; denial reversed. |
| Title VI: Retaliation | Retaliatory actions (cyberbullying, exclusion threats) followed complaints of discrimination. | Actions were not materially adverse or causally linked to protected activity. | Ricketts sufficiently alleged a claim; denial reversed. |
| Equal Protection (individual liability) | Administrators’ indifference and responses were motivated by discriminatory intent. | No discriminatory intent; complaints were addressed as oversight or error. | Ricketts sufficiently alleged a claim against individuals (except one teacher). |
| Equal Protection (Board/municipal liability) | School Board’s policy/custom showed indifference to discrimination, amounting to tacit approval. | No actionable policy or widespread indifference; isolated incidents. | Ricketts sufficiently alleged claim based on official policy/custom. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX standard for deliberate indifference applies to Title VI peer harassment)
- Hurley v. Feminist Majority Found., 911 F.3d 674 (parallels between Title IX and Title VI retaliation and equal protection standards)
- Doe v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1 F.4th 257 (deliberate indifference standard in educational settings)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (Title VI liability for severe, pervasive student-on-student racial harassment)
- Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-38 of Garvin Cnty., 334 F.3d 928 (Title VI covers student-on-student racial harassment)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (municipal liability can arise from informal policies/customs)