Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-student's Title IX action, alleging that defendant-school subjected plaintiff to discrimination by failing to intervene when another student subjected plaintiff to severe bullying and harassment on account of her sex, and that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on basis of her sex. While defendant conceded that it had actual knowledge of student's bullying and harassment that was severe and pervasive, plaintiff failed to allege facts indicating that defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's harassment, where: (1) defendant responded promptly to plaintiff's complaints; (2) defendant suspended harasser for three days; and (3) defendant arranged meetings with plaintiff and her parent for purpose of allowing plaintiff to voice her concerns as victim of bullying and offered to have plaintiff change her classroom seat and to facilitate apology from harasser. Moreover, while plaintiff argued that harasser should have been expelled, Title IX liability does not give student victim license to demand particular remedial action. Also, plaintiff's allegations, that defendant fostered environment that discriminated against female students with respect to its dress code and its expectations for female students, failed to identify what program or benefit plaintiff, who was honor student, was not able to access because of dress code or because of defendant's expectations for female students.
Federal 7th Circuit Court