709 F. App'x 775
6th Cir.2017Background
- M.D., a high-school freshman cheerleader, was sexually assaulted on a team charter bus by teammate R.M.; R.M. admitted the conduct in writing.
- The district immediately suspended R.M. and transferred him to an alternative school; the Alternative Placement Committee twice recommended his return but the superintendent initially refused.
- The superintendent later allowed R.M. to finish his senior year at the high school subject to strict no-contact conditions (schedule review, monitored compliance, lunch reassignment, reassignment of extracurricular duties).
- M.D. experienced anxiety from seeing R.M. occasionally (hallways, cafeteria pickup, one homecoming incident) but admitted there were no on-campus interactions or further harassment after his return.
- M.D.’s parents sued the school district under Title IX alleging deliberate indifference to a hostile environment and, raised later, retaliation by coaches. The district court granted summary judgment to the district; M.D. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school was deliberately indifferent under Title IX to student-on-student sexual harassment | School’s remedial response was inadequate; returning R.M. created ongoing hostile environment and trauma depriving M.D. of educational access | School acted promptly, suspended and transferred R.M., and imposed effective no-contact measures; response was reasonable | Not deliberately indifferent; summary judgment for school affirmed |
| Whether the district’s response was "clearly unreasonable" under Davis standard | Continued presence of R.M. and periodic sightings proved remedial measures failed | Measures prevented any on-campus interaction and were within administrators’ discretion | Measures were not clearly unreasonable; courts must not second-guess disciplinary choices |
| Whether Patterson/Vance control (i.e., prior cases where repeated ineffective remediation precluded summary judgment) | Analogous because M.D. continued to suffer after reporting | This was not ongoing harassment; no repeated ineffective remedial efforts like Patterson/Vance | Patterson and Vance distinguishable; those involved persistent harassment and ineffective responses |
| Whether M.D. may pursue a retaliation claim against coaches | Coaches retaliated after her report, harming her team participation | Retaliation claim was not pleaded; assertion raised first at summary judgment and is procedurally barred; alternatively, school investigated and directed coaches to treat her normally | Retaliation claim not properly pled and, on the merits, fails; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX requires deliberate indifference showing; schools liable only for their own misconduct)
- Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs., 551 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment improper where repeated verbal reprimands failed to stop long-term harassment)
- Vance v. Spencer Cty. Pub. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000) (school response inadequate where harassment persisted despite measures)
- Tucker v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Emps., 407 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff may not raise new claims for first time in summary judgment response)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (complaints must give fair notice of claims to enable discovery and adjudication)
- Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cty., 819 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2016) (no deliberate indifference where school took multiple remedial steps though harassment ultimately continued)
- Pahssen v. Merrill Cmty. Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2012) (no deliberate indifference where school monitored alleged harasser for a period)
- Doe v. Rutherford Cty. Bd. of Educ., 86 F. Supp. 3d 831 (M.D. Tenn. 2015) (district court decision discussing agency and school liability theories under Title IX)