Week 3 & 4

Chapter5.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Week 3 & 4

Chapter Five

Student Harassment and Bullying

BACKGROUND

Court decisions highlight that school officials have a responsibility to provide a safe educational environment free from bullying and peer sexual harassment. There is no federal law that directly addresses bullying, but all fifty states have enacted laws to prevent bullying in schools. Bullying often overlaps with harassment. In peer sexual harassment lawsuits, school boards may be liable for monetary damages if they were deliberately indifferent to known acts of peer sexual harassment in the schools. These cases generally involve a Title IX claim, which is a federal law that prohibits discrimi- nation based on sex. In some cases, students with disabilities who have been harassed at school are initiating lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and/ or the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). This lesson plan will focus on how school districts can avoid liability for bully- ing and harassment while providing a safe and welcoming environment for all students.

There are several different clips available on YouTube that discuss harassment and bullying. One very helpful clip can be found at https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=c08oEqvbivo.

If you are unable to access the clip, please read the following summary:

A fourteen- year- old student committed suicide after he experienced severe harassment and bullying from his peers— sometimes in the school hallway. The clip does not discuss whether school officials knew about the harassment. For the purposes of this exercise,

Activator

Motivator

7 Minutes

Schimmel, David, et al. Principals Avoiding Lawsuits : How Teachers Can Be Partners in Practicing Preventive Law, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/franklin-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4821088. Created from franklin-ebooks on 2024-09-06 14:02:40.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c08oEqvbivo

64 Chapter Five

please think about whether there could be school district liability had school officials been aware that other students were bullying him on a daily basis.

Principals will lead a discussion on the video from the YouTube clip. If a YouTube clip is not used, the questions below would still apply to the summary of the clip provided above. Some questions that may guide this discussion include:

• When might school officials be liable in a case involving similar facts? • Would the outcome be different if school officials had knowledge of the harassment?

Rationale

Studies have indicated that as many as 80 percent of students experi- ence some form of sexual harassment in public schools. These statistics are troublesome considering that peer sexual harassment and bullying can have long- term psychological effects on student victims. Indeed,

harassment and bullying are serious problems that may impact some students’ aca- demic achievement and social well- being.

Objectives

Post and/ or state the following objectives for the lesson plan:

1. Teachers will be able to apply the legal standard to real- life situations that occurred in U.S. public schools to determine school board liability for peer harassment.

2. Teachers will be able to avoid school district liability in peer harassment cases that occur in their classrooms.

3. Teachers will become familiar with trends in antibullying state legislation.

The Law

To help teachers understand the laws associated with student harass- ment and bullying, you will have them engage in a Think, Pair, Share activity. To begin, ask teachers to partner (pair up). One partner will get the Davis Case Handout and the other the Students with Disabilities

Handout. Next, ask teachers to read their case individually and to think about what the case means in regard to the law. Then ask teachers to share the case and what they learned and implications with their pair partner. The principals can bring the large group back together and ask volunteers to summarize what they learned.

3 Minutes

20 Minutes

Handout 5.1 Davis Case

The responsibility of school districts to take action against peer sexual harassment was recog- nized in a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The Court explained in Davis that school officials have clear responsibilities to respond to known acts of peer sexual harassment in public schools. When school officials are deliberately indif- ferent to the sexual harassment, school districts can be held financially liable.

Most of the recent peer sexual harassment lawsuits, including the Davis decision, have been based on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Student Harassment and Bullying 65

under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX has been interpreted broadly to cover peer harassment and also covers cases involving teachers harass- ing students. It is important to note that state laws may also address obligations regarding sex discrimination in schools.

In Davis, a fifth- grade female student was allegedly subjected to a prolonged pattern of sexual harassment. According to the complaint, the offending male student attempted to touch LaShonda’s breasts and genital area and made vulgar comments toward her. Additionally, in one incident the male student placed a doorstop in his pants and acted in a sexually aggressive manner with the female student. The female student and her mother notified a coach, several teachers, and the principal about the various incidents of harassment throughout the school year. School officials, however, failed to effectively respond to these complaints and only threat- ened possible action. Based on the female student’s dropping grades and a suicide note, her mother contended that the continued harassment and the school’s failure to respond affected her daughter’s education.

