M. S. v. Susquehanna Twp Sch Dist
969 F.3d 120
3rd Cir.2020Background
- Shawn Sharkey, an assistant principal at Susquehanna Township High School, had a sexual relationship with M.S., a 16-year-old student; students circulated rumors and an initial school investigation found no corroborating evidence and both denied misconduct.
- The District closed its internal inquiry after consulting counsel; the next school year rumors resurfaced, police became involved, and M.S. then admitted the relationship.
- Sharkey was criminally charged, placed on leave, resigned, and the District accepted his resignation; Sharkey was later default‑judgmented and ordered to pay damages.
- M.S. sued the School District under Title IX (hostile-educational-environment), alleging the District was deliberately indifferent in responding to Sharkey’s misconduct; the District Court granted summary judgment for the District.
- On appeal, the central legal questions were (1) whether a perpetrator who has authority to remedy Title IX violations qualifies as an “appropriate person” whose knowledge can impute actual notice to the school, and (2) whether school officials (other than Sharkey) had actual knowledge sufficient to establish deliberate indifference before September 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a perpetrator with authority to remedy Title IX violations counts as an “appropriate person” whose knowledge imputes actual notice to the school | M.S.: knowledge by an appropriate person (here, Sharkey) satisfies Gebser’s actual-knowledge requirement and ends the analysis | School District: a perpetrator’s knowledge is irrelevant; appropriate-person must be able to institute corrective measures and not be the wrongdoer | Court: A perpetrator who is the wrongdoer is not an appropriate person; his knowledge does not satisfy actual-knowledge for Title IX damages. |
| Whether school officials (other than Sharkey) had actual knowledge of the harassment before Sep. 2013 sufficient to show deliberate indifference | M.S.: circumstantial evidence and district mishandling put administrators on notice earlier | School District: administrators only had rumors and uncorroborated indications; no facts showing substantial danger before Sept. 2013 | Court: No appropriate person had actual knowledge prior to Sept. 2013; facts before then showed at most possibility, not actual knowledge, so no Title IX damages liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (private Title IX damages require actual notice to an appropriate person and deliberate indifference)
- Davis ex rel. Lashonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (school sexual harassment can create hostile‑educational‑environment claim under Title IX)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (discusses school liability and hypothetical demonstrating reports must reach non‑perpetrator appropriate officials)
- Bostic v. Smyrna Sch. Dist., 418 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2005) (actual‑knowledge requires more than suspicion; mere possibility insufficient)
- Salazar v. S. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 953 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2020) (perpetrator who has authority is not an appropriate person for imputing notice)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)