CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 68

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jane Doe; K.R., by his next friends and parents, Rebecca Rooker and Jim Rooker; D.F., by his next friends and parents, Burnetta Frei and Jeffrey Frei; B.G., by her next friend and parent, Marty Geldert; and D.M.-B., by his next friends and parents, Michael McGee and Jason Backes;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11; Anoka-Hennepin School Board; Dennis Carlson, Michael Farley, Jerri McGonigal, and Tom Hagerty, in their official capacities,
Defendants.

Civil No. _______________
COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND

COME NOW Plaintiffs Jane Doe; K.R., by his next friends and parents, Rebecca Rooker and Jim Rooker; D.F., by his next friends and parents, Burnetta Frei and Jeffrey Frei; B.G., by her next friend and parent, Marty Geldert; and D.M.-B., by his next friends and parents, Michael McGee and Jason Backes, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and state the following as and for their Complaint against Defendants Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 (the “School District” or “District”), Anoka-Hennepin School Board, Dennis Carlson, Michael Farley, Jerri McGonigal, and Tom Hagerty (collectively “Defendants”).

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 68
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights case brought by five current and former students of Defendant Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 in Minnesota. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional and statutory rights to equal access to educational opportunities, rights that Defendants have violated and will continue to violate absent relief from this Court. Defendants’ violation of these rights include the intentional enactment and enforcement of policies that unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation. These policies exist only because of community animus toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people – an interest that can never justify discrimination by the government. 2. Plaintiffs have each suffered severe and pervasive gender-based harassment and/or harassment on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation at school, in some cases for years on end. Plaintiffs were subjected to slurs from other students because of Plaintiffs’ perceived sexual orientation or gender expression, including “dyke,” “homo,” “fag,” “faggot,” and “queer,” nearly every school day. The verbal harassment of Plaintiffs and other students who are or perceived to be LGBT also included being called a “sinner”; being told, “you’re going to hell”; being told, “you’re a guy – act like a guy”; being told to “get out of our school, fag”; and being told to “kill yourself” for being gay.
2

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 3 of 68
3. The harassment suffered by Plaintiffs was not limited to verbal insults. Other students also physically threatened, and in some cases, attacked Plaintiffs because of their sexual orientation or failure to conform to sex stereotypes. These attacks included being urinated on, being stabbed in the neck with a pencil, being choked, being pushed into walls, being shoved forcefully into lockers, having objects thrown at them in class, and having books knocked out of their hands,— acts often accompanied by anti-gay and gender-related slurs.
4. These acts occurred on school grounds and some occurred in plain view of school officials. Plaintiffs and their parents also regularly reported the harassment to school staff and administrators.
5. Far from being isolated incidents, this type of verbal and physical abuse was a relentless and inescapable aspect of Plaintiffs’ school experience. The harassment caused Plaintiffs’ grades to drop and led each of the Plaintiffs to stay home from school at times to avoid the constant harassment. As a result of the harassment, several Plaintiffs have transferred to schools outside of the District and away from their friends and communities or withdrawn from school altogether. Being ostracized, humiliated, threatened, and attacked as a daily routine at school also caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious emotional harm, including anxiety, anger, and depression, which led some of them to consider or attempt suicide. Within a nine month period, between November 2009 and July 2010, at least four LGBT students within the District did take their own lives.
3

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 4 of 68
6. Despite knowledge of the severe and pervasive anti-gay and gender-based harassment being suffered by Plaintiffs and other students throughout the District, Defendants response to the abuse was grossly inadequate. Contrary to their obligations as school officials entrusted with the safety and education of all students, including vulnerable ones such as Plaintiffs, the response of District administrators and teachers was to ignore, minimize, dismiss, or some instances, to blame the victim for the other students’ abusive behavior. One Plaintiff was told to “lay low” when she notified an Associate Principal of the daily anti-gay abuse she suffered. Another Plaintiff was told by a school official to “ignore” the harassment against him. Similarly, a principal advised another Plaintiff who was being harassed to “try to stay out of people’s way.” When school officials did take action, the action was painfully ineffective and in all too many instances extended to no more than telling the abusive students to “knock it off.”
7. The epidemic of anti-gay and gender-based harassment within District schools is rooted in and encouraged by official District-wide policies singling out and denigrating LGBT people. For many years, these policies have deemed LGBT people, and them alone, as unworthy of being mentioned, let alone protected, in District classrooms. In the mid-1990s, the District adopted a health curriculum policy prohibiting teachers from teaching that homosexuality is “normal” or a “valid lifestyle.” According to the anti-gay organization that lobbied the District to adopt that rule, such a policy was necessary because “[t]he homosexual lifestyle does not reflect the community standards of District #11, nor is it regarded as a norm in society.”
4

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 5 of 68
8. In 2009, the School Board amended and expanded the District’s anti-gay policy to go beyond the health curriculum. That revised policy is still in effect today. The so-called “Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy” (“SOCP”) states in relevant part: “Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations. Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student led discussions.” Written guidance from the District makes clear that the term “sexual orientation” in the SOCP is used as a synonym for LGBT people, and that the policy does not bar discussions of issues relating to heterosexual people.
9. Despite its language the SOCP is not neutral. In reality, the SOCP acts as a gag policy that prevents school officials from complying with their legal obligations to keep safe students like Plaintiffs who are perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming. This gag policy requires District officials to enforce anti-harassment policies in the case of anti-LGBT bullying differently from other types of bullying. Teachers have understood the SOCP as inhibiting them from aggressively responding to anti-gay harassment, inside or outside the classroom. The gag policy also prohibits school staff from countering anti-gay stereotypes or presenting basic factual information about LGBT people, even when necessary to address anti-gay hostility within the student body. For example, pursuant to District guidance, the SOCP prohibits staff from even mentioning the fact that it is the position of the American Psychological Association that being gay is
5

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 6 of 68
not a choice—a position that is the consensus of all major accredited and professional mental health organizations. The SOCP severely limits or outright bars any discussion by school officials of issues related to LGBT people in or out of the classroom, a limitation that is not placed on any other category of persons.
10. The SOCP sends the unmistakable message to Plaintiffs and LGBT students throughout the District that they are not a welcome part of the school community and that their very existence is shameful and must be kept hidden. Both the implementation of the SOCP and its very existence perpetuate the hostile anti-LGBT climate within the District and enables abusive students to taunt and attack their LGBT classmates and those perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
11. Because of Plaintiffs’ actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression, Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the severe and pervasive anti-gay and gender-based harassment endured by the Plaintiffs and other students, and have failed to create adequate policies or procedures to protect Plaintiffs from the severe harassment and abuse they have suffered. They have failed to adequately train District staff to address and prevent that harassment, and have also failed to adequately inform students about any District policies—to the extent they exist—that purport to prohibit these types of harassment. Defendants have also intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs by adopting policies and practices that require District staff to ignore or fail to adequately address harassment of students who are or are perceived to be LGBT and that restrict the remedial measures that the District, schools, or staff can take to address and
6

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 7 of 68
prevent such harassment. Defendants knew or should have known that the lack of adequate policies and training, and the District’s affirmative policies prohibiting discussion of LGBT people in the classroom, including the SOCP in particular, significantly harmed Plaintiffs and other students and placed them at unreasonable risk of future harm.
12. Plaintiffs bring this suit to vindicate their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IX, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. They seek relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief to strike down the SOCP and other District policies and practices that encourage and perpetuate the anti-gay and genderbased harassment suffered by Plaintiffs and other students throughout the District.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is also proper over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 because Plaintiffs seek a declaration of their civil rights. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state law claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims arise out of the same case or controversy as Plaintiffs’ federal claims. 14. Venue is appropriate in this Court since one or more of the Defendants reside within this Court’s judicial district and a substantial part of the events or omissions
7

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 8 of 68
giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
PARTIES Plaintiffs
15. Plaintiff Jane Doe is an 18-year-old female. She identifies as a lesbian. Jane Doe was a student at Anoka High School, a school within the District, from September 2007 to approximately late October 2010, when she dropped out of school because of the severe and pervasive anti-gay harassment that she was experiencing at Anoka High. Jane Doe is a natural person, a current resident of Anoka County, and a citizen of the State of Minnesota.
16. Plaintiff K.R. is a 14-year-old male and sues here by and through his next friends, parents, and guardians, Rebecca Rooker and Jim Rooker. He does not identify as gay, but has been perceived as gay by other students because he does not conform to traditional stereotypes of masculinity. K.R. was a student at Anoka Middle School for the Arts (formerly known as Fred Moore Middle School), a school within the District, from September 2008 until April 2011, when his parents transferred him to a school outside the District because of the severe and pervasive anti-gay and gender-based harassment that he was experiencing at school. K.R. is a natural person, a current resident of Sherburne County, and a citizen of the State of Minnesota.
17. Plaintiff D.F. is a 14-year-old male and sues here by and through his next friends, parents, and guardians, Brunetta Frei and Jeffrey Frei. He identifies as gay. D.F.
8

