Title: Washington v. Pierce

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Washington v. Pierce (2003-487); 179 Vt. 318; 895 A.2d 173

2005 VT 125

[Filed 16-Dec-2005]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 20-Jan-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2005 VT 125

                                No. 2003-487


  Celeste Washington 	                         Supreme Court
  b/n/f Martha Daley and
  Arthur Washington
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court


  Robin Pierce, as Principal of 	         November Term, 2004
  Harwood Union High School, et al.


  Geoffrey W. Crawford, J.

  David F. Kelley, Montpelier, Eileen M. Blackwood of Blackwood Associates,
    P.C., Burlington, and David Putter, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Heather E. Thomas of Lynn & Associates, Burlington, for
    Defendants-Appellees.

  Robert Appel, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont Human Rights
    Commission. 


  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned  

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was
  denied access to full and equal educational opportunities because of a
  hostile environment caused by pervasive student-student racial and sexual
  harassment at Harwood Union High School.  On appeal she challenges the
  superior court's summary judgment dismissal of her claims under Vermont's
  Public Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4500-4507, and 16 V.S.A. §§ 565 and
  1161a. 
   
       ¶  2.  This case requires us to decide whether a VPAA claim may be
  based on allegations of student-student harassment in a school, and, if so,
  what elements comprise such a claim.  In Section III.A, we hold that such a
  claim is viable in light of the broad sweep of the VPAA and Vermont's
  educational statutes aimed at eradicating harassment from places of
  learning.

       ¶  3.  Next, we must determine the correct standard by which to
  measure the conduct of schools and school officials in cases of
  student-student harassment.  All parties, and the trial court, agree that,
  under any standard, there must be harassing conduct "that is so severe,
  pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the
  victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by
  the school."  Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ.,