Federal Court Addresses Title IX

Posted on October 14, 2024

Important Takeaways: A federal court in Montana has applied the 9^th Circuit test to determine if a school is liable under Title IX for student-on-student conduct. Where the parents bringing the lawsuit could not prove that the student had been denied educational opportunities because of a sexual assault, the Title IX claims against the school were dismissed.

Facts: Dan Ohl and Theresa Ohl (the Parents) filed a lawsuit alleging Malta Public Schools (MPS) had violated Title IX.

R.O. and G.C. were both 4^th grade students at MPS. G.C. grabbed R.O.’s testicles and pulled on them in the bathroom at school. According to R.O., this caused him pain and embarrassment. The Parents filed a complaint with MPS after learning of the incident. MPS investigated the incident and found the allegations were more likely than not true. MPS determined a sexual assault had occurred which caused R.O. emotional and physical harm. G.C. was removed from the educational environment for the rest of the year and attended a different school. The school G.C. started attending co-ops with MPS for football. The Parents were concerned that G.C. would interact with R.O. during football.

R.O. participated in football but started having behavioral problems in class that his Parents alleged resulted in bullying. R.O.’s grades dropped, and he was removed from the football team, which his Parents alleged resulted in more bullying.

The Court explained that a school can be liable under Title IX for student-on-student harassment if:

1. The school exercises substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs;
2. The student suffers harassment so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victim of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school;
3. The school had actual knowledge of the harassment;
4. The school must have acted with deliberate indifference to the harassment; and
5. The school’s deliberate indifference caused students to undergo harassment or made them liable or vulnerable to it.

MPS agreed the sexual assault in the bathroom constituted sex-based conduct. MPS also conceded that MPS exercised substantial control over G.C. and the physical areas within the school district, including the bathroom in which the assault occurred. The Court applied the 9^th Circuit Court’s definition of “severe and pervasive” under Title VII to determine if the conduct in this case was severe and pervasive. The 9^th Circuit has established that Title IX’s protections and standards are construed consistently with those of Title VII. The Court explained that the 9^th Circuit has determined that in the Title VII context, a single incident of harassment can support a claim of hostile work environment because the frequency of the discriminatory conduct is only one factor in the analysis. For a single incident to suffice, it must be extremely severe.

The Court did not find that the assault was severe and pervasive. The Court must consider a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships, including, but not limited to, the ages of the harasser and the victim and the number of individuals involved. The Court found that even if the conduct had been severe and pervasive, it was not so severe as to deprive R.O. of educational opportunities. A party can show deprivation of educational opportunity or access to educational resources by showing physical deprivation of access to school resources. Deprivation of educational opportunity also occurs where the conduct alleged in the complaint undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience so seriously that it can be said the victim students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities. The Court found that the Parent’s failed to provide a potential link between the quality of the R.O.’s education and the alleged harassment. The Parents failed to show that R.O.’s academic struggles and alleged bullying were due to the assault in the bathroom. There was also no evidence that R.O. was prevented from participating in football as a result of this assault.

The Court found that MPS did have knowledge of G.C.’s prior sexually harassing and inappropriate behavior. Deliberate indifference exists only where the school’s response to the harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. The Court found that the Parents could not show MPS acted with deliberate indifference. There was nothing in the complaint to show that MPS failed to act.

The Court dismissed the Parents’ claims because they failed to plead sufficient facts supporting any potential connection between the sexual assault and R.O.’s access to educational opportunities.

What this means: In the 9^th Circuit, where Montana is located, a school can only be held liable under Title IX for student-on-student conduct if the above factors are satisfied. One incident may be enough to constitute severe and pervasive, but it must also deny the student educational opportunities. It is also important that schools are not indifferent when they know a student has a history of misconduct.

Ohl v. Malta Public School District 14A, United States District Court for the District of Montana, September 30, 2024.

Please contact Bea, Megan, Kevin, Beth, or Kali if you have any questions.