Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger County, 819 F.3d 834

Background

DS, a middle-school student, and his mother (Stiles) reported repeated name-calling, pushing, and several physical assaults by different classmates at Rutledge Middle School during 7th–8th grades (2010–2012).
School officials (principal Blanken, assistant principal Jones, disciplinary supervisor Combs) and part-time school resource officer/police chief McGinnis investigated multiple complaints, interviewed students/teachers, reviewed video where available, disciplined some students (warnings, in‑school suspensions), and adjusted class placements and monitoring plans.
The most serious incident occurred Jan. 17, 2012: a bathroom attack by two students after which DS transferred schools; prior incidents included alleged rib and vertebral injuries from playground/gym episodes.
Plaintiffs sued the Grainger County Board of Education and individual officials under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection, substantive due process, supervisory and municipal liability), claiming deliberate indifference to sex‑based/sexual‑orientation harassment.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims; the Sixth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms, holding Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate indifference or any cognizable constitutional deprivation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Title IX liability of Board (deliberate indifference to sexual harassment)	Board and administrators were deliberately indifferent to severe, pervasive sex‑based harassment depriving DS of educational benefits	Administrators promptly investigated each report, disciplined perpetrators as appropriate, and took preventive steps; responses were not clearly unreasonable	Affirmed: Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate indifference; Title IX claim dismissed
2. § 1983 Equal Protection (gender/sexual‑orientation discrimination)	Defendants treated DS’s complaints differently or ignored harassment because of sex/perceived sexual orientation	No evidence of differential treatment vs. similarly situated students; responses mirror Title IX analysis and were not deliberately indifferent	Affirmed: No disparate treatment evidence and no deliberate indifference
3. § 1983 Substantive Due Process (right to bodily integrity)	School created or increased risk, or had a special‑relationship duty to protect DS	DeShaney rule: no affirmative constitutional duty to protect from private actors; no special relationship or state‑created danger shown	Affirmed: Neither special relationship nor state‑created‑danger established
4. Supervisory liability against Jarnagin and others	Supervisors failed to train/enforce policy, enabling constitutional violations	Supervisory liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by subordinates; none proved here	Affirmed: Supervisory liability fails because no underlying constitutional violation
5. Municipal liability of Board under § 1983	Board maintained a custom of failing to investigate/punish bullying	Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by officials; none exists	Affirmed: No municipal liability without an underlying violation

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (establishes Title IX deliberate‑indifference standard for peer sexual harassment)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (actual notice standard for Title IX funding‑recipient liability)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty to protect from private violence; special‑relationship and state‑created‑danger exceptions)
Vance v. Spencer County, 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir.) (school deliberate‑indifference precedent distinguishing inadequate responses)
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs., 551 F.3d 438 (6th Cir.) (deliberate‑indifference analysis where remedial measures were ineffective)
S.S. v. Eastern Kentucky Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.) (school remedial responses not clearly unreasonable)