888 F. Supp. 2d 659
D. Maryland2012Background
- J.D. attended Robert Goddard Montessori School from fall 2008 to 2010 and was subjected to repeated sexual harassment by a classmate.
- Parents notified school officials (Jellison, Johnson, Schwab) of harassment starting in October 2008 with alleged inaction.
- Harassment persisted through 2009-2010, including exposure of genitals, coercion to touch, and restroom encounters; threats and surveillance concerns reported.
- In 2010, J.D. exhibited anxiety and trauma symptoms; Parents discovered explicit messages alleging further sexual acts in June 2010.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on November 10, 2011, asserting Title IX and state-law negligence claims against Schwab and the Board of Education of Prince George’s County.
- The court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and denied as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title IX claim under state law | Plaintiffs rely on Maryland’s three-year personal-injury limit and tolling for minors. | Defendants argue Greenwood controls and timing is improper. | Title IX claim timely under MD three-year statute; tolling for minor applies. |
| Whether the Title IX claim is cognizable (sex-based harassment, severe/pervasive, institutional liability) | Harassment based on J.D.’s sex; severe/pervasive impact; notice to school officials supports liability. | Peer harassment not automatically actionable; require severe/pervasive and proper notice. | Plaintiffs state a cognizable Title IX claim; harassment is severe/pervasive and liable through institutional notice. |
| Imputation of actual notice to Board via school officials | Notice to Johnson/Schwab plausibly communicated to the Board. | Imputation to Board not established; reliance on Baynard limitations. | There is actual notice to Johnson/Schwab; potential imputation to Board supported. |
| Ellerth/Faragher defense applicability to Title IX claim | Defense not controlling at this stage; policy procedures unclear and discovery ongoing. | Promulgation of AP 4170 and plaintiff’s failure to use procedures may defeat claim. | Ellerth/Faragher defense not dispositive; claim survives at this stage. |
| Negligence and gross negligence claims against the Board; immunity and duty | Board owed duty under special-relationship theory; immunity does not bar suit; evidence supports gross negligence. | Schwab immunity; Board lacks duty to protect against private harm. | Plaintiffs plausibly state negligence and gross-negligence claims; immunity defenses insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (school liability for peer harassment under Title IX; knowledge and response matters)
- Wilmink v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 214 F. App’x 294 (4th Cir. 2007) (Title IX claims borrow state personal-injury statute of limitations)
- Moore v. Greenwood, Sch. Dist. No. 52, 195 F. App’x 140 (4th Cir. 2006) (perspective on limitations in Title IX cases (retaliation))
- Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2001) (imputation of notice; teacher-student harassment context)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment basis for title IX)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (affirmative defense for employer liability in harassment cases)
- Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (employer defense framework for actionable harassment)