Background

• L.E. and B.R., seventh-grade girls, alleged harassment by a male student on the Finland Middle School bus beginning in 2007.
• October 2007 incidents reportedly involved sexual comments and physical contact; L.E. and B.R. reported to a guidance counselor the next day.
• Smathers, the principal, testified he investigated, notified authorities, and suspended M.C. and L.E. for a disruption of school, though the extent of consent disputed.
• In May 2008, L.E. alleged a sexual assault by M.C. on the bus; Smathers suspended L.E. and M.C. for five days after interviewing witnesses.
• Collette, the suspension hearing officer, issued findings affirming L.E.’s suspension for disrupting school and for involvement in a sexual encounter, noting L.E. admitted participation yet not determining coercion.
• L.E. and B.R. subsequently filed § 1983 and Title IX claims alleging due process, equal protection, retaliation, and related harms; district court denied Smathers’ qualified immunity defense on due process grounds.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036 (6th Cir. 2001) (preclusive effect for administrative findings in § 1983 cases)
• Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (collateral estoppel and res judicata principles favor preclusion of final administrative determinations)
• Wilson v. Semco, Inc., 152 Ohio App. 3d 75 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (Ohio preclusion standards for prior proceedings)
• Portage Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (2006) (defines transaction vs. claim preclusion in Ohio)
• Mary M. v. N. Lawrence Cmty. Sch. Corp., 131 F.3d 1220 (7th Cir. 1997) (considers whether consent findings affect due process claims)