311 A.3d 139
Vt.2023Background
- A Maple Run student alleged repeated sexual assaults by another student on school property and a school bus in Nov. 2020; the district investigated under its Hazing/Harassment/Bullying & Sexual Harassment (HHB) policy, accidentally disclosed the complainant’s first name, and closed the investigation after 202 days.
- In Nov. 2021 the complainant’s mother filed a VPAA (9 V.S.A.) complaint with the Vermont Human Rights Commission alleging violations of the VPAA, Title 16 anti-harassment provisions, the HHB confidentiality rules, and unlawful delay.
- The Commission found a prima facie case and opened an investigation; the district moved to dismiss at the administrative stage, arguing federal Title IX regulations preempted Title 16 and thus the complaint could not state a prima facie VPAA claim.
- The Commission denied dismissal, concluding Title IX did not displace the state law protections (or that state law could be applied compatibly) and that it had jurisdiction to investigate.
- The district filed a Rule 75 petition in superior court seeking mandamus or prohibition to end the Commission’s investigation; the superior court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the district appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus: whether Rule 75 supports mandamus to compel dismissal under 9 V.S.A. §4554(b) | §4554(b) requires dismissal if complaint lacks a prima facie case; that is ministerial, so Commission must dismiss (and preemption renders exhaustion impossible) | Whether a complaint states a prima facie case is a discretionary, expert determination by the Commission; mandamus does not compel discretionary acts absent an extreme, practical refusal to act | Denied. Determination whether a prima facie case exists is discretionary, not ministerial; mandamus unavailable. |
| Prohibition: whether Rule 75 supports prohibition to stop the Commission’s investigation | Commission has impermissibly assumed jurisdiction and is acting judicially, so prohibition should restrain it | Commission is investigative/administrative, lacks power to render binding judicial orders, and is not a quasi-judicial tribunal subject to prohibition | Denied. Commission’s role is non‑quasi‑judicial and investigatory; prohibition does not lie. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Pierce, 895 A.2d 173 (Vt. 2005) (VPAA covers in-school peer harassment claims against schools)
- Inman v. Pallito, 87 A.3d 449 (Vt. 2013) (mandamus requires practical refusal to perform a clear legal duty; discretionary acts not compelled)
- Island Indus., LLC v. Town of Grand Isle, 260 A.3d 372 (Vt. 2021) (discretionary governmental decisions are not subject to mandamus)
- Preston v. Burlington City Ret. Sys., 76 A.3d 615 (Vt. 2013) (Rule 75 allows review via traditional extraordinary writs)
- Gould v. Parker, 42 A.2d 416 (Vt. 1945) (prohibition applies only against tribunals exercising judicial power to adjudicate legal rights)
- Town of Springfield v. Newton, 50 A.2d 605 (Vt. 1947) (quasi-judicial power tied to ability to impose binding orders)
- Grout v. Gates, 124 A. 76 (Vt. 1924) (definition of ministerial duty: no discretion involved)