Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle, 136 F. Supp. 3d 52

Plaintiff Hankey alleges bullying and threats at Concord-Carlisle High School leading to Title IX and other claims.
School district had a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan; evidence suggests it was not followed.
Incidents included online postings, vehicle keying, feces on car, and multiple bathroom stall messages from 2009–2012.
School and police made some protective efforts after incidents, including parking lot monitors, cameras, and incident management meetings.
Plaintiff contends Defendants’ responses were inadequate; court grants summary judgment on all counts.
Court notes procedural posture: motions for summary judgment; considers evidence in the light most favorable to Hankey.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title IX discrimination based on sex	Hankey argues harassment was sex-based and pervasive.	Defendants contend incidents were not severe/pervasive due to lack of explicit sex-based pattern.	Title IX claims fail; no evidence harassment was based on sex or sufficiently severe.
Due process—state-created danger or special relationship	§1983 claim arises from failure to protect Hankey from harassment.	No special relationship or affirmative act creating danger; failure to act not enough.	No §1983 due process violation; no duty or shock-the-conscience conduct shown.
MTCA presentment and immunity for negligent and intentional torts	Plaintiff may recover under MTCA after presentment and against individual defendants.	Plaintiff failed presentment; MTCA immunizes public employees for negligence and prohibits intentional torts.	Count IV and related claims barred; Count III (intentional infliction) also dismissed; Count V (MCRA) dismissed.
MCRA and Article 10 due process	Hankey claims interference with rights under MCRA and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.	No actionable interference shown; municipal entities not liable under MCRA; Article 10 not broader than federal due process.	MCRA and Massachusetts Declaration claims dismissed.

Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (sex-based harassment requires severe, pervasive discrimination)
Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (Title IX discrimination standard in schools)
Pomales v. Celulares Telefonica, Inc., 447 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2006) (isolated incidents not enough for hostile environment)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (failure-to-protect generally not a due-process violation; state-created danger exception)
Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005) (state-created danger; requires affirmative act causing danger)
Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) (adverse inference cannot save a claim without evidence)
Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse, 175 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999) (shock-the-conscience standard in state-created danger analysis)
Melendez-Garcia v. Sanchez, 629 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (high standard for conscience-shocking government action)