In examining this issue, the Supreme Court established a standard of school district liability for peer sexual harassment under Title IX. In addition to the harassment being based on sex, the following four factors must be present for a school district to be found liable for peer sexual harassment:

1. appropriate school officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment; 2. school officials must have responded with deliberate indifference to the harassment (e.g.,

they did not do anything to stop the harassment or their response was clearly unreasonable); 3. the harassment must have been severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; and 4. the harassment must have had a negative impact on a student’s education.

When applying these four factors in the Davis decision, the Court found the school district to be liable for peer sexual harassment. It is important to note that all four factors must be proven for a school district to be held liable. For example, in this case, a mere drop in grades would have been insufficient to prove that the harassment was actionable. However, in conjunction with the other three factors in this case, the grades provided evidence of a connection between the offender’s conduct and the denial of educational benefits. The plaintiff’s claim also relied on the severity of the harassment and the school’s knowledge of and deliberate indifference to the harassment. It is also important to note that school officials must have control over the harasser and the environment in order to be liable.

Oftentimes in Title IX peer harassment court decisions, the outcome of the case will focus on whether school officials did enough to appropriately respond to the harassment. In a recent case, a male student alleged that he frequently heard inappropriate sexual remarks, was called gay, and experienced another student exposing his genitals, among other offensive acts at the school. School officials responded by rearranging the classroom for the student to avoid the perpetrator as well as suspending the perpetrator on a few occasions (Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 2015). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that school offi- cials took steps to address the harassment and that their actions were not clearly unreasonable.

Handout 5.2 Harassment and Bullying— Students with Disabilities

There is a growing body of litigation involving the harassment and bullying of students with disabilities (Long v. Murray, 2013; Moore v. Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 2014). In addition to the increasing number of lawsuits, the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) has stated that it “has received an ever- increasing number of complaints concerning the bullying of students with disabilities” (p. 1). In response, the USDoE has published two recent letters providing schools with guidance about their responsibility to address disability- based harassment. First, in 2013, the USDoE’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” to address bullying and harassment of students with disabilities receiving

(continued)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

66 Chapter Five

services under IDEA (see http:// www.ed.gov/ policy/ speced/ guid/ idea/ memosdcltrs/ bullyingdcl- 8- 20- 13.doc). The guidance cites research highlighting that students with disabilities are dispro- portionately affected by bullying.

The second recent letter addressing this issue was issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2014 (see http:// www2.ed.gov/ about/ offices/ list/ ocr/ letters/ colleague- bullying- 201410.pdf). In these types of disability- based harassment cases, sometimes a court might apply the Davis standard or instead might apply a different standard and ask whether school officials acted in “bad faith” or engaged in “gross misjudgment” when analyzing disability- based harassment claims. The letter explains that bullying a student with a disability on any basis can result in a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Handout 5.3 Scenarios and the Davis Standard

Scenario Davis Standard

1 Jane, a sixth- grade student, was subjected to severe and continuous harassment. The harassment began when she was referred to as the “German gay girl” (Vance v. Spencer County Public School District, 2000). The harassment continued when another student asked the female student to describe oral sex. Jane was also regularly shoved into walls and her homework was destroyed on several occasions. During one particular bathroom break from class, several boys called Jane names such as whore and bitch. While doing so, two of the boys held her hands and the other grabbed her hair and started yanking her shirt off. One of the boys stated that he wanted to have sex with her. School officials responded to several such complaints from Jane and her mother by speaking with the boys, but their response was not effective. Specifically, the boys were only spoken to and not punished. After they were spoken to, Jane contended that the harassment grew worse.

1. Appropriate school officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment.

2. School officials must have responded with deliberate indifference to the harassment (e.g., they did not do anything to stop the harassment or their response was clearly unreasonable).

