please the court this court should reverse the summary judgment granted below because the record is replete with evidence that would permit a reasonable juror to conclude that alvin i associate officials acted with deliberate indifferen enabled the repeated sexual assault of my client a middle school girl by a forty two year old school police officer sexual assaults that continued on a routine basis for a full year as a brief bro not for the court i'm going to start with talking about deliberate indifference today before turning to actual knowledge if i were to begin by making a very discrete point about the standard for deliberate indifference that that it's a high burden and i'm not going to try to run away from that burden here today the thicker it is that a school official acts with the liberal indifference when their action or inaction is clearly unreasonable but the great point i want to make is that in a case with continued harassment or abuse a school officials actions may be clearly unreasonable if they fail to take additional action or change their approach when the problems continue and this principle is best illustrated by this court's decision in seoul versus monroe city school board which was released just a few months ago but after the briefing had concluded in this case it in sewell an african american male was discriminated against for having dyed hair and on the st day of school a dean refused to let him go to class the nd day of school the principal and the superintendent met with his mom spoke with the victim and promise to warn the harassing employee but even after these initial actions were taken the harassment continued from that point in this court held that this could constitute deliberate indifference because the school district quote offered no response to the verbal abuse that continued intensified throughout the school year much less a reasonable one and not principle has been the law in the circuit as far back as rosa back i have helpful to think about the facts of this case at three snapshots in time and i think it will be helpful for the court as well is when you look at the actions of the school officials at the three points  time i'm going to talk about granting summary judgment on the issue of deliberate indifference in this case is unsustainable and so i prepared a bench exhibit which we submitted this morning that looks at the facts relied on by the district court each of the three timeframes and really crystallizes this issue to talk about now is it what we submitted this morning if you look at the table you'll see that all of the facts relied on by the district court are actions that took place in february two thousand and seventeen related to the february rd two thousand and seventeen meeting in this case forty of those facts are disputed so it not meeting and we expressed her concerns about the closeness of tenor and jes relationship and their closed door encounters and in examining the actions that took place the district court relied on six facts in reaching its decision about deliberate indifference look at the table those six facts are listed in the center column and see the all of the sick system from the actions taken from a meeting time either the one thing i will point out is that conversation took place on february rd two thousand and seventeen the same day as the meeting the other four facts that the district court relied on and reaching its decision on deliberate indifference  viewed so by way of example if you look in row four so in row for the district court relied on the fact that he claimed that graham the assistant principal shares an email the mention his name let alone warn the teachers that tenet and je should not continue to meet a took credit that email as evidence that graham was doing something about the relationship between tempered  je is to make an inference in favor of alvin i honesty which is improper at the summary judgment face by way of nd example if you look at roe five in the table the district relied on the fact that me that tendered should not meet with j so what we're left with here really the only undisputed facts that the district court relies on a meeting between the mother and the assistant and simple took place that she told to enter the offender to stop meeting with but i guess not sufficient so based on the supreme court's holding in the davis versus monroe county board of education case which that on that simply walking a perpetrator could still constitute deliberate indifference these bins do not support a decision on the deliberate indifference issue as a matter of law i want to next turn to the nd time snap shot and the  nd time snapshot i want to focus the court's attention on are the next ten months the judge hitler's opinion relies on no facts from the next ten months but that's for good reason because during that timeframe graham testified which is in the record on page seven no one that she did nothing to keep her promise to empty but she would keep je into nerd separate all the while tenured continues to pull out of class on a routine basis to sexually assault her and as this court articulated in school doing nothing is the classic case of indifference now the final point or point in time i want to focus the court's opinion on and the one i think is the most important and where the court should really focus its attention on is december two thousand and seventeen in december two thousand and seventeen and this is a book for tenet is arrested bram is constructed with the fact that je and tendered have again spent an entire class period alone in his office even though they have already been told that they should not be doing she tells je not to meet with kennard and she says she told route who is the principal that he should consider talking to jenner but no evidence that route i ever talked to turner is the simplest have to explain why this case should be reversed and remanded at this point that the problem is continuing in of her initial actions just like in sewell all she does the only evidence that we have is that it tells