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 9 of 68
was a student at Anoka Middle School for the Arts, a school within the District, from September 2010 until June 2011. D.F. previously attended Jackson Middle School, a school within the District, from September 2008 to February 2010. D.F. will likely attend a high school within the District beginning in the 2011-2012 school year. D.F. is a natural person, a current resident of Anoka County, and a citizen of the State of Minnesota.
18. Plaintiff B.G. is a 14-year-old female and sues here by and through her next friend, parent, and guardian, Marty Geldert. She identifies as bisexual. B.G. attended Jackson Middle School, a school within the District, from February 2010 until June 2011, and Fred Moore Middle School (now known as Anoka Middle School for the Arts), a school within the District, from September 2008 until February 2010. B.G. will start high school at Champlin Park High School, a school within the District, during the 2011-2012 school year. B.G. is a natural person, a current resident of Hennepin County, and a citizen of the State of Minnesota.
19. Plaintiff D.M.-B. is a 14-year-old male and sues here by and through his next friends, parents, and guardians, Michael McGee and Jason Backes. He does not identify as gay, but has been perceived as gay by other students because he is being raised by a male, same-sex couple and because he participates in gymnastics, which is perceived as a “girls’ sport.” D.M.-B. attended Jackson Middle School, a school within the District, from September 2008 until June 2011. D.M.-B. will start high school at Champlin Park High School, a school within the District, during the 2011-2012 school year. D.M.-B. is
9

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 10 of 68
a natural person, a current resident of Hennepin County, and a citizen of the State of Minnesota. Defendants
20. Defendant ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, an education corporation and existing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 123A.55, et seq., is a public independent school district in Anoka and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota. The School District is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon information and belief, the School District and each of its component schools are recipients of federal financial assistance. The School District is a non-sectarian public corporation and exempt from taxation pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 290.014 and 297A.70, Subd. 2(a)(1). Anoka High School, Anoka Middle School for the Arts, and Jackson Middle School are all schools in the School District.
21. Defendant ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL BOARD (the “School Board” or “Board”) is a public education corporation governing the School District pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota. The School Board is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon information and belief, the Board receives federal financial assistance.
22. Defendant DENNIS CARLSON (“Superintendent Carlson”), sued in his official capacity, is the current Superintendent of the School District. He has held this position, first as interim Superintendent, since November 2008. As Superintendent, he holds final policymaking authority for the School District with respect to the day-to-day
10

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 11 of 68
enforcement of the SOCP, equal opportunity, anti-harassment, and anti-bullying policies within the School District as its chief executive officer. As Superintendent, he has the ability and authority to take corrective action on behalf of the School District to stop discrimination and harassment within the School District and to discipline perpetrators of such discrimination and harassment. Superintendent Carlson is a natural person and, upon information and belief, resides in Minnesota.
23. Defendant MICHAEL FARLEY (“Principal Farley”), sued in his official capacity, is Principal of Anoka High School. He has held this position since 2008 and previously was Associate Principal of Anoka High School. Principal Farley has final policymaking authority with respect to the day-to-day enforcement of the SOCP, equal opportunity, anti-harassment, and anti-bullying policies within Anoka High School as its Principal. Principal Farley has the ability and authority to take corrective action on behalf of the School District to stop discrimination and harassment within Anoka High School and to discipline perpetrators of such discrimination and harassment. Principal Farley is a natural person and, upon information and belief, resides in Minnesota.
24. Defendant JERRI MCGONIGAL (“Interim Principal McGonigal”), sued in her official capacity, is Interim Principal of Anoka Middle School for the Arts. Interim Principal McGonigal has final policymaking authority with respect to the day-to-day enforcement of the SOCP, equal opportunity, anti-harassment, and anti-bullying policies within Anoka Middle School for the Arts as its Interim Principal. Interim Principal McGonigal has the ability and authority to take corrective action on behalf of the School
11

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 12 of 68
District to stop discrimination and harassment within Anoka Middle School for the Arts and to discipline perpetrators of such discrimination and harassment. Interim Principal McGonigal is a natural person and, upon information and belief, resides in Minnesota.
25. Defendant TOM HAGERTY (“Principal Hagerty”), sued in his official capacity, is Principal of Jackson Middle School. He has held this position since 2010 and previously was Principal of Sandburg Middle School. Principal Hagerty has final policy making authority with respect to the day-to-day enforcement of the SOCP, equal opportunity, anti-harassment, and anti-bullying policies within Jackson Middle School as its Principal. Principal Hagerty has the ability and authority to take corrective action on behalf of the School District to stop discrimination and harassment within Jackson Middle School and to discipline perpetrators of such discrimination and harassment. Principal Hagerty is a natural person and, upon information and belief, resides in Minnesota.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Jane Doe 26. Plaintiff Jane Doe started at Anoka High School as a freshman in September 2007. Jane is an accomplished singer and was very involved in the school’s choir. Until her identity as a lesbian was revealed, Jane was generally well-liked by her classmates. 27. The severe and pervasive anti-gay harassment against Jane began in her sophomore year when another student disclosed Jane’s sexual orientation to others during
12

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 13 of 68
a choir trip to Wisconsin. On the trip, another student searched Jane’s cell phone without her permission and found a picture of Jane with her girlfriend. Unbeknownst to Jane, the student forwarded the picture to other students in the choir, and the picture was subsequently forwarded to students throughout the 10th grade class and school. Accompanying the photo was text stating, in effect “watch out for Jane, she’s a lesbian – if she’s rooming with you, she might try something.” Jane was humiliated by the distribution of the photo and accompanying text.
28. The anti-gay harassment against Jane quickly exploded. Whereas she had generally been accepted by her peers prior to the distribution of the photo, she was now regularly subject to anti-gay slurs in the hallways and in the classrooms. In the hallways and in the classroom, students openly, and often in the presence of school officials, called Jane “dyke,” “lesbo,” “bitch,” and “sinner,” and told her that she was “going to hell.” As she passed by, students also loudly made anti-gay statements such as “there’s a lesbian walking around,” and “that girl over there is a dyke; she’s with a fat bitch” (referring to her girlfriend).
29. The anti-gay harassment against Jane soon escalated to physical threats and violence. Students began throwing objects, like balls of paper and pencils, at Jane in the hallways and in the classroom. Students also regularly pushed Jane in the hallways, and shoved her into lockers or against walls, sometimes in the clear view of teachers who took no action to stop the harassment. Students would also knock the books out of her hands as she was walking between classes. Often, these acts of physical aggression were
13

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 14 of 68
accompanied by slurs such as “sinner” and “dyke.” On one occasion toward the end of her sophomore year, Jane was waiting for her mother to pick her up after school, and a student she didn’t know hurled Gatorade at her while calling her a “sinner,” then walked away. Jane was so upset that she stayed home from school the next day.
30. Jane’s choir classmates were particularly abusive to her. In choir, Jane would often find her school folders vandalized with slurs like “dyke” and “bitch.” Another student scratched out Jane’s face, and only her face, in a photo of the choir that hung in the choir room. By her junior year, some of the other choir students started making threats to physically attack Jane. At least two of her classmates threatened Jane and told her, in effect, “if I ever find you alone, I’ll beat the crap out of you.”
31. Because of the constant barrage of anti-gay insults and threats she faced at school, Jane tried not to go anywhere at school alone, and avoided school restrooms whenever possible. In particular, she never used the choir restroom out of fear of being physically attacked.
32. The verbal and physical abuse Jane suffered at school substantially interfered with her academic performance and her ability to attend school. She spent many school nights crying. On many days, she missed school altogether because of the physical threats against her. As a consequence, Jane’s grades dropped and her performance in choir suffered. The abuse also caused her to develop anxiety and depression.
14

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 15 of 68
33. School officials failed to take adequate measures to address the rampant anti-gay abuse against Jane. Instead, school officials admonished Jane to better hide her sexual orientation. At most, teachers occasionally told the other students to “knock it off.” For example, shortly after the incident involving the distribution of the photo, Jane informed her choir teacher, Lindsay Wichman, about what had happened. Ms. Wichman’s response was wholly ineffective, if not contributory to the harassment against Jane. Rather than addressing the student who had harassed Jane, Ms. Wichman’s response was to blame Jane for the student’s malicious act, telling Jane, in effect, “This should be a lesson for you – you shouldn’t have had that picture on your phone if you didn’t want people to see those photos.”
34. When the choir returned home from the trip, Ms. Wichman had the class sit in a circle to “talk about their feelings.” The conversation turned into a diatribe against gay people. At no time during this discussion did Ms. Wichman explain to the students that anti-gay harassment was inappropriate, against school or District policy, or subject to discipline.
35. Ms. Wichman also told Jane that she had spoken to the school’s police liaison about the incident, but the school police liaison didn’t follow up with Jane about the harassment she had experienced.
36. Moreover, although Jane’s choir classmates routinely and openly mocked, threw objects at, and threatened Jane because of her sexual orientation, Ms. Wichman stood idly by and let the harassment continue. Even though Jane asked Ms. Wichman on
15

