By AYZ Education Law Group

November 4, 2022

In a recently issued decision, the Honorable Eduardo Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered cross-motions for summary judgment in a Title IX case filed by a student, Jane Doe, against the North Penn School District. (See Doe v. North Penn School District, Civ. Action No. 20-5142, 2022 U.S. Dist.). Although the Court’s decision addressed whether Jane had produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on her pre-assault and post-assault claims for deliberate indifference (she had), this case provides helpful analysis on an attendant claim – that the school district violated the Civil Rights Act for failure to train its faculty and staff on Title IX harassment.

As a reminder, a school district can be liable under the Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for “failure to train” if a plaintiff demonstrates that there was (1) a constitutional violation by a municipal actor that was (2) caused by a municipal policy or custom. Title IX and § 1983 both allow a prevailing plaintiff to seek attorney’s fees.

Jane Doe’s experience as a victim of sexual harassment began in middle school, when another student, MP, touched her breasts in class without her consent. Her teacher witnessed the conduct, assumed the touching was consensual, and interviewed the two students about it together. Later, after it was determined that MP had sexually assaulted both Jane Doe and another student that year, his student disciplinary record reflected only that he had engaged in a single instance of “obscene language/gesture.” When Jane and MP later entered the same high school, lax monitoring of their class schedules resulted in their being seated next to each other in the same social studies class, where MP sexually assaulted Jane again.

Unsurprisingly, the Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact (meaning the case will proceed to trial) on Jane’s pre- and post-assault Title IX deliberate indifference claims. It also found that the case could proceed on the failure to train claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Court noted that North Penn produced no staff training or materials addressing Title IX or student-on-student harassment. The teacher who responded inappropriately to the middle school assault (and yes, assuming a sexual touching is consensual and then interviewing the involved students together is woefully inappropriate) testified that she never received training on what constitutes “sexual harassment” or how to respond to a student who reports harassment; the District’s Human Resources Director explained that the District referenced its sexual harassment policies at the beginning-of-year staff meetings, and that she “assumes” employee familiarity with them because they are online; and the District Assistant Superintendent confirmed that he had never received actual training on student-on-student sexual harassment.

Aside from the fact that the lack of training at North Penn likely contributed to the District’s alleged failure to both prevent and appropriately respond to Jane’s sexual assault, it also exposed the District to liability under the Civil Rights Act. This case serves as a critical reminder that meaningful Title IX sexual harassment training (i.e., something more than just handing out a policy or making it available online) is both legally mandated and indispensable to protect the well-being of students.

Should you have any questions about this case or a need for Title IX training at your school, please do not hesitate to reach out to William J. Zee or any of the attorneys in the Appel, Yost & Zee Education Group.