Michelle Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Catholic Educat
996 F.3d 802
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Student A, an eighth grader at Notre Dame of De Pere (a GRACE school), was subjected to repeated, sexually suggestive bullying by Student B between fall 2019 and early 2020 (name-calling, sharing/redistributing sexually explicit images, and suicide-inciting comments).
- Student A’s mother, Jauquet, notified school officials; school principal and GRACE leadership met with the family, suspended Student B for several days, facilitated an apology, offered seating changes, and communicated anti-bullying messages to students; a juvenile citation was issued to Student B.
- Plaintiffs alleged GRACE maintained a discriminatory school culture (“boys will be boys”), pointed to dress-code and disciplinary disparities, and claimed GRACE’s policies and response amounted to sex discrimination under Title IX; they also brought state-law breach of contract and negligence claims.
- The district court dismissed the Title IX claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and evaluated both indirect (student-on-student) and direct (institutional) Title IX theories.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held GRACE was not deliberately indifferent to the student-on-student harassment and that plaintiffs’ allegations of institutional sex discrimination were too vague and conclusory to state a plausible Title IX claim; dismissal with prejudice and relinquishing of state claims were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GRACE was deliberately indifferent under Davis (indirect student-on-student Title IX) | Jauquet: GRACE’s response was inadequate given severe, pervasive sexualized bullying; school failed to protect Student A | GRACE: It had actual knowledge and acted promptly (suspension, meetings, seat change, apology); response not clearly unreasonable | Held: Not deliberately indifferent — school’s prompt discipline and measures were not clearly unreasonable; Title IX indirect claim fails |
| Whether GRACE engaged in direct/institutional sex discrimination via policies/culture | Jauquet: Dress code, differential standards, and tolerant culture discriminated against girls and facilitated harassment | GRACE: Allegations are conclusory and lack particularized facts showing denial of an educational benefit because of sex | Held: Dismissed — allegations too vague/insufficient to plausibly infer sex-based denial of educational benefits |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice and dismissal of state claims was appropriate | Jauquet: (implicitly) Title IX claim merited further amendment or relief | GRACE: District court properly dismissed where plaintiffs never sought leave to amend or cure pleading defects | Held: Affirmed — dismissal with prejudice not an abuse of discretion given plaintiffs’ failure to seek amendment; state claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (establishes deliberate-indifference standard for student-on-student Title IX claims)
- Doe v. Columbia College Chicago, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019) (pleading requirements and limits on inferring discrimination under Title IX)
- Johnson v. Northeast School Corp., 972 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2020) (school response not clearly unreasonable standard; judges should not second-guess disciplinary choices)
- Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest–Chicago Heights Sch. Dist. 163, 315 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2003) (school’s prompt disciplinary/preventive steps can preclude deliberate-indifference liability)
- Hayden ex rel. A.H. v. Greensburg Community Sch. Corp., 743 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2014) (dress/grooming policies can support discrimination claims in some circumstances)
- Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2020) (pleading must provide adequate factual detail to be plausible)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (requirement that complaints plead factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2015) (denial of leave to amend and dismissal with prejudice review standards)