427 F.Supp.3d 870
S.D. Tex.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe, a Katy High School student/advisor relationship member of the art program, had a sexual relationship with art teacher Robert Milton that began while she was a senior (relationship disclosed after she graduated); Milton later admitted the relationship, resigned, and pled guilty to a state improper-relationship charge.
- Doe sued Katy Independent School District under Title IX asserting the District had actual knowledge of Milton’s proclivities and was deliberately indifferent to the risk he posed to students; she also sought punitive damages.
- Earlier incidents alleged: (1) "Jackie" (2001) — letters and conduct suggesting a possible sexual relationship reported by Jackie’s uncle to a Mayde Creek principal; (2) four unidentified female students (2010) told a teacher Milton touched their shoulders/neck and were uncomfortable; (3) "Becky" (2012) — school investigation after camera review, interviews, and a District police inquiry concluded the allegation was unfounded and Milton was counseled.
- Procedural posture: After motions and amendments, only the Title IX claim remained; District moved for summary judgment arguing lack of actual knowledge/deliberate indifference and that punitive damages are unavailable under Title IX.
- Ruling: Court denied summary judgment as to Title IX liability because genuine factual disputes exist about whether District employees with supervisory authority had actual knowledge of Milton’s risk (esp. conflicting accounts about Moorhead’s report regarding Jackie and whether reports were made to supervisors). The court granted summary judgment on punitive damages, holding punitive damages are not available under Title IX.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District liability under Title IX (actual knowledge + deliberate indifference) | Doe: Prior incidents (Jackie, four students, Becky) provided actual notice of Milton’s risk; District was deliberately indifferent to that risk | District: Earlier reports were vague or not made to supervisory personnel; investigations (e.g., Becky) were reasonable and defeat deliberate indifference | Denied summary judgment — material factual disputes exist whether supervisory employees had actual notice and whether the District was deliberately indifferent |
| Availability of punitive damages under Title IX | Doe: Seeks punitive damages for District’s alleged reckless indifference | District: Punitive damages are not available under Title IX | Granted summary judgment for District — punitive damages unavailable as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX liability requires actual notice to an appropriate school official and deliberate indifference)
- Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2000) (actual knowledge is a question of fact; summary judgment appropriate only if facts undisputed)
- Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. Sch. Dist., 106 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. 1997) (report to non-supervisory employees insufficient; supervisor must have authority to end abuse)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (punitive damages not available under Title VI; Title IX similarly modeled on Title VI)
- A.W. v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 25 F. Supp. 3d 973 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (defines supervisory-power requirement and tests for actual knowledge of substantial risk)