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 16 of 68
multiple occasions to stop the harassment she was experiencing, whatever action, if any, was taken by Ms. Wichman was grossly inadequate because the harassment continued.
37. Other school officials were similarly indifferent to the anti-gay harassment against Jane. As had Ms. Wichman, Joseph Osowski, the school’s choir teacher for the 11th and 12th grade choir classes, regularly observed verbal and physical anti-gay abuse against Jane that was occurring in choir class. On at least one occasion, Jane informed Mr. Osowski about the anti-gay harassment that she had experienced in previous years, and told him about the ongoing verbal and physical threats against her. Despite that conversation and his observation of the harassment firsthand, to Jane’s knowledge, Mr. Osowski did not take any action to address the abuse other than telling students, in effect, “knock it off – that’s not allowed in my classroom” and occasionally lecturing students in a general way about “drama” and bullying. These actions failed to stop or diminish in any meaningful way the harassment against Jane.
38. On one occasion toward the end of Jane’s tenth grade year, when the abuse was getting more and more out of control, she made an appointment to talk to Anoka High School Associate Principal Bill Krohn. During that appointment, she told him about the constant anti-gay slurs and physical threats being made against her at school. She also told him about Ms. Wichman’s failure to take adequate measures to address the abuse she was enduring in choir class. Associate Principal Krohn’s response was to advise Jane to “lay low” and to not be so public about her sexual orientation. To Jane’ s knowledge, Associate Principal Krohn’s response was that he would look at video from
16

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 17 of 68
security cameras but that Jane should lay low and not be so public about her sexual orientation.
39. Given the unremitting, worsening abuse she was enduring at school and her growing hopelessness about the school’s willingness to stop the harassment, Jane stopped attending classes at Anoka High School in October 2010, two months into her senior year.
40. Approximately one week after leaving school, Jane attempted to take her own life. She spent a week in the psychiatric ward of a Minneapolis hospital. While Jane was in the hospital recovering from her suicide attempt, she told her mother about the relentless anti-gay harassment that she had been enduring at school. Her mother subsequently called Defendant Anoka High School Principal Michael Farley and a number of Jane’s teachers to discuss the anti-gay harassment that Jane had experienced at Anoka High School.
41. In late November or early December 2010, Jane and her mother met with Principal Farley to discuss the abusive environment at school for Jane. Jane and her mother explained to Principal Farley that Jane wanted to re-enroll so she could graduate from high school, but only if the school administration was willing to take effective measures to address the anti-gay atmosphere at Anoka High School.
42. In the meeting, Principal Farley claimed that there was no record of anything Jane had reported to teachers or any record of her conversation with Assistant Principal Krohn. He also said that the school’s police liaison had no documentation or
17

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 18 of 68
recollection of the choir teacher, Ms. Wichman, reporting anything about the cell phone photo incident.
43. After the meeting with Principal Farley, Jane felt hopeless about the possibility that the school would ever take serious action to protect her from anti-gay harassment at Anoka High School. Because of the indifferent response by Principal Farley and other school officials to the harassment that Jane was suffering at school, Jane did not re-enroll at Anoka. Instead, she completed her studies through an online high school and graduated in June 2011.
44. Anoka High School and the District have made no adequate effort to educate staff about issues of harassment of LGBT students or students perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
45. At no time during Jane’s tenure at Anoka High School or the District, did the school or the District conduct adequate training for students, teachers, or administrators addressing harassment of LGBT students or students perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming.
Plaintiff K.R. 46. Plaintiff K.R. attended Anoka Middle School for the Arts (“Anoka Middle School”), formerly known as Fred Moore Middle School, from September 2008 until he transferred to another school outside the District in April 2011. 47. K.R. does not identify as gay, but is perceived as gay and as insufficiently masculine by his classmates in part because he likes to sing songs by female artists like
18

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 19 of 68
Cher and Lady Gaga. K.R. also wears gender non-conforming clothing, such as brightly colored scarves and sparkly red high-heeled shoes. He occasionally wears the scarves over his head like long hair.
48. While he was a student at Anoka Middle School, K.R. was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment based on his perceived sexual orientation and failure to conform to sex stereotypes. K.R. was a target for other students to harass and intimidate. Students regularly called him “fag” as he was passing by them in the hallways and told him things like “you’re so gay,” and “you dress gay.” Students also regularly insulted K.R. because he liked to sing “girl songs.” One time, K.R. brought his “Cher purse” to school to show his teacher. One boy said, “nice purse,” and his group of friends all laughed. Then the boy told K.R., “you’re a guy—act like it.”
49. One student was especially aggressive in bullying K.R. because of his perceived sexual orientation and failure to conform to sex stereotypes. Beginning in the sixth grade, this student frequently called K.R. names such as “ugly-ass bitch” and threatened to “punch [him] in the face.” The harassment was not limited to verbal insults and threats—on various occasions, the student physically attacked K.R. by slapping him in the face, shoving him against a brick wall, or by shoving him into lockers. In seventh grade, K.R. was shoved down the stairs by an eighth grader. The eighth grader threatened K.R.’s life saying, “if you tell anyone about this, I’ll fucking kill you.”
50. Anoka Middle School officials were aware of the harassment against K.R., but failed to take anything but minimal action to address it. Instead of addressing the
19

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 20 of 68
students who were being abusive to K.R., school officials commonly isolated K.R. from other students, further drawing attention to him and making him a target for other students, or to minimize the incident altogether. For example, once when K.R. was using the bathroom, he felt a liquid showering his clothes and body. He looked up and saw a stream of urine falling on him while some boys outside the stall laughed at him. K.R. was extremely upset at being urinated on. He was late to class, and told the teacher he needed to go to the principal’s office. When K.R. informed Associate Principal Denise Collins about what had happened, she told him, “it was probably water.” Instead of asking him the identity of the student who had urinated on him, Associate Principal Collins told K.R. that he should just use the nurse’s restroom. Later, when he tried to use the nurse’s restroom, he was reprimanded by school staff.
51. Similarly, when K.R. reported to school officials that he was being harassed in the gym locker room by other students, the school’s response was to have K.R. change clothes in Associate Principal Collins’ office, not to address the students who were harassing him.
52. On another occasion, K.R. was sitting in a classroom when a student behind him said, “you’re a fag!” and shoved K.R. K.R. swung back and they started fighting. K.R. started screaming for help. K.R. saw the teacher watching the entire incident, but she just stood there, even though other students ran to her for help. K.R. eventually ran out of the room and reported the incident to Associate Principal Collins.
20

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 21 of 68
53. K.R.’s mother, Rebecca, repeatedly reported her concerns about K.R.’s safety to school officials, also to little or no effect. At certain points in the school year, Rebecca was in contact with school officials as often as once a week to discuss the antigay and gender-based harassment against K.R. In addition to Associate Principal Collins, Rebecca reported the harassment against K.R. to then-Principal Katherine Baufield, teacher Lois Cranston, and teacher Holly Schmidt. Despite Rebecca’s ongoing reports of the hostile climate against K.R. and her repeated request that the school conduct diversity training, at no time during K.R.’s tenure at Anoka Middle School did the school or the District conduct adequate training for students, teachers, or school administrators addressing harassment of LGBT students or students perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming.
54. Sometime around mid-February 2011, after K.R. had suffered years of harassment, school officials assigned “paras” – District terminology for paraprofessionals, school staff who serve essentially as teacher’s aides – to escort K.R. in the hallways. Initially, K.R. enjoyed having the paras escort him, but shortly discovered that the escorts did not stop the harassment against him. K.R. was still called names and occasionally shoved in the hallways. Moreover, some of the paras treated K.R. as if the assignment of escorts was intended to punish, as opposed to protect, him. On several occasions, the para escorting K.R. forgot or stranded him in the hallways, which caused K.R. to miss some school activities. On one occasion, K.R. was shoved by another
21

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 22 of 68
student in the presence of a para named Eva Karp. K.R. complained to Ms. Karp, but she refused to take any action, saying that the other student was not her responsibility.
55. In April 2011, K.R.’s parents concluded that the harassment against him had become intolerable, and transferred him to a school in another district. Since transferring to his new school K.R. has not been targeted for harassment because of his perceived sexual orientation or gender expression. He feels safe and happy at school for the first time in years.
56. Anoka Middle School and the District have made no adequate effort to educate staff about issues of harassment of LGBT students or students perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
Plaintiff D.F. 57. D.F. was a student at Anoka Middle School for the Arts, a school within the District, from September 2010 until June 2011. D.F. previously attended Jackson Middle School, a school within the District, from September 2008 to February 2010. D.F. identifies as gay and some of his classmates perceive him as insufficiently masculine because he does not participate in stereotypically masculine activities such as sports. 58. D.F. has been subject to harassment because of his sexual orientation and gender nonconformity at three different schools within the District. The anti-gay and gender based harassment against D.F. began in the fifth grade at Riverview Elementary School when other students began calling him a “fag.” D.F. told his teacher, who instructed the entire class to stop using the word “fag.” Although the teacher’s warning
22

