531 F. App'x 132
2d Cir.2013Background
- CF, a female student, suffered prolonged bullying and two sexual assaults by male students during 8th–9th grade; she developed severe anxiety and self-harm and stopped attending high school in person.
- About eleven months after the second assault, CF disclosed the assaults while in an intensive treatment program; the school district (Monroe-Woodbury) then learned of the incidents.
- Monroe-Woodbury recommended an out-of-district program (which CF rejected as inappropriate), provided individual tutoring so she could avoid returning to the high school, and informed parents of the district’s Title IX grievance process.
- CF’s parents (KF and AF) sued under Title IX, alleging the district was deliberately indifferent to peer sexual harassment and thus denied CF the benefits of public education.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly allege deliberate indifference; the parents appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding the pleaded facts did not show the district’s response was clearly unreasonable under controlling Title IX standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district’s response to student-on-student sexual harassment constituted Title IX deliberate indifference | Monroe-Woodbury’s actions were insufficient and therefore caused CF to be denied educational benefits | The district investigated, offered alternatives, provided tutoring, and explained grievance procedures; its response was not clearly unreasonable | Held for defendant: allegations do not plausibly show deliberate indifference |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to specific remedial measures (e.g., placement in another district) | Plaintiffs sought particular remedies (transfer to another district) as necessary relief | District argued plaintiffs have no right to specific remedies and lacked authority to place CF in another district | Held for defendant: plaintiffs have no right to specific remedial measures; no showing district could place CF in another district |
| Whether alleged delay or failure to prevent further harassment existed | Plaintiffs implied district’s response left CF vulnerable to continued harm | District did not unreasonably delay and took measures to address CF’s needs | Held for defendant: complaint lacked allegations like unreasonable delay or failure to prevent future harassment |
| Standard of review on appeal from Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court applied de novo review, accepting well-pleaded facts and drawing inferences in plaintiffs’ favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (establishes Title IX deliberate-indifference standard for peer sexual harassment)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) (school actions are deliberately indifferent only if clearly unreasonable; courts defer to school disciplinarians)
- Taveras v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on appeal)