fifty the district court noted that your client's failure to show deliberate indifference to support his eighty eight claim you might survive a claim might survive nonetheless if you could show that peer harassment was an account of race and school officials failed  address those complaints of the district court seemed to recognize that and thought it was a material fact just one of the harassment was based on from race but then just determined as you might at the end of a trial that the school had adequately addressed green's complaint it seems that's the kind of thing that ought to only mandates that schools provide intervention for making schools places for our students it doesn't change the question the question is what god told somebody is being called  s every day in every school now you can't say that every one of those events then becomes you know if some later point a fight or violence of up to the school can be held to go to trial as to whether it should have predicted that this one incident out of hundreds of thousand and ten thousand the name calling with mature into a mature into a physical violence there is nothing in this recor been at least half a dozen times to the nurse complaining that these children were more frightening him to the point that he wanted to commit suicide now that is so yeah that's what he felt like they were calling him names which i don't know that i need to repeat here police were not nice things the winnings that i would not expect to be name calling and they were names that in your marriage that relate to something under the ada which is particularly protect with being a homosexual is the way he walked in the way he carried it it appeared to other students to the students who were harassing him that he was homosexual that he was carrying this arm this is just stable and that he couldn't carry what we can do to talk to each other and and a more respectful way we we work with them instead of just saying as the nurse told me if you're laid down and it'll be ok don't worry that it should quite a bit more than they call the having taken steps that we show that the steps were in adequate to address the problem we don't have evidence that these things occurred after the school it relied on five what i've called the mitchell factors from this court's decision in the mitchell case the five mitchell factors include most importantly the question of whether or not a judgment against the school district would fundamentally california state school system depends on state funding so whether directly or indirectly there's no question but that any judgment against the school district in this case would be satisfied from state farm's that's regarded as the primary valid your yeah exactly exactly and after prop thirteen i think it was but that's the fundamental fact and there's nothing about that in the in the legal landscape that i think would encourage this court to revisit it but if the court did revi school districts have the power to take property in their own name they do technically but the laws clear that the property is actually owned by the state there's no question but that california school systems have the corporate status  statement of the law are june twenty second order however a school district's inadequate response to a student's complaints of peer harassment satisfies the intentional discrimination requirement and constitutes a denial of advantages facilities privileges or services and citing two cases you read this the nine times accordingly in order to establish a claimant of the iraq plaintiff he'd only established that he experienced peer harassment based on his disability or race and she admits there's a genuine issue of material fact on that so that survives summary judgment and here's the problem the defendants and here's the key language fail to take reasonable steps to respond to his complaints about such arrest then in the next paragraph the problem is that  the judge says well that in the case failed because plaintiff has failed to establish that the finance acted with deliberate indifference or otherwise failed to take prompt action to address the harassment i see a difference between failure to take prompt action and the law that says fail to take reasonable steps prompt this different from reasonable so i see a disconnect there and why isn't there a genuine issue of material fact on whether these steps were reasonable not this may be a regular school like everybody else but he's an i peek disabled kid with serious problems so it seems that elevates the question of what's reasonable and the proof of the putting is in the eating here the steps weren't reasonable they beat the hell out of this kid well i don't think the proof i don't think that why as a matter of law were the steps taken reasonable such as to defeat summary judgment well we can go through an exact trial thank you but first let me make a profit or equal point that as part of the plaintiffs prove it's incumbent on them to show discrimination based on disability and while all the names that the plaintiffs was call what was called by the students who attacked him may indeed support an inference of discrimination of disability based discrimination by the attackers there is no such a suggestion or implication that can be attached to the school district by that that is to say in order to prevail on her kid and her case the plane and its case the plaintiff has to establish discrimination by the school district based on disability and there's no evidence whatsoever to support that conclusion  notwithstanding the evidence of disability discrimination then she's wrong plaintiff need only establish the experience pyrrus were based on disability race and failed to take reasonable steps to respond to his complaints school and the school didn't do anything about it even if the schools you know has no racial animus or disability amas whatsoever their failure to take reasonable steps to respond maybe you don't rack violation well i think the court was acknowledging that as a theoretical  it for me ok there is a when you're arguing the summary judgment motion thank you the first thing that happened when the student came to the school nurse is the school nurse called the parents of the child and asked whether it would be appropriate to make a reference of the child to the school counselor permission was obtained and the student was in fact referred to a school counselor the student and vice the counselor the harassment he was suffering at the hands of these boys and the school counsellor personally telephoned every one of the families of the boys charged spoke with every one of the boys and told them to cut it out erupted in the event for which he has no discipline for his response but i think the only thing we know for sure your honor is that there was the one ultimate event that occurred after those phone calls i don't think were i don't think the record discloses that there was anything else intervening well but there's a reasonable inference at least for purposes of summary judgment because we're we have to draw both the evidence and the inference is that maybe drawn their problem in favor of the moving party and as a result i don't know why it isn't a reasonable inference that this thing continued to build up if in fact they told him that they had called the parents and talked to the boys told them to knock it off i think i just don't see the any any evidence is not that this boy went out looking for a chance to retaliate the evidence was he was responding to the continuation of this fair assessment isn't that isn't that the evidence that was before the trial court i'm sorry and i gather in the course question t in the language of the axis say that both the harassers and the school district share the same kind of impermissible and i've read the case law but i don't understand there to be any legal point of reference with reference to the harassers that is to say the law as written i think simply applies on its face to the person or the entity in this case the school district being charged being charged with a violation i mean t harassers were motivated by discrimination one thing one thing is clear to be the steps taken didn't work right ok so is that a fair inference that they were reasonable didn't  work you know four or five times to the nurse you know told the nurse he was contemplating suicide she called the mother referred him to a counselor the counselor doesn't even know doesn't even remember the whole thing well that the other winston winston didn't do anything just we're going to if we're going to reach the conclusion that the steps taken were not adequate simply because the ultimate act occurred then i just think we've put ourselves into a corner where literally every case will necessarily survive summary judgment and make it to a jury and i don't think that that's the intent of the law which has a clear restrictive purpose in trying to limit the scope of these types of cases i think the trial court had sufficient evidence before it had of specifics of the specific complaints that were made by the student and of the specific conduct taken by the school district and ultimately rendered its decision it didn't reflect either well actually the and i submit i mean we can go round and round on this one and i understand the court's concern and i have no dispositive argument to make to you especially given that there is no chronological careful chronological rend a recitation in the  one of the students calling every one of their parents telling them to knock it off and the thing and the absence of evidence of any escalation and to use your honour's word from that time forward again respectfully i submit the trial the district court's decision is  analyzed is correct on the law and should be a the statutes that counsel referred to that the ballenger court reviewed over twenty of them were repealed by the california legislature between then and now we have the repeal you got numbers going for you but what about the substance of the ones that were repealed or are they undercut the idea that state the state and paying the judgment you know your honor well excuse me before i speak to that i should say that that if the districts provide for their own judgment that it does not come from the state controller the state controller has nothing to do with judgments issued against its local school districts the money come from the local school districts raise their own funds provide for there were winston should have afferent a mediation winston should have offered training and discussion amongst all of the children the teachers are on the gated to do this they did not do  investigate they did one thing two things they call the mother and they called the parents of the students period and they talk to the s one time one side and we have nothing in this record might be a different record we have nothing in this record that continuation of the behavior was reported to the school u question of deliberate indifference that having taken steps you ignored further acts and that event occurred two days before the attack and i would submit to you that