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 23 of 68
was effective with respect to that particular class, the harassment against D.F. continued and intensified into the sixth grade when he began attending Jackson Middle School. At Jackson Middle School, students regularly shouted slurs at him like “fag,” “fat boy,” and “wimp.”
59. D.F. regularly reported the harassment to teachers and other school officials when it occurred and eventually began to meet weekly with his school counselor, Amy Storrick. Ms. Storrick told D.F. that she would talk to D.F.’s harassers, but the situation did not improve for him. D.F. also reported the harassment and abuse to Associate Principal Anita Udager. At one point during his sixth grade year, Ms. Storrick asked Associate Principal Udager for assistance in addressing the harassment against D.F. D.F. met with Associate Principal Udager and Ms. Storrick on multiple occasions during his sixth grade to discuss the anti-gay harassment against him. During the meetings, Ms. Udager and Ms. Storrick identified steps designed to remedy the harassment against D.F., such as having school officials talk to D.F.’s harassers. Any actions that were implemented were grossly inadequate, as D.F. continued to be harassed by his peers.
60. Because of the harassment, and the school’s tepid response, D.F. cried at home regularly. He did not feel safe at school. The harassment negatively affected his school work and grades and his emotional well-being. He began to have serious anger issues and to throw tantrums at home as a result of his anxiety and frustration around the harassment.
23

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 24 of 68
61. Seventh grade was the most intense year of harassment for D.F., and the harassment became a daily—if not hourly—facet of D.F.’s life at school. D.F. informed his teacher, Ms. Anderson, that a particular student was frequently harassing him in her class. On several occasions, the student threw notes at him that said, “get out of our school fag” and “we don’t want a fag living here.” When the teacher saw the notes she merely threw them away.
62. Ms. Anderson’s response was not the only time that school officials ignored the harassment against D.F. For example, on one occasion during the eighth grade, a student pushed him hard into a locker. D.F. promptly told Associate Principal Gwen Dillenburg, who responded that there was nothing she could do and advised D.F. to “try to stay out of people’s way.”
63. In seventh grade, D.F. continued to meet with a school counselor, Kim Kesti, on a weekly basis. D.F. regularly reported the harassment to Ms. Kesti during those meetings. On multiple occasions, D.F. met with Ms. Kesti and Associate Principal Udager together, and they discussed the harassment he was experiencing. At one point, at Ms. Kesti’s request, D.F. made a list of the students who were harassing him. He recalls that he filled two pages with names of students who were harassing him. Despite providing these names, D.F. continued to be harassed.
64. During the winter of his seventh grade year, D.F. and his parents met with Associate Principal Brian Carlson and Ms. Kesti, his counselor. D.F.’s parents initiated the meeting to discuss D.F.’s harassment. Associate Principal Carlson suggested that
24

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 25 of 68
D.F. spend some time away from school for his own safety. Administrators also suggested that D.F. transfer to an alternative school because he remained unsafe at Jackson Middle School. D.F.’s parents decided against that proposal because they viewed the alternative school as a place for troubled students. But they reluctantly agreed to keep D.F. home for a few days before a scheduled break.
65. D.F. was shocked and angered that school officials asked him to stay home and miss school as a means of addressing the harassment against him. His parents were also frustrated that the school district was unable to do more to protect D.F.
66. About that same time, D.F. began taking medication for depression. 67. For the eighth grade, D.F. changed schools and began attending Anoka Middle School for the Arts. Despite changing schools, D.F. continued to be called a “fag” because of his failure to conform to sex stereotypes. He was also called other antigay names and students sometimes made crude hand gestures at him. When he was harassed, D.F. promptly told a teacher. 68. In addition to the regular verbal harassment, D.F. was at times subject to physical harassment. On one occasion, he was attacked by another student when they were alone in the restroom. The student pulled D.F.’s hair and hit him hard in the head with what appeared to be a day planner. 69. The attack left D.F. with significant head pain. D.F. went to the administration office where he told the secretary that he just got attacked in the bathroom and his head was hurting. Although it was during school hours, the secretary told him no
25

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 26 of 68
one was available to help him and he could come back the next day. The next day when D.F. spoke with Associate Principal Gwen Dillenburg, she declined to take action because she claimed that D.F. had no proof that the incident had occurred. Associate Principal Dillenburg also told D.F. that he was “exaggerating” what had happened.
70. D.F. also regularly reported the abuse and harassment he experienced to math teacher Carissa Simonet, social studies teacher Abbey Engerbretson, chorus teacher Ms. Morgan, and math teacher Matthew Polich. Despite school officials’ knowledge of the verbal and physical attacks against him, the harassment against D.F. continued, and he often was afraid to go to school. D.F. plans to begin high school within the District this fall, but he is fearful of the harassment he expects to encounter.
71. Anoka Middle School, Jackson Middle School, and the District have made no adequate effort to educate staff about issues of harassment of LGBT students or students perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
72. At no time during D.F.’s tenure at Anoka Middle School and Jackson Middle School did the school or the District conduct adequate training for students, teachers, or administrators addressing harassment of LGBT students or students perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming.
Plaintiff B.G. 73. B.G. attended Fred Moore Middle School (now Anoka Middle School for the Arts) from September 2008 until February 2010 and Jackson Middle School from
26

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 27 of 68
February 2010 until June 2011. B.G. recently completed the eighth grade and plans to start high school in the fall at Champlin Park High School within the District.
74. B.G. describes herself as openly bisexual and gender-non-conforming. By her own description, B.G.’s mannerisms and clothing are “very tomboyish” and “not girly.”
75. At Fred Moore Middle School, B.G. experienced regular verbal harassment from other students because of her failure to conform to gender stereotypes and the perception that she is bisexual or a lesbian. She was frequently called names such as “dyke,” “whore,” and “gay.”
76. B.G. reported the harassment against her to school officials at Fred Moore Middle School on at least 30 separate occasions, to little or no effect. For example, B.G. repeatedly told the Principal of Fred Moore Middle School, Katherine Baufield, about the harassment she experienced. Principal Baufield would commonly respond by giving B.G. suggestions for how to ignore the harassment or how B.G. could respond with a “comeback” to the insult. Despite Principal Baufield’s “advice,” the harassment against B.G. continued unabated. Similarly, on the times when B.G. reported the harassment to the school’s assistant principals because Principal Baufield was not available, they failed to stop the abusive students’ behaviors toward B.G.
77. The harassment against B.G. intensified following the November 2009 suicide of Samantha Johnson, another female student and a friend of B.G.’s, who was also perceived as a lesbian and gender non-conforming. In response to the tragedy, many
27

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 28 of 68
students blamed B.G. for Samantha’s death and made comments to B.G. such as, “why don’t you go kill yourself, too?” When B.G. reported to a school counselor the other students’ remarks and insults, the counselor responded by telling B.G. that she should just ignore the harassment, or tell B.G. that she was “pretty” in a misguided attempt to help B.G. feel better.
78. Because of the pervasive harassment and abuse she was experiencing at Fred Moore Middle School, B.G. transferred to Jackson Middle School in February 2010, in the middle of her seventh-grade year.
79. The harassment against B.G. because of her perceived sexual orientation and her gender non-conformity did not stop. At Jackson Middle School, students frequently called her names such as “dyke,” “queer,” “faggot,” “guy,” “freak,” “transvestite,” “bitch,” “cunt,” “slut,” “whore,” “skank,” “prostitute,” and “hooker,” often in front of teachers who failed to take any action to stop the harassment. Students at Jackson Middle School also told B.G. that she should “kill herself,” apparently in reference to recent suicides of LGBT students in the District.
80. B.G. was also physically harassed by other students. For example, during the 2010-2011 school year, other students tripped her at school multiple times, pushed her into a trash can once, and pushed her into a locker three times.
81. B.G. repeatedly informed her school counselor at Jackson Middle School, Kim Kesti, about the harassment.
28

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 29 of 68
82. The first incident of harassment that B.G. reported to Ms. Kesti involved a male student making an obscene gesture toward her in the computer lab, flicking his tongue between two fingers, an apparent reference to lesbian sexual acts. Ms. Kesti asked B.G. who the student was, and B.G. told her. Whatever action, if any, Ms. Kesti took was grossly inadequate as the student continued to harass B.G.
83. B.G. also informed Associate Principal Anita Udager about the harassment she experienced after a group of students attempted to push her into a trash can, causing an abrasion on her back. Associate Principal Udager asked for the names of the students who had tried to push her into the garbage can, but B.G. did not know their names. Associate Principal Udager said she would “keep an eye out,” but to B.G.’s knowledge she took no other action to protect B.G. from further harassment.
84. As a result of the continued harassment, B.G.’s grades went down and she suffered and continues to suffer from low self-esteem, anger, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. She was hospitalized for at least one week in spring of 2010 and spent a month away from school in a full-time outpatient program from approximately March 23 to April 23, 2011 to address those mental health issues.
85. Fred Moore, Jackson Middle School, and the District have made no adequate effort to educate staff about issues of harassment of LGBT students or students perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
86. At no time during B.G.’s tenure at Fred Moore or Jackson Middle School did school officials conduct adequate training for students, teachers, or administrators
29

