See, e.g., Vance, 231 F.3d at 262 (concluding that a school could be found deliberately indifferent in the absence of evidence that it “took any other action whatsoever” besides talking with the supposed perpetrator); Murrell v. Sch. According to Walton, the deliberate indifference standard would allow for the exercise of discretion in order to accommodate the circumstances of each situation. Sch. The defendants submitted evidence from the prison doctor that giving him Zantac twice a day, regardless of the times, was appropriate. Dist., 804 F.3d 398, 410 (5th Cir. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274–that a school district may be liable for damages under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of teacher-student sexual harassment–also applies in cases of student-on-student harassment. First, we have held that a school district was not deliberately indifferent to severe and pervasive racial harassment when it “took some action in response to almost all of the incidents noted by Plaintiffs.” Fennell v. Marion Indep. in 1973 from New York University School of Law. The Supreme Court held, in part, that a cause of action against a school district for monetary damages under Title IX would not lie by reason of a teacher having engaged in a sexual relationship with a student, where the school district lacked actual notice of the teacher's conduct and the school district was not deliberately indifferent thereto. Moreover, delays in completing an investigation, or violations of a school's own policies do not necessarily amount to deliberate indifference. cum laude in 1966 from City College of New York, his J.D. **** Martin A. Schwartz is a Professor of Law at Touro Law School. 2015). However, acts of sexual harassment by a student directed solely at Ms. Jones do not demonstrate a custom or policy of the School District to be deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment as a general matter. Similarly, in Lintz v. Skipski , 25 F.3d 304, a caseworker discovered a foster father had sexually assaulted his foster children. According to the dissent, the record established the following: On Rowe’s claim that the timing of his Zantac doses showed deliberate indifference to his health, the evidence in the record consists of two items. magna cum laude in 1968 from Brooklyn Law School, and an L.L.M. Title IX does not impose a duty to make particular disciplinary decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling in that case held that schools may be liable under Title IX if their response to a known act of student-on-student sexual harassment was "deliberately indifferent." Professor Schwartz has authored leading treatises including Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses (4th ed. Dist. We examine two of our precedents on these points. He received his B.B.A. School Liability: There are Still Simple Steps to Avoid Liability - Read the School Law legal blogs that have been posted by Dennis J. Eichelbaum on Lawyers.com School administrators will continue to enjoy the flexibility they require so long as funding recipients are deemed "deliberately indifferent" to acts of student-on-student harassment only where the recipient's response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. The Court then analyzed whether UCLA was deliberately indifferent to known harassment. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 & n.56. No.
according to legal precedent, a school is deliberately indifferent if: