Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14313
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sanches, a Creekview High student and occasional cheerleader in the district, alleged Title IX harassment by J.H. in 2008-2009.
- In March 2008 J.H. was suspended for Facebook photos; administrator notification followed and conference was arranged.
- During tryouts in April 2008, Creekview restructured practice and Clinic week; senior girls were disciplined, nine of ten varsity cheerleaders quit, and Sanches ultimately did not make the varsity squad.
- From May to August 2008 Laningham (Sanches’s mother) filed grievances alleging harassment and inequitable treatment; district investigations occurred with conflicting statements and no discipline of J.H.
- Sanches began psychiatric treatment over the summer; grades declined junior year but improved senior year; she claimed emotional distress tied to harassment.
- In September 2008 Sanches sued the district, asserting Title IX harassment and retaliation, and §1983 claims; the magistrate granted summary judgment for the district on harassment and retaliation, which the district court adopted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.H.'s conduct was sex-based harassment under Title IX | Sanches asserts conduct was based on sex and actionable. | Harassment was not based on sex; it was personal/peer bullying. | No; conduct not sex-based and not actionable under Title IX. |
| Whether the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively unreasonable | Harassment was severe and pervasive enough to violate Title IX. | Harassment was not severe, pervasive, or objectively unreasonable. | No; conduct did not meet the standard establishing Title IX liability. |
| Whether the district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment | District sham investigations and policy deviation show deliberate indifference. | Investigations were not clearly unreasonable; district followed procedures. | No; district actions were not clearly unreasonable or deliberately indifferent. |
| Whether there is a Title IX retaliation claim | Leadabrand aligned with J.H. to harass Sanches and retaliate for her complaints. | No adverse action tied to Sanches's complaints; actions were neutral or unrelated. | No; summary judgment for district on retaliation. |
| Whether §1983 Equal Protection claim lies | Harassment results from district policy/practice of deliberate indifference. | No sex-based harassment and no evidence of deliberate indifference. | No; §1983/Equal Protection claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (establishes Title IX standard for peer harassment by requiring deliberate indifference)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (recognizes single-sex-based harassment as potentially actionable)
- Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (limits Title IX harassment liability to conduct grounded in sex)
- Rost ex rel. K.C. v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. Dist., 511 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2008) (discusses school district responsibility for investigations under Title IX)
- Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs., 551 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (relevant to school response and assessment of harassment claims)
- Doe v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 604 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2010) (cited for harassment/response considerations in Title IX context)