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 30 of 68
addressing harassment of LGBT students or students perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming.
Plaintiff D.M.-B. 87. Plaintiff D.M.-B. attended Jackson Middle School from September 2008 to June 2011. D.M.-B.’s parents are Michael McGee and Jason Backes, a same-sex couple. Although D.M.-B. identifies as straight, he is often perceived as gay by other students because his fathers are gay and because he is small for his age and participates in gymnastics, which some of his classmates perceive as a “girls’ sport.” 88. D.M.-B.’s harassment began in the fifth grade, when he was a student at Champlin Elementary School. One student in particular, D.G., regularly harassed D.M.B., accusing him of being gay. D.M.-B.’s parents complained to school officials many times about the harassment, including several telephone conversations with the Principal, Neil Klund-Schubert. School officials said that they would take care of the problem. They failed to do so, and despite continued complaints from D.M.-B.’s parents the boys were not effectively separated until near the end of D.M.-B.’s sixth grade year. 89. In sixth grade, D.M.-B. began attending Jackson Middle School, along with his primary harasser D.G. 90. Around the start of D.M.-B.’s sixth grade year, D.M.-B.’s parents had several conversations with Jackson Middle School staff including guidance counselor Kim Kesti and then-Principal Tom Sullivan. In those communications, D.M.-B.’s parents
30

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 31 of 68
mentioned that their family had two fathers and expressed concern that D.M.-B. would continue to be a target of harassment. They asked how the school would handle the situation and recommended that administrators communicate with Champlin Elementary School to become familiar with the past issues of harassment that D.M.-B. had faced, and to consider how to avoid similar problems. Principal Sullivan assured D.M.-B.’s parents that Jackson Middle School would get D.M.-B.’s file from the elementary school and that there was no need for them to worry.
91. Several times throughout D.M.-B.’s tenure at Jackson Middle School, D.M.-B.’s parents asked officials at Jackson Middle School and the District whether the school or the District provided training to students and staff to address and prevent harassment of students perceived as LGBT. In each of those meetings, D.M.-B.’s parents urged the school and the District to adopt such training to stem the abuse that D.M.-B. was experiencing and offered specific suggestions for programs that one of D.M.-B’s parents was familiar with through his work in a neighboring school district that had adopted successful character education programs. In each meeting, school officials claimed that such training would not be possible because such training was not necessary or was already encompassed within existing training – the details of which were never provided to D.M.-B.’s parents, despite repeated requests – or because no resources were currently available for such training.
92. Throughout D.M.-B.’s time at Jackson Middle School, Ms. Kesti was designated by administrators as the main point of contact for his family. She began
31

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 32 of 68
meeting regularly with D.M.-B after problems with harassment intensified near the middle of his sixth grade year.
93. In the sixth grade, D.G. and another boy named Q.F. and their group of friends resumed harassing D.M.-B. based on the perception that he is gay and gender non-conforming. They and other students frequently called D.M.-B. names such as “fag,” “homo,” “gay boy,” and “Gaymian,” particularly during the “passing period” between classes.
94. Physical harassment of D.M.-B. intensified in the sixth grade as well. Other students sometimes “book-dropped” D.M.-B. (knocking his books out of his arms) and pushed him in the hallways.
95. On one occasion D.G. stabbed D.M.-B. in the neck with a pencil. Associate Principal Udager notified D.M.-B.’s parents about that incident. She indicated that school officials would “look into it” and said that they were going to try to keep D.M.-B. and his attacker as separate as possible but D.G. continued to harass D. M.-B.
96. Several months into D.M.-B.’s sixth grade year, his parents learned that the harassment was continuing. They immediately alerted Ms. Kesti, Principal Sullivan, and Associate Principal Anita Udager.
97. Even after these complaints, D.G. continued to harass D.M-B. For example, on one occasion D.G. grabbed D.M.-B. by his throat, pushing him up against the wall and choking him, in the school bathroom.
32

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 33 of 68
98. Additionally, during his sixth grade year, some girls in D.M.-B.’s gym class began harassing him about his involvement in gymnastics because they viewed it as a “girls’ sport.” Comments directed at D.M.-B. about his involvement in gymnastics included the suggestion that he is “flexible enough to suck his own penis.”
99. D.M.-B.’s parents alerted Ms. Kesti about the harassment D.M.-B. was experiencing in gym class. The gym teacher was also aware of the harassment and made some efforts to help the students gain appreciation for gymnastics, but those efforts were unsuccessful. School officials appeared to take no adequate action to counter that harassment, and it continued.
100. In the seventh grade, the harassment of D.M.-B., both verbal and physical, grew worse. D.M.-B. recalls that at least 10 times per week other students would shove him in the hallways or call him names such as “Gaymian,” “gay boy,” and “fag.” On one occasion a student called him anti-gay slurs, including saying to him, “your dads are gay, so you’re going to be gay, so why don’t you just go suck your dads’ cocks.”
101. The harassment took a significant toll on D.M.-B. as the seventh grade progressed. In the sixth grade D.M.-B. made the honor roll, but by the middle of seventh grade his grades started to slip. He began turning in incomplete homework assignments or failing to do homework at all. He also began showing signs of serious emotional distress. D.M.-B. began to have serious tantrums in which he would scream, cry, punch himself, punch the wall, and throw himself on the floor. The only way his parents could stop the tantrums was to physically restrain him. The only time D.M.-B.’s parents had
33

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 34 of 68
seen him engage in such behavior previously was around the time he first came into their home at six years old. D.M.-B. was also sleeping poorly and engaging in destructive behaviors. Through extensive conversations, his parents attempted to learn what was causing this regressive behavior, and D.M.-B. finally admitted that the harassment had become unbearable. D.M.-B.’s parents promptly found him a private counselor, whom he began seeing regularly, to help him process the emotional trauma caused by the harassment.
102. After D.M.-B.’s parents learned that other students were still harassing D.M.-B. at school, they contacted Ms. Kesti; Brian Carlson, the Associate Principal for seventh graders at Jackson Middle School; and Principal Sullivan. They spoke with Ms. Kesti and Associate Principal Carlson several times about their concerns. D.M.-B.’s parents told them about the ongoing anti-gay slurs and harassment in the bathroom and stressed that D.M.-B. did not feel safe in school.
103. D.M.-B.’s parents copied Principal Sullivan on all their communications to Ms. Kesti and Associate Principal Carlson, but Principal Sullivan never responded to D.M.-B. or his parents.
104. Near the end of spring break, D.M.-B. expressed to his parents that he did not want to return to Jackson Middle School.
105. As a result of the persistent, worsening harassment and D.M.-B.’s parents’ increasing alarm about the psychological toll it was taking on him, in the spring of D.M.B.’s seventh grade year, on or around April 12, 2010, the school convened a meeting with
34

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 35 of 68
D.M.-B. and his parents and D.M.-B.’s teaching team, including his teaching team, as well as guidance counselor Ms. Kesti.
106. In the April team meeting, D.M.-B.’s parents asked what the school was doing to educate students and prevent harassment of students perceived to be gay. The administrators responded that D.M.-B.’s parents would have to raise that question with district-level staff.
107. Approximately a month after the team meeting, in May 2010, D.M.-B.’s parents met with Superintendent Carlson and another District administrator, Greg Cole. In that meeting, Mr. Cole acknowledged to D.M.-B.’s parents that the District handles issues of racial harassment differently from harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. Superintendent Carlson and Mr. Cole also acknowledged that the District had no systemic approach in place to address harassment of students who were LGBT or perceived to be LGBT.
108. In the summer after seventh grade, D.M.-B. was afraid to return to school because of the persistent harassment. He asked his parents if he could be home-schooled, but they told him that would not be possible for the family and that D.M.-B. would have to return to Jackson Middle School for eighth grade.
109. At the start of the eighth grade year, D.M.-B.’s parents again met informally with all of his teachers and explained that D.M.-B. was being raised by two fathers and that he had experienced chronic anti-gay and gender-based harassment since the fifth grade.
35

