235 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Two tenth-grade girls (S.G. and J.G.) were sexually assaulted by two male students (D.B. and E.E.) during an unsupervised math class at Friendship Collegiate Academy (a D.C. public charter school) on May 19, 2015.
- Classroom doors were locked and windows covered; the teacher was absent and no substitute or hall monitor was present. Other students did not intervene.
- The victims disclosed the incidents the next day to a mentor, who reported to school officials; parents were notified and the school said it would investigate and consider suspension/arrest of the perpetrators.
- Plaintiffs allege the school’s investigation and coordination with MPD were inadequate, no discipline was imposed, and the victims and their families suffered continued harassment and emotional and educational harm.
- Plaintiffs (the girls’ mothers) sued the Charter School, its corporate owner, and the CEO under Title IX (discrimination and retaliation), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection), and D.C. tort law (gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress).
- The court, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, denied dismissal of the Title IX deliberate-indifference claim and allowed gross-negligence claims limited to post-report conduct; it dismissed Title IX retaliation, both § 1983 claims, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — deliberate indifference to peer sexual harassment | School’s inadequate response after notice (failed investigation, no discipline or protection) amounted to deliberate indifference that denied access to education | School took remedial steps (investigation, MPD involvement, considered suspension/arrest, accommodations) so response was not clearly unreasonable | Denied dismissal — plaintiffs adequately pleaded deliberate indifference as to post‑report conduct |
| Title IX — retaliation | Reporting the assaults was protected activity; school’s failure to investigate/stop subsequent harassment was retaliatory adverse action | No causal link shown between reporting and alleged adverse actions | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead causation for retaliation |
| § 1983 — equal protection against school/corporation/CEO | School actors were state actors; the school had policies/customs or failures (training/supervision) causing constitutional deprivation; CEO liable individually | Insufficient allegations of a policy/custom causing violation; CEO had no personal involvement | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead a Monell policy/custom or personal participation by CEO |
| D.C. torts — gross negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress | School’s pre- and post-incident failures constitute gross negligence and created zone of danger causing serious emotional harm | Pre-incident omissions do not rise to gross negligence; defendants immune from ordinary negligence | Gross negligence claim survives but limited to defendants’ conduct after the May 19 report; negligent infliction claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX permits damages where recipient is deliberately indifferent to known peer sexual harassment that denies access to education)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (retaliation for complaining of sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Public Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (1992) (Title IX implies a private right of action for damages)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (recognizing implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal or institutional liability under § 1983 requires a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability may attach for failure to train when deliberate indifference shows a policy causing constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)