a victim to stop seeing a perpetrator a reasonable juror could conclude was clearly unreasonable so to affirm this is what the court would have to hold the court would have to fall to hold but it is not clearly unreasonable as a matter of law for the only action a school official takes when actual knowledge is assumed as the district court did here tackling the victim a middle school girl to keep away from her abuser a forty two year old police officer but such a holding would be contrary to the law of this circuit as articulated in school and i frankly un done any number of things and we will emit that the case law holds that the law does not require school officials to take specific actions example they could have questioned students they could have followed up on ten that he had his body camera footage on when talking to j e and had they've got footage they would have seen that that's not true they could ducted a formal and an investigation at that point in time in response to the december two thousand and seventeen event they could have called the parents and let them know this is continuing to happen they could have reviewed the security camera footage there at the purity camera directly outside of the police officers and have reviewed that camera footage which one of the one of the other school police officers did it would have revealed on sundays je was in and out of the office as much as six times in one day for forty five minutes at a time she was in and out with her clothes changed with her hair changed they could have so there are some cases in the circuit where did issue no contact orders and the court finds no deliberate indifference but they do so because the if you assume actual knowledge that the point that there's a sexual assault going on in the school i mean you've got to report that person the police fire that person make sure that person's never went on the school grounds again intelli even less he's cleared or something so i mean to me there is this disconnect if you assume they had actual knowledge then then there's you know if it's not appropriate at all to allow this person to stay in the school so why don't you talk about the actual knowledge that the district court assume but we can still consider as a ground for summary judgment because it was ordered by the defendant what gave actual knowledge you know there was this meeting and every a lot of people the lot of the testimony seemed to indicate it was mostly a concern about her confiding about her parents divorce what gave actual knowledge of a substantial risk that sexual assault was occurring sure so turning to actual knowledge i'd st like to very quickly talk about two legal principles and  in the kelly case is that you need actual knowledge of a substantial risk of her smith or abuse and the nd principle i want to articulate is actual knowledge does not require an ex confession from a school official for a ploy claim to survive summary judgment of either a fact can infer actual knowledge of a substantial risk circumstantial evidence you know prosecutors in america go to every day in this knowledge in this case except that out to the what we submitted to the court this morning and i've tried to drill in on the actual knowledge that graham had specifically talked about had a quote groat level of discomfort and she was worried about the men engaging in close encounters engrams own notes from the meeting which are in this record on page thirteen forty three say that it was because the mother was worried about them meeting together behind closed doors and then so from that point in time she knows jane turner and are regularly meeting behind closed doors and she also testifies on page six  record that she knows this is the red flag pin and the ten months that followed looking at that time frame she knows she continues to skip class and she knows that jenny has submitted quote alarming assignments it in december t have again met alone in his office despite being warned not to do so and she testified that that is a red flag and that is actual knowledge of a substantial risk and with that as the my time ha that i'll give you extra time to answer what do you think is the closest case factually that establishes actual knowledge of a substantial risk of sexual abuse would occur to this case so i  court to lewisville independent school district or its i i st was lewisville which is an opinion from this court back in two thousand and nineteen in that case there were four different events some were sexual sole and some were harassment that there was actual knowledge for the st three was secretly in dispute but there was a dispute about the th or it explained that you know whether or not that one incident gave them sort of evidence of actual knowledge of specific sexual harassment was not particularly important because quote based on the evidence it is indisputable that l i s t had actual knowledge through dense and white head who was the counselor that i was being bullied in some district in my town before the court today i intend to show why the district court's final judgment should be a vermin but judge just i'll start with your point there is some tension between assuming actual knowledge of sexual abuse because as you said the only response would be the one that the school district took a when they gained actual knowledge of sexual abuse which is to suspend the employee terminate the prosecution now though the judge assumed actual knowledge of the or the court can decide the case on actual knowledge wrong and should because it was briefed to the district court below it was briefed to this court telling late bell and didn't respond to the actual knowledge from or even in the reply brief but here's what the evidence on actual knowledge shows it shows that in february after being told they should have a meeting they met with jay's mother and at that meeting testimony is clear jay imeem had no suspicion  whatsoever that there was a sexual relationship she was quite clear in her deposition testimony she only suspected a sexual relationship existed the