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 36 of 68
110. The anti-gay and gender-based harassment against D.M-B. continued into his eighth grade. Other students frequently called him anti-gay slurs, including “gay boy,” “Gaymian,” “faggot,” “fag boy,” “homo,” “queer,” and “daddy’s boy.”
111. Sometimes the harassment took the form of mock sexual come-ons by other boys, in which the other student would touch D.M.-B.’s arm or leg in a sexually suggestive manner while calling him “Gaymian” or “fag boy.” On occasion another student would touch D.M.-B. in that manner and then shove him.
112. The harassment sometimes happened within view of teachers who failed to stop or reprimand the harassers. For instance, another student loudly called D.M.-B. “gay” in the hallway, and a teacher standing in the hallway looked at D.M.-B. but did not do anything. At the beginning of the year, he also complained to teachers about harassment on several occasions and the teachers failed to intervene.
113. D.M.-B.’s parents also continued to report the harassment to school officials. On several occasions during D.M.-B.’s eighth grade year, his parents also spoke to the School Board at board meetings about the anti-gay and gender-based harassment and abuse suffered by D.M.-B.
114. Once toward the beginning of his eighth grade year, D.M.-B., who is African-American, was called “nigger” by a classmate. D.M.-B. reported this to his parents, and they instructed him to tell his counselor Ms. Kesti. She immediately addressed the problem and the student who had called D.M.-B. the racial slur was punished. Unlike the school’s ineffectual attempts to address D.M.-B.’s sexual
36

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 37 of 68
orientation- and gender-based harassment, this intervention was effective: D.M.-B. was not called racial slurs again.
115. In February 2010, at his parents’ request, the school convened another meeting of D.M.-B.’s teachers, along with Ms. Kesti and Associate Principal Anita Udager. The teachers present claimed that they had been unaware of the harassment, despite having met with D.M.-B.’s parents earlier in the school year.
116. In that meeting, D.M.-B.’s parents again suggested specific training, including diversity education, that the school could implement to prevent anti-gay and gender-based harassment like that D.M.-B. was experiencing. They suggested that training for students and staff could be implemented with minimal effort or disruption during morning announcements and staff meetings. Associate Principal Udager replied that “agendas are all already booked for our meetings,” but that some of those would likely be possible. However, the school never followed up with D.M.-B.’s parents about conducting training.
117. During that meeting, D.M.-B.’s parents also asked the teachers and staff members in the room if they felt like they had received enough training from the district to deal with anti-gay harassment. Nearly everyone in the room agreed that they had not received sufficient support or training to address anti-gay harassment.
118. After the teachers left the room, D.M.-B., his parents, Ms. Kesti, Associate Principal Udager, and Ann Lindsey, a District employee, discussed the impact of the SOCP on the school’s efforts to combat harassment. Ms. Udager remained quiet while
37

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 38 of 68
the other school staff present agreed that the SOCP limits what the school can do to address anti-gay harassment.
119. Although by the end of eighth grade, school staff were attempting to respond more diligently to D.M.-B.’s reports of harassment, those efforts failed to stop the harassment. For example, in March of his eighth grade year, some other students in D.M.-B.’s geography class took D.M.-B.’s day planner and wrote “I like men!” in it.
120. Toward the end of D.M.-B.’s eighth grade year, a student named J.R. encountered D.M.-B. in the hallway and started pushing D.M.-B., calling him “fag” and “homo.” J.R. and his friends then began harassing D.M.-B.’s regularly at lunch, calling them names like “fag.” In a typical exchange, J.R. would push D.M.-B., who would tell him to stop. J.R. would respond, “what are you going to do about it, pussy?” and push him again.
121. D.M.-B. first notified Associate Principal Udager, who said that she would “deal with it [the next] morning.” In reality the harassment continued even after several more reports to various administrators. After nearly a week of incidents Associate Principal Udager finally disciplined J.R. Even despite this action, J.R. continued to harass D.M.-B. by spreading rumors about seeing D.M.-B. “kissing a guy” to D.M.-B.’s friends and other students.
122. Throughout his eighth grade year, D.M.-B. continued to suffer emotionally from the harassment he experienced throughout his time at Jackson Middle School. He missed sleep, he was emotionally turbulent at times, began having regular, severe
38

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 39 of 68
headaches, he expressed that he “hated” going to school, and his grades continued to suffer. He continued to see a private counselor to deal with the stress caused by the harassment.
123. Teachers at Jackson Middle School have expressed to D.M.-B.’s parents that there is “no training and no resources” available to help them address bullying of students perceived as gay. Teachers have told D.M.-B.’s parents that they are unsure how to handle anti-gay harassment due to the SOCP. Associate Principal Udager has also told D.M.-B.’s parents that “we don’t have staff time to address the problem.”
124. Jackson Middle School and the District have made no adequate effort to educate staff about issues of harassment of LGBT students or students perceived as LGBT or gender non-conforming.
125. At no time during D.M.-B’s tenure at Jackson Middle School, did the school or the District conduct training for students, teachers, or administrators addressing harassment of LGBT students or students perceived to be LGBT or gender nonconforming.
126. D.M.-B. would like to attend Champlin Park High School within the District next year but is very hesitant to do so because of the unrelenting physical and verbal harassment he has suffered, which he expects to continue. The District’s Anti-Gay Policies, Including the SOCP
127. For close to two decades, the District has maintained policies that expressly single out and stigmatize LGBT people, treating them, and only them, as unworthy of
39

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 40 of 68
even being discussed in school. Through these policies and actions, the District has perpetuated and helped create an environment that legitimizes perceptions that LGBT students are outsiders who are different from and unequal to their peers. In so doing, the District has substantially contributed to and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment within its schools. The District’s policies impede efforts to curb harassment and prevent school officials from complying with their constitutional and statutory obligations to treat equally Plaintiffs and other students who are or are perceived to be LGBT.
128. The District’s anti-gay policy originated in 1995 at the urging of an outside group that eventually became known as the Parent Action League (“PAL”). PAL is still in existence today.
129. PAL’s primary agenda is to promote anti-gay policies and practices within the District, including so-called “reparative therapy” – an approach that maintains, contrary to the conclusions of every major mental health organization in the nation, that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling or other treatment. PAL’s leader recently reaffirmed in an interview that PAL has urged the District to teach that gay people can become heterosexual and to offer resources to LGBT students to lead them out of the “homosexual lifestyle.” Among the “reparative therapy” resources that PAL has promoted as appropriate for District students are Eagles’ Wings Ministry, Outpost Ministries, and Homosexuals Anonymous—all organizations that advocate that being gay is a sin or against God’s will.
40

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 41 of 68
130. In 1995, PAL successfully advocated for the District to adopt a health curriculum policy prohibiting teachers from teaching that homosexuality is a “normal” or a “valid lifestyle.” According to PAL, the policy was necessary because “[t]he homosexual lifestyle does not reflect the community standards of District #11, nor is it regarded as a norm in society.”
131. At the same time, PAL succeeded in convincing the School Board to adopt other policies that would allow PAL to mobilize against any content within District schools that reflected positive views of LGBT people, regardless whether such content was necessary to present accurate information about a particular topic or to foster a safe and equal learning environment for LGBT students. At PAL’s urging, the District passed a policy requiring that schools “clearly identif[y]” any content related to lesbian, gay, or bisexual people included within any class—a requirement not imposed on any other type of educational materials. Upon information and belief, PAL has used this policy over the years to monitor and censor material about LGBT issues within District schools and to prevent accurate information about LGBT people and issues from being presented. Similarly, PAL successfully urged the District to remove LGBT support services, including the Gay and Lesbian Helpline for Youth and Adults, from District health resource lists. These policies, and the influence that PAL exerts on the School Board, have played a substantial role in creating and perpetuating an atmosphere hostile to LGBT youth and those perceived to be LGBT within District schools.
41

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 42 of 68
132. In 2009, shortly after the District settled an anti-gay harassment case, the School Board purported to change its policy against homosexuality. The Board reworded the policy to state, in relevant part: “[t]eaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations. Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student led discussions.” The District terms this policy the “Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy” or “SOCP.”
133. Although it purports to require “neutrality” on questions of sexual orientation, the SOCP in fact operates exclusively as an anti-gay policy, barring discussions of LGBT people from the classroom while imposing no similar restrictions on the discussion of heterosexuals or heterosexuality. A District spokesperson recently confirmed that the SOCP does not require “neutrality” with respect to the topic of heterosexuality, but only with respect to “discussions of GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender] issues.”
134. Moreover, the SOCP, which was borne out of PAL’s anti-gay agenda, perpetuates anti-gay prejudice within District schools. As with its prior iteration, the SOCP acts as a gag policy by barring school staff from discussing LGBT people or expressing the view, regardless of the purpose for doing so, that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is a valid or normal “lifestyle.” In other words, District personnel are prevented from discussing or treating homosexuality or bisexuality in the same way that they treat
42

