Unanimous Supreme Court Allows Suit Against School for Its Failure to Properly Respond to Student-on-Student Sexual Harassment
Yesterday the Supreme Court unanimously held that students who are sexually harassed in school may bring a claim under Title IX and under Section 1983 of the civil rights laws. Thus, the Supreme Court resolved a split in the circuits (the intermediate appellate courts) in favor of allowing civil rights suits to go forward. This pro-plaintiff decision was a surprise from the current Supreme Court.
In Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 2009 WL 128173 (U.S. 2009), the parents of a kindergarten student reported to the school that their daughter was bullied and sexually harassed by a third grader on the school bus. They told the school that the older child made their daughter pull up her dress, pull down her underpants and spread her legs. The parents were not satisfied when the school suggested transferring their daughter to a different bus, feeling that the proposed solution would punish the wrong child.
The parents sued the school district, claiming that its response was inadequate, bringing claims under Title IX (the federal law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in schools which receive federal funds) and Section 1983 (a federal civil rights law which confers a private right of action for Constitutional violations). The lower courts threw out the claim on summary judgment, finding 1) the school district’s response was reasonable under Title IX; and 2) that the parents could not sue for gender discrimination under Section 1983, because that civil rights law was preempted by Title IX.
The Supreme Court held that Title IX did not preempt Section 1983 because of the limits in Title IX’s enforcement mechanisms. The Court then held that the parents would be permitted to make the argument on remand that the school engaged in discriminatory treatment in the investigation of student behavior.
This opinion is significant because it makes clear that students who claim discrimination on the basis of gender have a private right to sue for damages under Section 1983. On a broader scale, this case seems to indicate that the Supreme Court may be backing off the very narrow interpretations of civil rights laws which have marked some decisions in recent years. My theory is that the Supreme Court -- made up of nine human beings -- may be just a bit influenced by the more progressive direction of national opinion these days. This case is good news for plaintiffs with civil rights cases.