day she found the text messages on j'sbeil she could not possibly have warned the school district of facts pointing to the existence of a sexual relationship especially because her complaint was that je was spending time with both an art and mostly female teacher and her complaint and her deposition testimony m was concerned about her fashionables so that meeting which the district court focused on there is no evidence that could suggest that there's any knowledge of a sexual relationship je testified she never told anyone about it i night it ever happened so we know from the trooper disappoints that neither of them ever tipped off anybody that there was a sexual relationship mother did not suspect that she did not report it in the meeting that is undisputed following that meeting the record is clear that graham was the only relevant appropriate fishel for purposes of time to numerous appropriate steps based on what she knew and here is where mom plays statement to j that she was going to get ten are fired could that be could a jury not find that to be proof of some measure of knowledge it could not because mosley is not the appropriate official she is a teacher whatever mosley knew or did not relationship in february of two thousand and seventeen could a jury not find that to be proof no no your honor they could not because based upon that testimony jerry well setting that aside for a  students often times will form bonds with students and the information is provided was that she also had emotional bond with most of it and it doesn't follow d that if she has a bottom of the female teacher a male teacher that logically she must be engaged in an i returning to that meeting all that was expressed was that she did him he did not want je meeting with faculty members other than a counselor in response to the information she had better ram instructed that instructed to nart and instructed those late not to meet with j she talked to the counselor and said you'll need j may come to you she emailed the teachers to say send jay to the counselor if she needs to talk to anybody opposing counsel pointed to on her chart the idea that an r wasn't mentioned in the email or an r wasn't mentioned in the discussion of the counselor and that that somehow contradicts graham's testimony it does not the fact is the email was sent to the teachers to send je to ram or the counselor if needed that was a separate instruction she gave a direct instruction to an art she gave an instruction to the counselor that j could be harassment and it soon will once the poor move past the statute of limitations issue as it was but it was plainly apparent that the harassment was occurring to the knowledge of appropriate school officials they knew about it that liability when the dean is harassing the superintendent knows and does not then so sewell is is no help nor is davis because in the davis case the young man who is progressing the little girl his conduct was identical deliberate different standard and they're the on bomb or the test of knowledge of facts pointing plainly towards the occurrence of a sexual relationship plus deliberate indifference and that's really the test this court has used in these cases and even in cases like doe vs dallas i asked you when just cited in our briefing there can be a report of actual abuse in that case and vote report that a teacher who wrote a student the principal drew the wrong conclusions that don't do it again or put yourself in a situation like that or you'll be terminated this court held that was enough and haagen versus houston independent school district reports were made that a coach was sexually abusing students in fact one of the students confessed principal that was the case subsequently changed the story the principal stopped investigating this for help it was not deliberately and for each of those cases involved d much more beer rect reports of sexual misconduct in this case because in this case there was no report of a sexual relationship so turning to the nd period that my colleague on the other side highlighted and that's the months after february until december and she notes nothing was done and she characterize d graham's admission as she didn't do anything that's not really accurate because graham testified this isn't page seventy one of the record she never bought an art in je again together after that meeting without evidence showing that there had been a report to her that they were continuing to me there was no need to take any further action at that point the facts would indicate to one of the things that  if the poor were to look to cases in a ghetto or staler is instructive because it analyzed two different school district employees knowledge one was the principal who got reports of touching from other family members got reports that the student had left the county fair with the strout there were specific reports that there had been conduct that suggested romantic behavior i believe there was even a valentine exchange that  those are the sorts of facts that point plainly to the occurrence of sexual abuse reports that there d are there is misconduct there is touching now looking at that meeting were in our had met with jay the record evidence reveals that there were other girls in the room at the time and they were purportedly responding to an investigation or but after that many did were graham took steps to keep the two apart she took steps that in prior opinions this court has found avoided a finding of deliberate indifference even when there is more knowledge when there's been a report of groping when there's been a report of sexual abuse and it's undisputed there was no order that here this court has spent on these sorts of steps our successes are so i think what judge hitler was doing is looking at the facts show that disturbed knew in february which was that there had been this report that mum was dissatisfied but that mum had no suspicion of a sexual relationship and there was nothing that was revealed that should create the suspicion the sexual relationship so during the time period