C.S. v. Madison Metropolitan School Dist.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-student’s Title IX action, alleging that she was victim of discrimination based on her gender when school security assistant repeatedly sexually abused her during her 8th grade. Under Title IX, plaintiff was required to show that individual of school district, who had authority to institute corrective action on behalf of district, had actual notice of and was deliberately indifferent to teacher’s misconduct. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish such actual knowledge with respect to alleged misconduct during plaintiff’s 8th grade, where relevant principal had no knowledge, either actual or otherwise, of security assistant’s alleged misconduct. Plaintiff, though, argued that school principal was aware of security assistant conduct during plaintiff’s 7th grade, where principal received reports that security assistant was rubbing backs/shoulders of students from both genders, and that plaintiff had frequently asked security assistant for hugs and had attempted to kiss him on more than one occasion. However, plaintiff could not base Title IX claim on 7th grade conduct, where record showed that principal was not deliberately indifferent to reports of misconduct, where principal told security assistant during plaintiff’s 7th grade to limit his physical contact with plaintiff, to avoid interacting with plaintiff in private settings and to set strong boundaries, and principal neither subsequently observed nor received reports of further concerns about plaintiff’s relationship with security assistant for duration of plaintiff’s 7th grade. Ct. emphasized that school official acquires notice of misconduct only upon learning that misconduct arose to level of sexual harassment.