Pahssen Ex Rel. Doe v. Merrill Community School District
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellant Carole Pahssen, as next friend of Jane Doe, sues Merrill Community School District, Breckenridge Community Schools, and related administrators (and MacLennan) over alleged Title IX violations and §1983/§1985 claims arising from John Doe's harassment at Merrill and Breckenridge.
- Jane Doe, an 8th grader, alleges multiple incidents of sexual harassment by John Doe in late 2007, including a locker shove, coercive sexual conduct requests, and obscene gestures at a basketball game, followed by a December 2007 sexual assault on Merrill property.
- Merrill and Breckenridge responded with a 30-day supervision plan for John, after which John engaged in further harassment; subsequently, Merrill recommended expulsion and the board expelled John in January 2008.
- John had a lengthy disciplinary history across multiple schools prior to Jane’s incidents, including prior suspensions and referrals for sexual misconduct, though Appellant does not allege prior acts against Jane.
- Appellant amended her complaint to include Title IX claims against Merrill and Breckenridge, and §1983 against Merrill and the Breckenridge Defendants, as well as §1985 against MacLennan and the Breckenridge Defendants; the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirms, addressing Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. and related theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merrill’s Title IX claim survives under Davis | Davis requires prompt, deliberate response to harassment; pre-December 2007 incidents and the assault show deliberate indifference. | Pre-incident conduct and the assault do not show severe, pervasive harassment nor Merrill’s deliberate indifference; third-party incidents aren’t probative for an individual Title IX claim. | Merrill’s Title IX claim fails. |
| Whether Breckenridge’s Title IX claim survives under Davis | Harassment at Breckenridge and the link to Jane’s safety creates liability for knowing neglect. | Off-campus/off-district harassment and lack of control negate Title IX liability; there is no the required connection to Breckenridge. | Breckenridge’s Title IX claim fails. |
| Whether Appellant’s §1983 claims against Merrill and Breckenridge survive | State-created danger or special relationship theories apply to Merrill due to supervision and information withholding. | No special relationship or state-created danger; IEP supervision ended before the assault; acts at Breckenridge are not applicable to Merrill's duty. | §1983 claims are dismissed. |
| Whether Appellant’s §1985 conspiracy claims survive | MacLennan and Breckenridge Defendants conspired to purge records and avoid expulsion to disadvantage Jane. | No demonstrable discriminatory animus or shared conspiratorial objective; rational business/avoidance of litigation is a legitimate motive. | §1985 claim is summarily dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (three-prong Title IX standard for peer harassment damages; deliberate indifference requires school control)
- Soper v. Hoben, 195 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 1999) (summarizes Davis and the necessity of deprivation of access to educational opportunities)
- Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1992) (requirements for showing class-based discriminatory animus and conspiracy claims)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1971) (requires specific conspiratorial objective for §1985 claims)
- Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. School Dist., 647 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2011) (negligence not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference; evidence-based standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issue of material fact)
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Arkwright-Boston Mfg. Mut. Ins. Co., 53 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine dispute)
- Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (state-created danger framework constrained to special risk scenarios)
- Vakan? (Vakilian v. Shaw), 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (conspiracy claims under §1985 require discriminatory animus and an actionable conspiracy)