LIABILITY
Title IX
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH TITLE IX CLAIMS?
Case citation: A.W. v. Humble ISD, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2014 WL2611810 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
Summary: Mary King–White is the mother of A.W. who attended school in the Humble Independent School District. The parent alleged that between 2009 and 2011, while A.W. was a student at Humble High School, A.W. was sexually molested on multiple occasions by her same-sex dance teacher. She claimed that the abuse began in the spring of 2009 when A.W. was 16 years old, and continued until 2011 when A.W. graduated from Humble High School. The parent alleged that when the abuse began the teacher instructed A.W. to remain quiet, and A.W. remained quiet. The mother claimed that as a result of the abuse, A.W.’s grades changed, A.W. withdrew from her classmates and dance teammates, and that with King–White’s consent, A.W. went to live in the teacher’s home. The parent also alleged that the teacher spent excessive amounts of time with A.W. behind closed doors, and that the woman took A.W. on personal trips during the school day and on out-of-town trips during which she and A.W. would share a room and a bed.
After A.W. graduated from Humble High School, the teacher allegedly called A.W. on the phone and stalked A.W. Eventually A.W. told a former dance instructor about what had happened. After the dance instructor reported A.W.’s story to school authorities, the teacher was allegedly arrested and plead guilty to an improper relationship with a student.
The parent and A.W. filed suit against the district, the teacher and a number of other school officials for violations of the student’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, and violations of Title IX. The suit alleged that the school officials observed signs of sexual abuse but did nothing. The lawsuit also included state law tort claims for sexual assault and battery, negligence and gross negligence, bystander recovery, and infliction of emotional distress. The district and school officials other than the teacher sought dismissal of the suit.
Ruling: The trial court dismissed the suit against the district and the school officials, other than the teacher who allegedly was involved in the relationship with A.W. The trial court first dismissed the Title IX claim that the parent asserted on her own behalf because she did not allege facts to support a claim for past or future medical expenses in the care of A.W., which is a valid claim for parents under Title IX. In addition, the mother could not serve as “next friend” of A.W., because A.W. had already reached the age of majority. The trial court next dismissed Title IX claims against the individual school officials, because claims based on Title IX are not actionable against individual school employees.
Dismissal was also warranted for Title IX claims of race discrimination because Title IX does not prohibit race discrimination. Similarly, Title IX does not establish liability for a district’s alleged failure to adopt sexual harassment policies. The trial court observed that claims attacking district policy do not establish the requisite actual notice and deliberate indifference for liability under Title IX.
The trial court also determined that Title IX is governed by a two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiffs did not dispute that all the abuse described in the complaint occurred more than two years before they filed suit, or that A.W. had reached the age of 18 by the spring of 2011. The allegations contained in suit showed that A.W. had both knowledge of the alleged injury and knowledge of the causal link between the alleged injury and the district from the moment the injury began but did not report the injury. Thus, the student’s claims accrued more than two years before suit was filed. The trial court, therefore, held that the Title IX claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
The trial court also concluded that the lawsuit failed to allege sufficient facts to state a viable Title IX claim against the district. The suit contained no allegations of fact capable of proving that while A.W. was a student at Humble High School any specific person apart from the perpetrating teacher, had actual knowledge that she and A.W. had a sexual relationship. Instead, the lawsuit merely recited the elements of a Title IX cause of action and asserted that “School Officials” had “actual notice” of “the inappropriate relationship.” The trial court found this insufficient to state a valid Title IX claim.
The trial court, likewise, dismissed the equal protection and due process claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the district because the mother and daughter failed to state a policy, custom, or practice of the district for any alleged constitutional deprivation. In addition, they did not allege facts capable of proving a pattern of constitutional violations that would have made it obvious to the district’s board of trustees that different policies, training, supervision, or discipline were needed to prevent teachers from sexually abusing students. Thus, plaintiffs’ allegations of fact were insufficient to state a § 1983 claim against the district based on their assertions that it maintained a custom or practice of providing less protection to same-sex female assault victims or of deliberately ignoring acts of teacher-student sexual misconduct. The individual school officials, other than the perpetrating teacher, were also entitled to dismissal based upon qualified immunity because the suit did not state facts suggesting that any of them knew of the harassment.
With respect to the state law claims asserted against the district, the trial court held that the district was entitled to sovereign immunity. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, the only permissible tort claim against a school district is a claim based on misuse of a motor vehicle. Because the allegations did not involve the negligent use of a motor vehicle, the state law claims against the district were without merit. In addition, the state law claims against the individual school officials were subject to dismissal under the Tort Claims Act election of remedies provision, which prohibits plaintiffs from suing both a governmental entity and its employees for tort claims. The trial court dismissed all claims against the school district and school officials, other than the teacher allegedly involved with the student.
Comments: It is not sufficient for plaintiffs to allege that “school officials knew and were deliberately indifferent.” Those are conclusions—not factual allegations. The plaintiff here failed to identify specific facts to show which school officials knew about this relationship, and how they were deliberately indifferent to it.