Jane Doe v. Don Galster, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18095

Background

Jane Doe, a Russian-born student adopted by American parents, experienced escalating harassment by classmates (T.M. and associates) beginning in sixth grade at Pilgrim Park Middle School.
She alleged harassment was motivated by sex and national origin, triggering claims under Title VI, Title IX, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Equal Protection violations.
District administrators learned of some incidents and repeatedly separated Doe from the harassers, plus assigned lockers and study groups to reduce contact as incidents persisted.
A violent culmination occurred late seventh grade: Doe was punched, struck with spikes, and hit with sticks; these events led to police involvement and later expulsion proceedings for the attackers.
The district conducted a formal investigation within twelve days of learning the full extent, recommended expulsion of the three boys, and later expelled them; Doe’s family moved out of the district before eighth grade.
Doe argued the district failed to provide adequate safety measures (e.g., a formal safety plan) and timely information about the expulsion status, but the court held actions were not clearly unreasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VI/IX liability attaches for peer harassment.	Doe argues harassment violated Title VI/IX and district failed to respond.	District contends actions did not amount to severe, pervasive harassment and were reasonably handled.	Not liable under Title VI/IX; responses were not clearly unreasonable.
Whether school officials had actual knowledge of severe harassment.	Knew enough from reports to trigger further investigation earlier than end of seventh grade.	Actual knowledge required witnessed or reported incidents; many severe acts were not known until end of seventh grade.	Actual knowledge not satisfied for the earlier, more severe acts; later actions deemed responsive.
Whether the harassment denied equal access to education.	Violent incidents cumulatively denied Doe equal educational access.	Harassment before last day of school was not sufficiently severe; later violence was addressed.	Violence at end of seventh grade could be severe enough; overall conduct not shown to deny equal access prior to last day.
Whether the district's response was clearly unreasonable under Davis v. Monroe County.	District failed to take sufficient remedial steps, like safety planning and timely transfers.	Districts have broad discretion; did not act unreasonably given expulsion of perpetrators and investigations.	Responses were not clearly unreasonable; disciplinary measures and investigations were appropriate.
Whether the equal protection claim can survive given the factual record.	Defendants’ actions were discriminatory or indifferently designed toward Doe.	Same evidence supports non-deliberate indifference; no nefarious discriminatory purpose shown.	Equal protection claim fails; no deliberate indifference shown.

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (actual knowledge and deliberate indifference standard for student-on-student harassment)
Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights Sch. Dist. 163, 315 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2003) (school response not clearly unreasonable when intervening after incidents)
Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) (severity and education-impact analysis in peer harassment)
Vance v. Spencer Cty. Pub. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000) (harassment severity and educational impact needed for liability)
Murrell v. School Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 1999) (harassment leading to health/schooling consequences supports liability analysis)
Porto v. Town of Tewksbury, 488 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2007) (separation measures as evidence of non-deliberate indifference)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (disciplinary decisions in school context; due process considerations)