12 A.3d 558
Vt.2010Background
- Plaintiffs and amicus Vermont Human Rights Commission appeal a superior court judgment after a jury verdict for the Addison-Rutland Supervisory Union in a peer harassment case.
- The jury found the two harassed children did not prove harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive enough to deprive them of educational opportunities.
- The Commission argues two jury-instruction errors: (i) the definition of harassment, and (ii) failure to contextualize harassment with age- and circumstance-based factors.
- The court held these preservation issues were not raised properly in the trial court and are thus not reviewable on appeal under Rule 51 and related case law.
- The court declined to apply plain error review in this civil case, distinguishing it from cases involving fundamental rights, and affirmed the judgment.
- Key discussions include how the trial court used the Davis v. Monroe County framework and its relation to Washington v. Pierce and Vermont-specific statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment definition preservation | Definition followed Davis; should not require severe/pervasive/objectively offensive. | Trial court correctly defined harassment using applicable standards. | Not preserved; no review. |
| Contextualization of harassment preservation | Court improperly framed context by invoking Title IX; victims' reactions should be contextualized. | Contextualization language challenged; proper instruction under Vermont law. | Not preserved; no review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Pierce, 179 Vt. 318 (2005 VT 125) (private right of action for peer harassment; definitional standard invoked)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX framework cited in defining harassment standards)
- Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376 (1990) (fundamental rights considerations; preservation stance distinguished)