Shively v. Green Local School District Board of Education, 579 F. App'x 348

Plaintiffs Lisa and James Shively sue the Green Local School District Board and six district officials under §1983 for gender- and religion-based harassment of their Jewish daughter T.S.
Bullying against T.S. spanned years with verbal, physical, and online abuse; district officials allegedly knew but did not adequately respond or enforce anti-bullying policies.
T.S. endured repeated harassment, including threats, assaults, and a “kill list,” with family notifying school officials, police, and counselors over time.
The district court denied qualified immunity and state-law immunity for the individual defendants on remaining claims; dismissed some constitutional claims and upheld others for Monell, with Monell implications pending.
Defendants appealed, challenging the district court’s Rule 12(c)-style dismissal decisions and asserted immunity, while plaintiffs argued deliberate indifference violated equal protection and due process.
The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on pending claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether each defendant’s own actions violated a constitutional right	Shivelys allege individual actions created or tolerated harassment.	Defendants argue no specific acts by each defendant violated rights.	Yes, per plausibility; some defendants pleaded actionable conduct.
Whether the conduct violated substantive due process under the state-created danger theory	Shivelys allege state-created danger due to inaction amidst known harassment.	Officials argue no clearly established duty or danger increase from inaction.	Partially; district court’s denial of qualified immunity on due process is reversed for lack of clearly established violation.
Whether the conduct violated equal protection through deliberate indifference to gender/religion harassment	Harassment targeted T.S. based on religion and gender; officials were deliberately indifferent.	Defense contends insufficient discriminatory intent or indifference to prove EP violation.	Yes; plaintiffs plausibly alleged deliberate indifference and discriminatory impact.
Whether state-law immunity defeated negligence/malicious actions claims	Shivelys plead wanton/reckless conduct under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6).	Defendants claim statutory immunity bars such claims.	Remand; facts alleged support potential reckless/malicious conduct defeating immunity at this stage.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plausibility pleading required; individual conduct must be stated with specificity)
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools, 551 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (severe, persistent harassment; inadequate response can be unlawful)
Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996) (discriminatory harassment context; deliberate indifference standard cited)
Doe v. Claiborne Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 1996) (school officials may be liable for failing to address harassment)
Cartwright v. City of Marine City, 336 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2003) (failure to act is not an affirmative act under state-created danger theory)
McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schs., 433 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2006) (affirmative act requirement in state-created danger analysis; not mere inaction)