412 F. App'x 517
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs A.R., an African-American student, and her mother Whitfield, sue Notre Dame Middle School alleging Title VI, Title IX, and §1981 discrimination.
- District Court granted summary judgment on all counts; district court found no individual liability under Title VI, no Title IX discrimination, and no §1981 discriminatory intent.
- Incidents at NDMS include May 19, 2006 lunch harassment by a Caucasian student, leading to a one-day in-school suspension for the other student and a racial-sensitivity program implemented afterward.
- April 30, 2007 comments by a student implying A.R. would look black if she did not shower; the students met with the principal and D.V. apologized.
- May 7, 2007 multiple classmates asked to touch A.R.’s arm and J.P. scratched A.R., resulting in J.P.’s two-day out-of-school suspension; A.R. required emergency room treatment.
- A.R. transferred to a different school after the 2007-2008 year; other reported incidents and complaints occurred through 2008; plaintiffs amended complaint in January 2008 and appealed after summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is individual liability under Title VI. | A.R. and Whitfield argue individuals can be sued under Title VI. | NDMS and officials liability is not personal under Title VI. | No; individual liability under Title VI is not allowed. |
| Whether NDMS created a racially hostile environment under Title VI. | Harassment was severe, pervasive, and systemic; school acted with indifference. | Record shows no severe, pervasive, or systemic harassment and no deliberate indifference. | Fail; hostile environment claim barred as a matter of law. |
| Whether NDMS retaliated under Title VI. | There were retaliatory actions following protected activity. | No adverse actions by the school; insufficient causal link. | Fail; no evidence of adverse action by the funded entity. |
| Whether Title IX discrimination is established since the claim concerns race, not sex. | Race discrimination amounts to sex discrimination claim. | No sex discrimination evidenced in record. | Fail; Title IX claim not supported. |
| Whether §1981 claim survives because of intentional discrimination. | Defendants’ failure to respond shows discriminatory intent. | No evidence of purposeful discrimination; actions not enough. | Fail; no evidence of intentional discrimination under §1981. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003) (no individual liability under Title VI)
- Buchanan v. City of Bolivar, Tenn., 99 F.3d 1352 (6th Cir. 1996) (no individual liability under Title VI)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (standard for school liability in hostile environment cases; deliberate indifference)
- Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (hostile environment framework under Title VI)
- Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No I-38, 334 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2003) (hostile environment standards applied to schools)
- Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) (responsible school action standard for harassment)
- Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) (elements for §1981 discrimination)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (interpretation of parallel claims under Title VI/IX)