3. The harasser’s behavior must have been severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

4. The harassment must have had a negative impact on a student’s education.

Application/ Content to Practice

The principal will split the teachers into groups of three to four. Each group will read and discuss all four scenarios. In so doing, the teach- ers should apply the Davis standard to determine whether the school district would be legally liable for harassment based on sex. Ask the participants to circle all the standards that apply to each case.

15 Minutes

Handout 5.2 (continued)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/bullyingdcl-8-20-13.doc

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-bullying-201410.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/bullyingdcl-8-20-13.doc

Student Harassment and Bullying 67

Scenario Davis Standard

When the harassment continued throughout the following school year, Jane and her mother filed a complaint, pursuant to the school harassment policy. The school claimed that it did not have enough information to investigate. Jane was later diagnosed with depression and withdrew from school. She and her mother then filed a lawsuit against the district. Would the school district be held liable in this situation?

2 Mary, a high school student, was sexually assaulted by two male students (Doe v. East Haven Board of Education, 2006). It took her about three months to report the assault to school officials. After Mary told school officials that she had been sexually assaulted, the boys called her a “slut, a liar, a bitch, a whore,” and other students began to taunt her. Mary and her mother lodged repeated complaints with the superintendent, the principal, and the guidance counselor; the parent felt that the complaints were ignored. Several weeks after receiving the complaints, the school district responded. The school officials argued that they provided the female student with a separate room in the guidance office where she could go if she felt uncomfortable. In the meantime, Mary became withdrawn, missed some school, and had suicidal thoughts. Would the school district be held liable in this situation?

1. Appropriate school officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment.

2. School officials must have responded with deliberate indifference to the harassment (e.g., they did not do anything to stop the harassment or their response was clearly unreasonable).

3. The harasser’s behavior must have been severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

4. The harassment must have had a negative impact on a student’s education.

3 Tom and Sally were high school juniors and classmates. Tom repeatedly asked Sally for a date and she repeatedly refused. After the third request, Sally complained to her teacher, who told Tom to stop bothering Sally. The following week Tom asked again and tried to kiss Sally. As a result, her mother complained to the principal and asked him to move Tom to another class. Instead, the principal called Tom to his office, ordered him to stop harassing Sally, and warned of consequences if he did not. The following week, Tom kissed Sally, who became extremely upset. As a result, she was enrolled in a private school and sued the school district for failing to prevent the harassment. Should the school be held liable?

1. Appropriate school officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment.

2. School officials must have responded with deliberate indifference to the harassment (e.g., they did not do anything to stop the harassment or their response was clearly unreasonable).

3. The harasser’s behavior must have been severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

4. The harassment must have had a negative impact on a student’s education.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

68 Chapter Five

Principals should use the following outcomes for each case to drive the discussion. These key points can also be used as a handout or a presentation slide.

Scenario Davis Standard

4 A student with a disability receiving services under Section 504 and the IDEA experienced harassment and bullying in the classroom on a daily basis throughout her fourth- grade year. A few students in the class frequently referred to her as “retard” and would often knock her books out of her hands when she was in the hallway. During recess, kids would try to trip her and teased her about her thick glasses and stutter. The student’s mother complained to the teacher, who did speak with the perpetrators’ parents on several occasions. When the harassment continued, the mother reached out to both the principal and the superintendent. They held meetings with the student’s teacher to develop ways to keep her safe. Unfortunately, the harassment continued, and on one occasion she was punched in the bathroom. As a result, the mother sued the school district under Title IX and Section 504. Should the school be liable?

1. Appropriate school officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment.

2. School officials must have responded with deliberate indifference to the harassment (e.g., they did not do anything to stop the harassment or their response was clearly unreasonable).

3. The harasser’s behavior must have been severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

4. The harassment must have had a negative impact on a student’s education.

With regard to the disability harassment claim, did school officials act in “bad faith” or engage in “gross misjudgment”?

