Victoria Johnson v. North Idaho College, 278 P.3d 928

Johnson, a student at North Idaho College (NIC), alleges instructor Friis sexually harassed her starting Spring 2004 and NIC is vicariously liable under IHRA.
After a grade issue, Johnson’s 2005 report led NIC to launch an internal investigation; the Sexual Harassment Advisory Committee found policy violations but no retaliatory grading, and Friis resigned rather than be terminated.
Johnson filed suit in state court in 2006; NIC removed to federal court, where summary judgment was granted against Johnson on most claims; Ninth Circuit remanded for correct IHRA analysis.
Back in state court, NIC moved for summary judgment; after initial denial, NIC sought reconsideration under Rule 11(a)(2)(B), and the district court granted summary judgment in 2011.
The district court held there were no genuine issues of material fact and that NIC could rely on the Faragher/Ellerth defense; Johnson appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the reconsideration order proper?	Johnson contends the district court abused discretion by granting reconsideration without new facts.	NIC argues reconsideration was appropriate to re-evaluate interlocutory order with potentially new material.	Yes; reconsideration proper under Rule 11(a)(2)(B).
Does IHRA permit respondeat superior in educational discrimination?	IHRA should be interpreted like Title VII, allowing employer liability for a supervisor's harassment.	NIC asserts IHRA mirrors Title VII, including agency liability for educational settings.	IHRA permits respondeat superior in educational discrimination.
Are there genuine issues about Friis’ conduct within scope of employment and NIC’s liability defense?	Evidence could show supervisor conduct within course scope and that NIC failed to prevent harm.	The district court properly treated course-of-employment issue as subsumed by the Faragher/Ellerth defense.	No genuine issues; Faragher/Ellerth defense applies.
Was Johnson's delay in reporting unreasonable under Faragher/Ellerth?	Johnson delayed reporting due to fear of retaliation and ongoing course implications.	Delay was unreasonable; no tangible threats explained the delay, and reasonable care required timely reporting.	Delay deemed unreasonable as a matter of law.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (two-element Faragher/Ellerth defense for employer liability)
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 764 (U.S. 1998) (employer may avoid liability absent tangible action via affirmative defense)
Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1993) (employment framework applied to harassment context)
Cooper d'Alene Mining Co. v. First National Bank of North Idaho, 118 Idaho 812, 800 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1990) ( Rule on reconsideration and new facts in interlocutory orders)
Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, 480 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2007) (unreasonable reporting delay under Faragher framework)
Mota v. Univ. of Texas Health Sci. Ctr., 261 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2001) (exception to reporting delay when credibility/security threats exist)
Barling v. Keating, 100 Idaho 808, 606 P.2d 458 (Idaho 1979) (parallelism between IHRA and Title VII in education context)