after that february meeting after brown gives her directives to the district's employees nothing happens because she never saw an art of j e together again for many months and no one reported that to her to the contrary in fact there is evidence on the record that at one point in our drove home with is gone too long and the assistant principals call the assistant principal does several things she starts hunting through the hallways looking for she's trying to find where in me is a charge and he is she even goes back to begin reviewing graham's efforts have not been effective that's what graham knows so graham takes the steps to form the principal and also talks to je now opposing counsel characterized this as a rule of law that would say you can avoid deliberate indifference by telling a victim to stay away from their abuser that assumes that graham had knowledge of the facts pointing plainly to the existence of sexual abuse and on this record she did not the knowledge that the actual knowledge that d you should have divined there was a sexual relationship but there was no report of anything that involves sexual conduct at all and as the sport held in that case constructive notice is not sufficient facts hold that there was no actual knowledge or no deliberate indifference and the more frequently addresses the deliberate indifference wrong because it allows the poor to assess the steps the school district and this poor has routine when council that those steps don't have to be perfect they just have to be steps that are trying to respond to what they knew and here they did and that negates a finding of deliberate indifference based on what they  and there's no evidence that there was actual knowledge of a sexual relationship at any time before the resort county sheriff's deputy showed up at the school after him you made a report on this record judge it hears determination was correct  noted one question of material fact on actual knowledge although he didn't address that the record is clear that there was no genuine question of material fact there and there's no genuine question material effect on the deliber school district here although they did not prevent or stop the abuse took steps that were plainly reasonable based on what they and the court would a whole different way the court would risk collapsing the deliberate indifference standard in title and forty five it is there that any testified that from her perspective the point of the meeting is that because she was concerned about the quote groping level of discomfort in the close encounters something that frankly was always in the back of my mind when i read this record and i believe it's on page six hundred and ninety nine dollars of the record if this meeting was really what the school district says that it was just about je sharing information about her parents divorce was alone with j e in his office that i at least think creates at the very least a factual dispute about the point of this need a point i want to make is i want to just quickly point out what i think are the only three facts this court needs to decide the actual knowledge issue first fact on page six hundred and ninety of the record is that testified that meeting with a student alone behind closed and tendered had been told to stop meeting alone in his office they continued to meet alone in his office some targets for entire class periods and that the the last fact i want to point knew that just what does the record say about who knew that so so graham knew so the december two thousand and seventeen incident is i know about that one incident but did did graham know there were ripped into new repeated continued meetings so graham testified that she received attendance records and every day they were emailed to her by the clerk and those attendance records which are contained in the record i i don't have in front of me i think it's a certain forty seven but those attendance record it can't be records contain the records of jes continued absences and i think a reasonable juror could confer graham has those records she knows jes attendance as a problem she receives those records every day she knows that her previous attendance problems were because she was was made aware of the fact that j t in tendered after being warned met alone in his office for an entire class period and the final actual knowledge fact that i think are sort of the three the court can rely on is that the testimony is that was concerned about their inappropriate relationship and told graham that and i think when you look at jest of those three facts graham testifies meeting alone with a student is a red flag graham knows joey intended have continued to meet alone despite being told not to and the mother has told graham she is concerned about their relationship just based on those three facts a reasonable juror could look at those facts and determine that graham had actual knowledge of a substantial risk on the last point you make about whatever he told them thought about the inappropriate relationship opposing counsel cited testimony that the mother did not suspect any sexual relationship or in any concern about sexual relationship so if you agree that's in the record what would the school known that she didn't have that should have put made them aware of she wasn't so i have two points and the st point is that what in new is not the standard it's what graham knew but more importantly so in in these testimony she makes an important point that part of the purpose of the meeting and this is on page six hundred and forty three of the record is that because she wasn't at school she never saw him interact she felt like she didn't have the full picture and so she wanted the meeting because she wanted to get the full picture and that's in her testimony it's page six hundred and forty three and the school certainly had that full picture you know they knew that she was continuing to skip class they knew that she was continuing in his office so for instance the december th teen incident grand didn't bother to call him even graham knew