Handout 5.3 (continued)

Handout 5.4 Case Scenario Outcomes

Scenario Outcome

1 The court ruled in favor of Jane, finding that the sexual harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived her of access to the educational opportunities provided by the school and that school officials had actual knowledge of the harassment and were deliberately indifferent to the harassment. Because of the numerous complaints to several different school officials, the actual notice factor was clearly met. A jury awarded the student $220,000 in this case.

2 The court found that school officials had acted unreasonably because it took them five weeks to address the harassment. The court also noted that school officials failed to take actions other than speaking to the harassers.

3 This scenario is not based on a real case, but the scenario is a common one. In this situation, it may be difficult to prove peer harassment under Title IX. Applying the Davis decision, school officials knew of the harassment but were not deliberately indifferent. It is important to note that even if school officials did not do all that they should have, they still may not be found to be deliberately indifferent if their response was not clearly unreasonable. The third prong of the Davis test will be the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Student Harassment and Bullying 69

FAQ

As time permits, you may add some of these additional questions to the follow- up discussion.

1. The Davis case focused on Title IX. Isn’t Title IX about gender equity? Yes. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds. The court has used Title IX in cases involving discrimination based on sex in both student- to- student sexual harassment cases and teacher- to- student sexual harassment cases. With teacher-to-student sexual harassment, plaintiffs do not need to prove the harassment was severe.

Assessment

Provide each teacher with a 3 × 5 card to assess their understanding. The teachers should complete the following phrases on the back side of each card:

5 Minutes

10 Minutes

Scenario Outcome

most difficult to demonstrate. To illustrate, it is not clear whether the harassment in this case was severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive. It is also unclear if the harassment denied Sally her education. Therefore, it does not appear that there has been a violation of Title IX in this scenario. Nevertheless, school officials should still pay attention and respond to such incidents of harassment.

4 Whether the court applied the Davis standard or asked if school officials acted in “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment,” it seems that school officials did take steps to address the harassment. Although it is questionable as to whether enough was done to address the harassment, some courts have only required that school officials take some reasonable steps to remedy the situation. Likewise, it could be found that school officials did not act in bad faith or display gross misjudgment because they did take steps to address the harassment.

1. My thinking about bullying has changed…

2. I will change my practice regarding student harassment

by…

Figure 5.1 Harassment and Bullying Assessment

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

70 Chapter Five

2. Is same- sex harassment actionable under Title IX? Yes. The guidance from the Office for Civil Rights states that sexual harassment directed at gay and lesbian students is prohibited under Title IX. Specifically, Title IX prohibits harassment that is based on conduct of a sexual nature. Thus, it applies equally if someone is harassed by someone of the same sex or if the victim is gay or lesbian.

3. How do the courts define deliberate indifference and the other factors required to prove liability for peer harassment? Prior to the Davis decision it was not clear whether school officials could be liable at all for peer sexual harassment. After the decision, there is much more guidance in this area. Although the Davis decision offers some guidance regarding the four factors discussed above, there has been some confusion in interpreting the precise meaning of the factors. For example, which school official needs to have “actual knowledge” of the harassment? Generally a school official, who has the author- ity to address the harassment, will suffice. Or what constitutes deliberate indif- ference? Some courts have found school officials to be deliberately indifferent when their response is “clearly unreasonable.” What may be considered clearly unreasonable is not always clear, however. Finally, when is a harasser’s behav- ior considered “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” enough to require action? When determining the severity, courts generally consider the totality of the circumstances.

4. Does Title IX apply in lawsuits where a teacher harasses a student? Yes. In order for a school district to be liable for this type of harassment, the school officials must have known about the harassment and must have been deliberately indifferent in responding to the harassment. Even if the school is not liable, the teacher may be found criminally guilty for student harassment.

5. What is the legal standard when an administrator harasses a teacher? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the legal standard used in these types of cases. Title VII requires school officials to address the sexual harassment of employees. The sexual harassment against employees usually falls under quid pro quo harassment or a hostile work environment. Quid pro quo refers to giving some- thing in order to receive something. For example, a teacher may be promised to be appointed department head in return for sexual favors. A hostile work environment refers to a severely hostile environment that interferes with a teacher’s work per- formance. For example, when an administrator’s sexual remarks are severe enough to negatively impact the working environment, the court would find a hostile work environment.

