A case that raised an interesting question about a school's liability under Title IX for students' sexual abuse in an extracurricular program run by non-employee was instead resolved in the school's favor on other grounds this week.
For many years, male student-athletes in the Liberal, Kansas, public schools availed themselves of an extracurricular weight training programs run by John Aubrey. Aubrey's program ran out of his home, though he was given access to school facilities for the purpose of conducting weigh-ins. Students allege that Aubrey abused them in various ways, including questionably massages, "sex talks," instructing one student to practice putting on a condom, encouraging students to masturbate, and having boys watch sex videos. Three students, including the one who initially reported Aubrey's conduct, filed suit against both Aubrey and the Liberal School District, claiming among other things that the school district is liable under Title IX for its deliberate indiffernce to the sexual abuse that was taking place under the auspices of a school-sanctioned program. But the court did not reach the interesting question of whether a schools' liability under Title IX even potentially applies a weight training program that is not run by a school employee, but that is apparently endorsed by the school and which provides school access for at least some part of the program. Rather, the district court granted the school district's motion for summary judgment on this issue because of the absence of evidence that the school knew about Aubrey's misconduct while it was ongoing. Once the student reported it, Aubrey's weight training program was curtailed and no further abuse occurred.
A related claim Title IX claim, however, did survive the district's summary judgment motion. The student who reported Aubrey's misconduct suffered ongoing harassment at the hands of his peers as a result, to which he alleged the district failed to adequately respond. The court agreed with the plaintiff that this claim is viable, since the facts alleged would, if proven, satisfy the standard of liability under Title IX.
Moreover, the court denied the school district's efforts to dispose of the plaintiffs' claims under state law that the district is vicariously liable for Aubrey's tortious conduct and that the district itself was negligent in its supervision and "hiring" of Mr. Aubrey. Those claims will, barring settlement, proceed to trial.
Decision is: C.T. v. Liberal School District, 2008 WL 2358667 (D. Kan. June 10, 2008).
An interdisciplinary resource for news, legal developments, commentary, and scholarship about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded schools.
Showing posts with label Kansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kansas. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
Kansas School District Settles Sexual Harassment Case for $45K
Unified School District No. 259 in Witchita, Kansas, will pay $45,000 to two high school students in settlement of their claims that the District was deliberately indifferent to ongoing instances of sexual harassment by a male classmate. According to the complaint, the male student called them and approached them to make rude, violent, and sexually suggestive comments, that on various occaisions he exposed himself to the girls and attempted to make her touch him, and that he was physically abusive of them. At one point they received a protective order from the police. But, they alleged, school officials were dismissive of their attempts to report this harassment on a daily basis. According to the District, it settled to avoid litigation costs, not as an admission of liability. The District disputed some of the girls' claims that they reported harassment and characterized the girls' relationship with the boy as friendly, suggesting that some of the alleged harassment was actually consensual. However, the District reports that it has changed its sexual harassment policies and appointed a staff member to coordinate Title IX matters.
Case is: Doe v. Unified School District No. 259, 05-CV-1151-JTM
Complaint: 2005 WL 2453748 (D. Kan., Aug. 30, 2005)
Case is: Doe v. Unified School District No. 259, 05-CV-1151-JTM
Complaint: 2005 WL 2453748 (D. Kan., Aug. 30, 2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bad investigations
The more I learn about the ins and outs of Title IX (and Title VI) investigations, the more pessimistic I become about the ability of these...
-
Three former employees of Feather River College (Quincy, California) pressed their Title IX retaliation claims at a two-week hearing before...
-
The NCAA has come out with a very clear position on sexual relationships between coaches and student-athletes. They are wrong. They are a ...
-
In one of the more curious things I have seen in regard to Title IX rule-making, the Department of Energy is attempting to issue a change t...