Jane Doe v. Alpena Public School District, 359190

Background

Jane Doe and John Roe were fourth-grade students in Alpena Public Schools; John, who has significant disabilities, allegedly sexually harassed Jane in 2017 on two occasions.
School officials responded by suspending John, reassigning him, and imposing a no-contact order; Jane later transferred to different schools within the district and eventually to a private school.
Jane's guardian sued the Alpena Public School District and Board under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) for hostile educational environment due to student-on-student harassment.
The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, reasoning that the ELCRA does not provide for such claims arising from peer harassment or, alternatively, that the Defendants were not vicariously liable.
On appeal, the case was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court to determine whether the ELCRA allows direct liability hostile-environment claims against educational institutions, and if so, whether summary disposition was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ELCRA permit hostile-educational-environment claims against schools based on direct liability?	Yes; schools can be directly liable for failing to prevent hostile environments created by peer harassment.	No; ELCRA does not provide for such claims, especially for student-on-student harassment.	Yes; ELCRA does allow such claims under direct liability if the institution's own actions (or inaction) cause the hostile environment.
Did Defendants take prompt and appropriate remedial action in response to harassment?	No; Defendants knew about risk but failed to implement effective procedures or employ properly qualified staff.	Yes; They promptly investigated, suspended the perpetrator, re-assigned students, and enacted no-contact orders.	Yes; Defendants took prompt and appropriate remedial actions, so no genuine issue of material fact existed.
Was summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) appropriate?	No; Reasonable minds could differ about whether the school’s response was adequate.	Yes; Evidence indisputably shows the response was proper, so no factual dispute.	Yes; Plaintiff failed to offer specific facts showing the school’s response was inadequate.
Can plaintiff rely solely on allegations about staff qualifications and response?	Yes; Arguments regarding aide unfitness and response insufficiency create a factual issue.	No; Only specific facts establish a dispute, not unsupported assertions or general complaints.	No; Plaintiff’s claims lacked factual support and did not raise a triable factual issue.

Key Cases Cited

Radtke v. Everett, 442 Mich 368 (Mich. 1993) (sets out elements for hostile environment harassment claims)
Chambers v. Trettco, Inc., 463 Mich 297 (Mich. 2000) (addresses direct liability for hostile work environment)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Mich. 1999) (summary disposition standards explained)
El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 504 Mich 152 (Mich. 2019) (clarifies Michigan motion for summary disposition standards)
Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 (Mich. 1996) (burden-shifting for summary judgment motions)