6. How can school officials avoid harassment in schools? School districts should create clear sexual harassment policies that provide specific procedures. In addition to promptly dealing with claims of peer sexual harassment, school districts should implement preventive measures, and school administrators and their staff members should ensure that they know and follow those guide- lines. To do so, school districts should clearly define peer sexual harassment in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Student Harassment and Bullying 71

student handbooks and share the information with parents. These policies should be discussed to encourage students to report peer harassment immediately to the appropriate school official who is trained in the complaint procedure and has the authority to take corrective action.

In addition to handbooks, school districts should provide in- service sessions for faculty and staff members and hold assemblies for students to review complaint procedures. Within the training sessions, it is also important for faculty and stu- dents to learn what sexual harassment is, what it is not, what its effect is, and how to effectively respond to the harassment. Finally, lessons on sexual harassment could be incorporated into the curriculum. It is important not to overreact and to be conscious of the rights of the accused.

Supplementary Section

We anticipate that teachers may have several Title IX- related questions (e.g., athlet- ics, single- sex classrooms) that were not covered in this lesson plan. Thus, we have included several examples of other frequently asked questions related to Title IX. Principals should use this supplementary section if time permits.

1. Does Title IX encourage school districts to cut boys’ teams? No. Although some have argued that Title IX requires the elimination of male teams in order to achieve equity in athletics in school. Instead, facility limitations and budgetary concerns put heavy pressure on educational institutions to cut back their athletic programs, which in some cases results in the loss of male teams in order to move toward gender equity.

2. May girls play on boys’ teams or boys play on girls’ teams? Title IX allows separate teams for girls and boys but does not require it. Separate teams are often created due to differences in physical characteristics and sports preference. Under Title IX, school districts must offer equal athletic opportunities through separate or integrated teams. Although Title IX only allows girls to try out for noncontact boys’ teams, states’ Equal Rights Amendments usually allow girls to also try out for contact sports when there is no girls’ team.

3. What if the boys’ baseball team gets new uniforms every year and plays its games on a nice field, but the girls’ softball team only gets new uniforms every three years and plays its games on a run- down field? This situation would arguably be a violation of Title IX. School officials would need to provide for greater gender equity between the two teams.

4. Is instruction segregated by sex permissible? Yes. The U.S. Department of Education adopted regulations that allow school districts to create single- sex classrooms and schools. In coeducational schools, both sexes must be offered equal educational opportunities and enrollment in a single- sex class should be completely voluntary. Single- sex schools are permitted, but a substantially equal single- sex or coeducational school for students of the other sex must be available.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

72 Chapter Five

5. May school districts require pregnant students to attend another school? No. The U.S. Department of Education has issued regulations under Title IX not allowing school districts to discriminate against pregnant students. Requiring preg- nant students to attend a separate school would be seen as discriminatory.

6. May gender be considered in hiring teachers? Sometimes. Some gender- based discrimination is allowed under Title VII. However, there must be a legitimate reason for favoring one gender over another. For example, the school district may hire only a female teacher if the job requires supervising the girls’ locker room.

7. Who enforces that school districts comply with Title IX and how does enforce- ment work? The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education (DOE) is responsi- ble for enforcing Title IX as it applies to schools receiving federal funds. The OCR has authority to develop policy on the regulations it enforces. Overall, the OCR has main- tained a low profile in enforcing Title IX, which has led to girls and women seeking relief in the courts. Thus, in addition to the potential loss of federal funds via the OCR enforcement, schools that violate Title IX may be held liable for monetary damages.

To ensure compliance with Title IX, three methods of initiating enforcement exist: (1) complaints, (2) compliance reviews, and (3) lawsuits. Under the first method, a person may file a complaint with the OCR alleging gender discrimina- tion in violation of Title IX. The OCR then undertakes an investigation of the school. If the school is in violation and no settlement can be reached, the OCR audits the offending school’s sports program and orders it to make any changes necessary to comply with Title IX.

