120 F.4th 1082
2d Cir.2024Background
- Keith Schiebel, an experienced agriculture educator, brought an educational program, the Mobile Maple Experience, to the Schoharie Central School District (SCSD).
- After the program, a student’s mother reported that her daughter felt uncomfortable with Schiebel during the event. The mother did not seek further action, but SCSD initiated a Title IX investigation.
- Schiebel was not promptly informed of the specific allegations, nor provided documentation or evidence before a brief, hostile meeting with the Title IX coordinator, Kristin DuGuay.
- The investigation largely relied on the complaining student’s accusation, and a single contrary student witness was interviewed. Schiebel speculated he may have reached around a student to get supplies but denied intentional contact.
- SCSD found the allegation substantiated, banned Schiebel and his program, and upheld the findings on appeal, resulting in Schiebel’s job loss and contracts terminated.
- The district court dismissed Schiebel’s Title IX claim, holding that he did not plausibly allege that sex-based bias motivated the erroneous outcome; supplemental state claims were also dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was SCSD deliberately indifferent to the truth or falsity of the allegations against Schiebel in violation of Title IX? | SCSD’s investigation and process were so deficient as to constitute a sham, amounting to deliberate indifference. | Any procedural flaws were harmless because Schiebel’s own words admitted possible contact; no deliberate indifference shown. | SCSD’s process was so procedurally deficient and outcome so dubious that deliberate indifference was plausibly alleged. |
| Did SCSD affirmatively discriminate based on sex via official action under Title IX? | The Title IX coordinator exhibited sex-based bias through hostile conduct and pre-judgment based on gender stereotypes. | Any bias was anti-respondent, not anti-male; the coordinator simply favored complainants generally. | Allegations plausibly support inference of sex-based bias, especially given the coordinator’s comments and conduct. |
| Was the dismissal of the Title IX claim in the district court proper? | Dismissal was erroneous because the complaint satisfied the plausibility threshold for discriminatory intent. | Dismissal was proper for lack of sufficient allegations that sex was a motivating factor. | District court erred; complaint sufficiently pleaded a plausible claim of sex discrimination under Title IX. |
| Should the state law claims have been dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction? | With the federal claim reinstated, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is proper. | N/A | Dismissal of state claims vacated; district court to reconsider exercising supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677 (recognizes private right of action for Title IX violations)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (plaintiff may obtain monetary damages under Title IX for intentional violations)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (damages under Title IX require funding recipient’s intentional discrimination; deliberate indifference standard)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (deliberate indifference applies when recipient has actual notice of discrimination)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (retaliation for complaints about sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX)
- Hayut v. SUNY, 352 F.3d 733 (sex harassment is sex discrimination under Title IX)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (Title IX pleading requirements and plausibility standard)
- Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307 (decisionmaker's gender-based remarks can support inference of discriminatory intent)
- Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., 935 F.3d 20 (procedural deficiencies in disciplinary investigations can support inference of sex-based bias)
- Roe v. St. John’s Univ., 91 F.4th 643 (procedural irregularity plus facts indicating sex bias can support Title IX claim)