876 F. Supp. 2d 235
W.D.N.Y.2012Background
- A.P. is a seventeen-year-old student with Asperger’s Syndrome attending Hilton Central High School during the 2009-2010 year.
- Plaiintiffs allege daily harassment of A.P. by classmates in Basic Electronics and later Construction class based on disability and perceived sexuality.
- The harassment included explicit slurs, sexual comments, objects thrown, and disruptive classroom conduct from September 2009 to May 2010.
- Plaintiffs notified multiple District employees (Bartalo, Helmer, Frey, MacDonald, Cowey) of harassment; initial assurances to investigate were not followed by sustained action.
- Frey intermittently accompanied A.P. to class but stopped; A.P.’s grades declined and he could not complete exams; plaintiffs sought outside examination administration and alternative programs, ultimately seeking damages beyond IDEA remedies.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend; the court granted the amendment, and separately, the District’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA/Section 504 deliberate indifference standard | A.P. experienced disability-based harassment; District failure to act constitutes discrimination | Need for specific causation by disability and lack of adequate notice/response | ADA/504 claims survive for deliberate indifference |
| Title IX gender-based harassment claim | Harassment was gender-based and severe enough to affect education | Harassment not clearly based on male gender; language involved disability/sexual orientation | Title IX claim dismissed for lack of evidence of harassment based on male gender |
| Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim | Male gender harassed students received different protection | No plausible facts showing similarly situated comparators or protected-status discrimination | Equal protection claim dismissed |
| State-law claims vs. district and individuals; notice requirements | Claims include negligence and civil rights claims against District and individuals | Notice requirements and inapplicability of certain NY statutes to schools | State-law claims against individuals dismissed; some claims against District survive (negligence, negligent hiring/supervision, Civil Rights Law §§ 40-c, 40-d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (holding deliberate indifference standard for peer harassment under Title IX/Section 504)
- Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard applicable to harassment in school context)
- S.S. v. Eastern Kentucky Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008) (applies deliberate indifference approach to ADA/Section 504 peer harassment)