The second enforcement mechanism, compliance review, permits the DOE to perform periodic investigations of randomly selected public schools to verify com- pliance with Title IX. Although no complaint needs to be filed for the OCR to per- form a compliance review, compliance reviews can occur after a complaint is filed.

A final alternative enforcing Title IX compliance is to file a lawsuit against the offending school. Although lawsuits are costly and time- consuming, sometimes they are the most efficient way of bringing a school into compliance with Title IX for two main reasons. First, even after a complaint is filed, OCR is not required to implement a full investigation. In contrast, the filing of a lawsuit inevitably will result in an investigation by one or both of the parties. Second, the party who files a complaint with the OCR cannot receive monetary damages even if OCR determines that the school violated Title IX. Conversely, the plaintiff in a lawsuit can obtain monetary damages. Schools are more likely to comply with Title IX if noncompliance is punished with monetary damages.

Resources/ Materials

Relevant Quotes

Far from childish pranks, sexual harassment in the school setting consists of seri- ous misconduct that can have a devastating effect on students at the receiving end.

— Verna L. Williams (represented the petitioner in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Student Harassment and Bullying 73

Where the misconduct occurs during school hours and on school grounds, the misconduct is taking place “under” an “operation” of the federal education funding recipient. In these circumstances, the recipient retains substantial control over the context in which the harassment occurs. More importantly, however, in this setting the board of education exercises significant control over the harasser. The nature of the state’s power over public schoolchildren is custodial and tutelary, permitting a degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults….

Whether gender- oriented conduct rises to the level of actionable “harassment” depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation- ships, including, but not limited to, the ages of the harasser and the victim and the number of individuals involved. Courts, moreover, must bear in mind that schools are unlike the adult workplace and that children may regularly interact in a manner that would be unacceptable among adults….

Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name- calling among schoolchildren but rather for behavior ‘‘so severe, pervasive and objectively offen- sive that it denies its victims the equal access to education.’’

— Davis v. Monroe (1999)

While Justice Kennedy may have characterized this case as teaching “little Johnny a perverse lesson in Federalism,” Justice O. Connor rejoined by saying that it “assures that little Mary may attend class.”

— New York Times (Greenhouse, 1999)

The [Davis] standard has been set so high that it’s a standard we can live with and in fact are living up to already.

— Julie Underwood, General Counsel, National School Boards Association

REFERENCES

American Association of University Women. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing & sexual harassment in schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 605 Fed. Appx 159 (4th Cir. 2015). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). Doe v. East Haven Board of Education, 430 F. Supp.2d 54 (2006). Decker, J., Eckes, S., & Tanselle, L. (2015). Bullying, harassment of students with disabilities.

Principal Leadership, 18–20. Eckes, S. (2006). Peer sexual harassment and public schools. Principal Leadership, 6(5), 58– 63. Greenhouse, L. (1999, May 25). The supreme court: The overview; sex harassment in class is

ruled schools’ liability. New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/ 1999/ 05/ 25/ us/ supreme- court- overview- sex- harassment- class- ruled- schools- liability.html

Long v. Murray Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86155 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Moore v. Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 1 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (M.D. Ala. 2014). Vance v. Spencer County Public School District, 231 F.3d 253 (2000). Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. sec. 1681. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/us/supreme-court-overview-sex-harassment-class-ruled-schools-liability.html

74 Chapter Five

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (2011). American public school law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (See chapter 9).

Decker, J., Eckes, S., & Tanselle, L. (2015). Bullying, harassment of students with disabilities, Principal Leadership, 18- 20.

Schimmel, D., Stellman, L., Conlon, C., & Fisher, L. (2014). Teachers and the law (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon (See chapter 15).

Russo, C. (2009). Reutter’s the law of public education (7th ed.). New York: Foundation Press (See chapter 13).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. R

ow m

an &

L itt

le fie

ld P

ub lis

he rs

, I nc

or po

ra te

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed