648 F.3d 860
8th Cir.2011Background
- Wolfe, a former Fayetteville School District student, sued for Title IX sexual harassment against the district after leaving school in 2008.
- District court denied summary judgment; case proceeded to trial with a twelve-member jury; Wolfe and the District both sought jury instructions on Title IX.
- Jury returned a verdict for the District; Wolfe moved for a new trial; district court denied the motion.
- Wolfe alleged the jury instructions misstated the law and that the twelve-member jury improperly increased his burden of persuasion.
- Wolfe contends the harassment was sex-based; the school argued incidents were bullying not sex discrimination and that it acted appropriately.
- The district court’s verdict and post-trial rulings were reviewed on appeal, with Wolfe challenging instruction No. 9–10 and the jury size.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instructions properly required sex-based motivation | Wolfe argues the instruction added an unnecessary element, requiring sex-based motivation. | FSD argues the instruction correctly states Title IX deliberate indifference standard including sex-based motive. | Instruction proper; sex-based motivation required |
| Whether Wolfe was entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case | Wolfe asserts Rahn supports giving his theory on harassment as sex-based discrimination. | District court did not abuse discretion; proposed theory misstates law and is not supported by Oncale/Davis. | Court did not abuse discretion; no entitlement to theory instruction |
| Whether empaneling twelve jurors violated Rule 48 | Wolfe contends more jurors increase his burden to obtain a unanimous verdict. | Rule 48 allows 6–12 jurors; twelve is permissible and not error here. | Twelve-member jury upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1998) (sex-based harassment requires discrimination because of sex)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Supreme Court, 1999) (school liability for known harassment with deliberate indifference)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court, 1998) (actual knowledge and deliberate indifference standards for school liability)
- Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (Eighth Cir., 2001) (a framework for discrimination claims under Title IX context)
- Contemporary Indus. Corp. v. Frost, 564 F.3d 981 (Eighth Cir., 2009) (statutory interpretation guiding 'on the basis of sex' concept)
- Kalich v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 712 (E.D. Mich., 2010) (interpretation of 'on the basis of sex' including motive element)
- Weitz Co. v. MH Wash., 631 F.3d 510 (Eighth Cir., 2011) (standard for evaluating jury instructions and fair submission of issues)