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 43 of 68
heterosexuality—that is, as an ordinary personal trait that many people share and that does not need to be “repaired.” The SOCP plainly and purposefully hamstrings school officials in any efforts to counter the hostile climate for LGBT students, at great expense to the well-being and education of Plaintiffs and other students who are LGBT or perceived to be LGBT and who face harassment by peers on that basis.
135. As made clear not only from District-issued guidance but the enforcement of the policy, the SOCP acts to prevent even the most basic, factual information about LGBT people to be presented—or even discussed—within District schools. A letter from Superintendent Carlson to the teachers’ union to explain the scope of the SOCP, dated January 24, 2011, states that the mere mention by teachers that the American Psychological Association’s official position is that sexual orientation is not a choice and that there is no scientific evidence that a person can change sexual orientation would violate the SOCP. The same letter indicated that teaching about persecution of LGBT people in Nazi Germany is not permissible because “this fact is not a part of the Districtadopted curriculum.” Teachers were not forbidden from referring to any other category of facts or group of people.
136. In 2005, teachers on the history curriculum committee approved the addition of a unit about the way that the strategies used by the African American civil rights movement had influenced subsequent movements of “disenfranchised groups” to gain rights, and specifically named “LGBT” people as one of the groups. In January 2010, however, District administrators refused to permit a teacher to show a film
43

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 44 of 68
detailing an act of civil disobedience by a lesbian couple who were refused a marriage license as part of a lesson plan on the impact of the African American model of civil rights on the LGBT rights movement because it would have violated the SOCP. On March 30, 2011, in a meeting with members of the teachers’ union, District administrator Barry Arrowsmith, who oversees the secondary social studies curriculum, informed the teachers that the District had unilaterally removed the reference to the LGBT movement from the curriculum because it violated the SOCP.
137. The District has also applied the SOCP to limit the information about LGBT people that could be presented in a voluntary monthly diversity training program for teachers called SEED (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity). For the unit on anti-LGBT bias, SEED organizers initially selected a book entitled Am I Blue?, which included fiction and nonfiction writing about LGBT teens. The School Board then issued guidance saying that SEED materials about sexual orientation could be only nonfiction; for discussions about other groups, however, there was no such restriction. SEED organizers then selected a book entitled How Homophobia Hurts Kids, and District officials soon informed them that this book was not acceptable either, telling them that they had to “include an opposing viewpoint.” No such restriction was imposed on other topics of discussion. SEED then selected a book entitled Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints, which finally passed muster at the District.
138. The reach of the SOCP has even extended to bar students from presenting information about LGBT people as part of school assignments, even when such
44

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 45 of 68
information is appropriate and related to the curriculum. For example, a teacher abruptly ended Plaintiff Jane Doe’s presentation in a law class about the Equal Protection Clause when she mentioned an example involving a same-sex couple. No other student’s presentation was cut short. Similarly, the District terminated a gay student’s senior project consisting of a survey on the school climate for LGBT students, even though the project was supported by the student’s teacher.
139. The implementation of the SOCP, and its very existence, demean LGBT students, including Plaintiffs, by sending the unmistakable message that a core part of their identity is so controversial, shameful, or inappropriate that it may not be part of the dialogue about issues that fundamentally affect a school’s students. By singling out issues concerning LGBT people as inappropriate for discussion, the SOCP also perpetuates intolerance, hostility, and violence by other students against their peers who are perceived to be LGBT.
140. The District’s rigid insistence in preserving the SOCP violates its wellestablished legal obligations to provide equal educational opportunities to LGBT students or those perceived to be LGBT. In light of the District’s actual notice of the severe and pervasive anti-gay harassment suffered by Plaintiffs and other LGBT students, the continuation of the SOCP is unreasonable and serves no legitimate government interest.
45

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 46 of 68
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV Denial of Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by Jane Doe Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Mike Farley, in their official capacities) 141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 142. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived Jane Doe of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without justification, have treated Jane Doe differently than other similarly situated students and student groups on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 143. Defendants’ policies single out gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, students with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, and students perceived as gay, lesbian, and bisexual for differential and adverse treatment on the basis of their or their parents’ actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ policies prevent presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people even when such information serves important educational purposes, while imposing no similar restrictions on discussion of heterosexuality or heterosexual people. The District’s policy of banning wholesale the discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and issues from the classroom stigmatizes gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and denies them equal educational opportunities on the basis of their sexual orientation.
46

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 47 of 68
144. Defendants’ policies have substantially contributed to the creation of a pervasive anti-gay climate in the District and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment in District schools. By forbidding presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Defendants’ policies prevent school officials from taking effective measures to prevent anti-gay harassment and from complying with their constitutional obligations to treat all students equally, without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation.
145. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate that deprived Jane Doe of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
146. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harassment of Jane Doe based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants also failed to adequately train school staff about any policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and/or failure to train caused Jane Doe to be subjected to the described anti-gay discrimination and harassment.
147. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Jane Doe has been injured and suffered damages to be determined according to proof.
47

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 48 of 68
148. Jane Doe requests judgment in her favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV
Denial of Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by K.R. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 150. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived K.R. of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without justification, have treated K.R. differently than other similarly situated students and student groups on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 151. Defendants’ policies single out gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, students with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, and students perceived as gay, lesbian, and bisexual for differential and adverse treatment on the basis of their or their parents’ actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ policies prevent presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people even when such information serves important educational purposes, while imposing no similar restrictions on discussion of heterosexuality or heterosexual people. The District’s policy of banning wholesale the discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and issues from the classroom stigmatizes gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with gay, lesbian, or
48

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 49 of 68
bisexual parents and denies them equal educational opportunities on the basis of their sexual orientation.
152. Defendants’ policies have substantially contributed to the creation of a pervasive anti-gay climate in the District and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment in District schools. By forbidding presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Defendants’ policies prevent school officials from taking effective measures to prevent anti-gay harassment and from complying with their constitutional obligations to treat all students equally, without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation.
153. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate that deprived K.R. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
154. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harassment of K.R. based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants also failed to adequately train school staff about any policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and/or failure to train caused K.R. to be subjected to the described anti-gay discrimination and harassment.
49

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 50 of 68
155. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, K.R. has been injured and suffered damages to be determined according to proof.
156. K.R. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV Denial of Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by D.F. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 158. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived D.F. of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without justification, have treated D.F. differently than other similarly situated students and student groups on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 159. Defendants’ policies single out gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, students with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, and students perceived as gay, lesbian, and bisexual for differential and adverse treatment on the basis of their or their parents’ actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ policies prevent presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people even when such information serves important educational purposes, while imposing no similar restrictions on discussion of heterosexuality or heterosexual people. The District’s policy of banning
50

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 51 of 68
wholesale the discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and issues from the classroom stigmatizes gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and denies them equal educational opportunities on the basis of their sexual orientation.
160. Defendants’ policies have substantially contributed to the creation of a pervasive anti-gay climate in the District and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment in District schools. By forbidding presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Defendants’ policies prevent school officials from taking effective measures to prevent anti-gay harassment and from complying with their constitutional obligations to treat all students equally, without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation.
161. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate that deprived D.F. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
162. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harassment of D.F. based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants also failed to adequately train school staff about any policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ deliberate indifference
51

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 52 of 68
and/or failure to train caused D.F. to be subjected to the described anti-gay discrimination and harassment.
163. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, D.F. has been injured and suffered damages to be determined according to proof.
164. D.F. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV Denial of Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by B.G. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson, Jerri McGonigal, and Tom Hagerty, in their official
capacities) 165. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 166. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived B.G. of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without justification, have treated B.G. differently than other similarly situated students and student groups on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 167. Defendants’ policies single out gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, students with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, and students perceived as gay, lesbian, and bisexual for differential and adverse treatment on the basis of their or their parents’ actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ policies prevent presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people even when such information
52

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 53 of 68
serves important educational purposes, while imposing no similar restrictions on discussion of heterosexuality or heterosexual people. The District’s policy of banning wholesale the discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and issues from the classroom stigmatizes gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and denies them equal educational opportunities on the basis of their sexual orientation.
168. Defendants’ policies have substantially contributed to the creation of a pervasive anti-gay climate in the District and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment in District schools. By forbidding presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Defendants’ policies prevent school officials from taking effective measures to prevent anti-gay harassment and from complying with their constitutional obligations to treat all students equally, without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation.
169. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate that deprived B.G. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
170. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harassment of B.G. based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants also failed to adequately train school staff about any policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the
53

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 54 of 68
basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and/or failure to train caused B.G. to be subjected to the described anti-gay discrimination and harassment.
171. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, B.G. has been injured and suffered damages to be determined according to proof.
172. B.G. requests judgment in her favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV Denial of Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by D.M.-B. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Tom Hagerty, in their official capacities) 173. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 174. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived D.M.-B. of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that Defendants, without justification, have treated D.M.-B. differently than other similarly situated students and student groups on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. 175. Defendants’ policies single out gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, students with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents, and students perceived as gay, lesbian, and bisexual for differential and adverse treatment on the basis of their or their parents’ actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ policies prevent presentation of accurate
54

