Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri School District
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 522
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Doe, a Swinney Elementary student, sues the School District under MHRA for sex discrimination based on student-on-student harassment.
- Doe filed a charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in Oct 2009 and received a Notice of Right to Sue, filing his petition in Oct 2010.
- Allegations: harassment and assaults by a male student in the boys’ restroom during school hours; district personnel allegedly knew of the perpetrator’s behavior yet permitted access.
- The School District moved to dismiss; the circuit court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the court reviews de novo on appeal.
- The court holds Swinney Elementary is a public accommodation under MHRA; adopts a liberal interpretation of the remedial statute; rejects strict Title IX knowledge standards; reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public school is a public accommodation under MHRA §213.065 | Doe argues schools qualify under §213.010(15)(e). | School District contends §213.065.3 excludes non-open-to-public facilities. | Yes; schools are public accommodations under §213.065(1) and (2). |
| Whether MHRA extends to discrimination via indirect denial in a public school | Doe contends §213.065.2 prohibits indirect denial through negligence. | District argues only direct acts by discriminator are covered. | Yes; §213.065.2 covers indirect discrimination in public accommodations. |
| What standard governs school-district liability for student-on-student harassment | Standard should mirror co-worker harassment: knew or should have known and failed to act. | Standard should align with Title IX actual knowledge/deliberate indifference. | MHRA standard is knowledge-based (knew or should have known) with prompt remedial action; not Title IX’s actual knowledge requirement. |
| Whether Doe’s petition sufficiently pleaded discrimination in a public school | Allegations show harassment based on sex and denial of full use of school services. | Ages and context may defeat actionable harassment; petition lacks age details. | Sufficient under liberal pleading; stated a claim for discrimination in a public accommodation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (private Title IX damages require deliberate indifference by the school)
- J.B. Vending Co., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 54 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. banc 2001) (public serves subset of population; open to the public for purposes of the tax statute)
- Red Dragon Rest., Inc. v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 991 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. App. 1999) (remedial nature of MHRA interpreted liberally)
- Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. 2007) (employer harassment standard applied to MHRA co-worker context)
- L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Reg’l Schools Bd., 189 N.J. 381 (N.J. 2007) (recognizes education setting harassment protection (comparison to MHRA context))
- State ex rel. Ford v. Wenskay, 824 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. App. 1992) (remedial statutes construed liberally in public welfare context)