Pamela Campbell v. Dundee Cmty. Sch.
661 F. App'x 884
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jane Doe, a middle-school basketball player, had a secret sexual relationship with coach Richard Neff from summer 2009 until discovery on April 23, 2010; Neff was later criminally convicted.
- The relationship included repeated sexual contact at school (equipment room, team bus) and frequent inappropriate texting/calls; Doe and Neff successfully concealed it from others.
- Parents complained about Neff sitting in back of the bus and favoring Doe; Athletic Director Carner warned Neff to stop those behaviors but testified he did not think Neff was acting sexually inappropriately.
- Superintendent Nelson and Carner were notified only after the janitor discovered Neff and Doe in a school closet; they called police/CPS and Neff was arrested.
- Plaintiff Pamela Campbell sued under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Michigan law against Dundee Community Schools, West Educational Leasing (PCMI), Carner, and Nelson; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on federal claims and dismissed remaining state claims without prejudice.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, holding no reasonable jury could find actual notice or deliberate indifference by school officials and that non-recipient and individual liability under Title IX is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school district liable under Title IX for teacher’s sexual abuse | School had notice of risky conduct (texts, bus seating, favoritism, parent complaints) and was deliberately indifferent | No actual notice of sexual abuse; complaints addressed team dynamics and protocol, not sexual misconduct | Affirmed: no Title IX liability — no actual notice or deliberate indifference by officials |
| Whether individual school officials (Nelson, Carner) are liable under Title IX | Officials should be liable for permitting a hostile environment through inaction | Title IX imposes liability only on funding recipients, not individuals | Affirmed: individuals not liable under Title IX |
| Whether non-recipient (West Educational Leasing/PCMI) can be liable under Title IX | PCMI employed athletic staff and conducted background checks, so should be liable | PCMI did not receive federal funds or control harassment context | Affirmed: PCMI not liable under Title IX (not a federal-funds recipient; lacked control) |
| Whether school/District or officials liable under §1983 (Monell/qualified immunity) | District/custom or supervisory acquiescence led to constitutional deprivation; officials knowingly acquiesced | No policy/custom caused abuse; no evidence officials knew or implicitly approved conduct; qualified immunity applies | Affirmed: no Monell liability; officials entitled to summary judgment (no knowledge/acquiescence; protected by qualified immunity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams ex rel. Hart v. Paint Valley Local Sch. Dist., 400 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2005) (recognizes monetary damages under Title IX for student sexual abuse by teacher)
- Soper v. Hoben, 195 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 1999) (Title IX liability limited to federal-funds recipients)
- National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999) (benefiting economically from federal funds does not make entity a recipient for Title IX liability)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (recipient liable under Title IX only for deliberate indifference to known harassment by a school official)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX requires actual notice to an official with authority and deliberate indifference)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal/agency liability under §1983 requires a policy or custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework requires clearly established right)
- Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff bears burden to show officials not entitled to qualified immunity)
- Vance v. Spencer Cty. Pub. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000) (recipient liable under Title IX only for deliberate indifference that causes or makes students vulnerable to harassment)
- Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2006) (certain inappropriate conduct short of sexual activity does not give actual notice of sexual harassment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary judgment standard requires viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1984) (supervisory liability requires implicit authorization, approval, or knowing acquiescence)