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 55 of 68
information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people even when such information serves important educational purposes, while imposing no similar restrictions on discussion of heterosexuality or heterosexual people. The District’s policy of banning wholesale the discussion of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and issues from the classroom stigmatizes gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and those with gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and denies them equal educational opportunities on the basis of their sexual orientation.
176. Defendants’ policies have substantially contributed to the creation of a pervasive anti-gay climate in the District and exacerbated the epidemic of anti-gay harassment in District schools. By forbidding presentation of accurate information concerning gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, Defendants’ policies prevent school officials from taking effective measures to prevent anti-gay harassment and from complying with their constitutional obligations to treat all students equally, without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation.
177. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate that deprived D.M.-B. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
178. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harassment of D.M.-B. based on actual or perceived sexual orientation in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants also failed to
55

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 56 of 68
adequately train school staff about any policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and/or failure to train caused D.M.-B. to be subjected to the described anti-gay discrimination and harassment.
179. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, D.M.-B. has been injured and suffered damages to be determined according to proof.
180. D.M.-B. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Discrimination Based on Sex (Brought by K.R. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 Against the School District; School
Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 181. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 182. The School District and each school within the District attended by K.R. are recipients of federal financial assistance. 183. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated K.R.’s rights under Title IX by discriminating against him on the basis of sex. 184. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sex was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sex that deprived K.R. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
56

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 57 of 68
185. Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the harassment of K.R. based on sex in violation of Title IX. This indifference caused K.R. to be subjected to the described sex discrimination and gender-based harassment.
186. Defendants violations of Title IX were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by K.R. as alleged.
187. K.R. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Discrimination Based on Sex (Brought by D.F. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 Against the School District; School
Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 188. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 189. The School District and each school within the District attended by D.F. are recipients of federal financial assistance. 190. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated D.F.’s rights under Title IX by discriminating against him on the basis of sex. 191. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sex was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sex that deprived D.F. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
57

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 58 of 68
192. Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the harassment of D.F. based on sex in violation of Title IX. This indifference caused D.F. to be subjected to the described sex discrimination and gender-based harassment.
193. Defendants violations of Title IX were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by D.F. as alleged.
194. D.F. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Discrimination Based on Sex (Brought by B.G. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson, Jerri McGonigal, and Tom Hagerty, in their official
capacities) 195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 196. The School District and each school within the District attended by B.G. are recipients of federal financial assistance. 197. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated B.G.’s rights under Title IX by discriminating against her on the basis of sex. 198. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sex was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sex that deprived B.G. of access to educational programs, activities, opportunities.
58

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 59 of 68
199. Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the harassment of B.G. based on sex in violation of Title IX. This indifference caused B.G. to be subjected to the described sex discrimination and gender-based harassment.
200. Defendants violations of Title IX were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by B.G. as alleged.
201. B.G. requests judgment in her favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Discrimination Based on Sex (Brought by D.M.-B. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Tom Hagerty, in their official capacities) 202. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 203. The School District and each school within the District attended by D.M.B. are recipients of federal financial assistance. 204. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated D.M.-B.’s rights under Title IX by discriminating against him on the basis of sex. 205. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sex was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sex that deprived D.M.-B. of access to educational programs, activities, and opportunities.
59

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 60 of 68
206. Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the harassment of D.M.-B. based on sex in violation of Title IX. This indifference caused D.M.-B. to be subjected to the described sex discrimination and gender-based harassment.
207. Defendants violations of Title IX were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by D.M.-B. as alleged.
208. D.M.-B. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by Jane Doe Pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Mike Farley, in their official
capacities) 209. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 210. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated Jane Doe’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against her full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation. 211. Defendants had actual notice that its policies and practices constituted discriminatory acts and omissions and the effect such policies and practices had on Jane Doe’s ability to utilize and benefit from an educational institution. 212. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based
60

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 61 of 68
on sexual orientation that deprived Jane Doe of full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation.
213. Defendants aided, abetted, and incited discrimination against Jane Doe based on sexual orientation that prevented her full utilization of and benefit from an educational institution.
214. Defendants violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by Jane Doe as alleged.
215. Jane Doe requests judgment in her favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by K.R. Pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 216. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 217. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated K.R.’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against his full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. 218. Defendants had actual notice that its policies and practices constituted discriminatory acts and omissions and the effect such policies and practices had on K.R.’s ability to utilize and benefit from an educational institution.
61

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 62 of 68
219. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sexual orientation that deprived K.R. of full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of perceived sexual orientation.
220. Defendants aided, abetted, and incited discrimination against K.R. based on perceived sexual orientation that prevented his full utilization of and benefit from an educational institution.
221. Defendants violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by K.R. as alleged.
222. K.R. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by D.F. Pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Jerri McGonigal, in their official capacities) 223. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 224. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated D.F.’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against his full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation.
62

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 63 of 68
225. Defendants had actual notice that its policies and practices constituted discriminatory acts and omissions and the effect such policies and practices had on D.F. ’s ability to utilize and benefit from an educational institution.
226. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sexual orientation that deprived D.F. of full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation.
227. Defendants aided, abetted, and incited discrimination against D.F. based on sexual orientation that prevented his full utilization of and benefit from an educational institution.
228. Defendants violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by D.F. as alleged.
229. D.F. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by B.G. Pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson, Jerri McGonigal, and Tom Hagerty, in their
official capacities) 230. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
63

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 64 of 68
231. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated B.G.’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against her full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation.
232. Defendants had actual notice that its policies and practices constituted discriminatory acts and omissions and the effect such policies and practices had on B.G.’s ability to utilize and benefit from an educational institution.
233. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sexual orientation that deprived B.G. of full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of sexual orientation.
234. Defendants aided, abetted, and incited discrimination against B.G. based on sexual orientation that prevented her full utilization of and benefit from an educational institution.
235. Defendants’ violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by B.G. as alleged.
236. B.G. requests judgment in her favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation (Brought by D.M.-B. Pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act Against the School District; School Board; Dennis Carlson and Tom Hagerty, in their official
capacities)
64

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 65 of 68
237. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 238. The acts and omissions of Defendants violated D.M.-B.’s rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against his full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. 239. Defendants had actual notice that its policies and practices constituted discriminatory acts and omissions and the effect such policies and practices had on D.M. B.’s ability to utilize and benefit from an educational institution. 240. Defendants had actual notice that harassment based on sexual orientation was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it created a hostile climate based on sexual orientation that deprived D.M.-B. of full utilization and benefit of an educational institution on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. 241. Defendants aided, abetted, and incited discrimination against D.M.-B. based on sexual orientation that prevented his full utilization of and benefit from an educational institution. 242. Defendants violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act were the actual, direct, and proximate cause of injuries suffered by D.M.-B. as alleged. 243. D.M.-B. requests judgment in his favor against Defendants as set forth in the Prayer for Relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants, providing the following relief:
65

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 66 of 68
1. Order granting an injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Anoka-Hennepin School District’s Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy, 604.11, adopted on February 9, 2009.
2. Order granting all Plaintiffs nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
3. Order granting K.R. nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
4. Order granting D.F. nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
5. Order granting B.G. nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
6. Order granting D.M.-B. nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
7. Order granting all Plaintiffs nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against Defendants for violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13-.14, as well as other available relief identified in Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.33, Subd. 6 and 363A.29, Subd. 4.
8. Order granting an injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated students, from verbal and physical harassment within the school district.
9. Issue an injunction ordering Defendants to stop engaging in such unconstitutional and unlawful acts, and to develop policies and procedures for ending any such unconstitutional and unlawful acts and the hostile and intolerant environment, including but not limited to the following:
a. Require Defendants to implement mandatory and effective training programs for District faculty, staff, and students on issues relating to diversity, homophobia, and methods to intervene to stop students from harassing other students who are LGBT or gender non-conforming or who are perceived to be LGBT or gender non-conforming;
66

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 67 of 68
b. Require Defendants to adopt policies with specific guidelines for instructing teachers, security guards, and administrators about how to address complaints by students who have been taunted, harassed, or discriminated against because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression;
c. Require Defendants to conduct immediately assemblies for all students addressing issues of diversity, homophobia, and tolerance, wherein students are instructed about laws prohibiting harassment and discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression;
d. Require Defendants to assign a peer mediator and/or other staff member to District schools to provide active monitoring for the school and to address immediately instances of harassment and/or discrimination that arise at the school;
e. Require Defendants to maintain statistical data concerning each complaint of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity or expression made by a student or staff member, as well as the specific action District teachers, security guards, and/or administrators took to resolve that complaint;
f. Require Defendants to take no reprisal or retaliatory action against any Plaintiff or any administrator, teacher or staff member who speaks out in support of Plaintiffs.
10. For interest, where appropriate, on any damages awarded to any plaintiff.
11. For attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws.
12. For any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
67

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 1 Filed 07/21/11 Page 68 of 68

Dated: July 21, 2011
fb.us.7057179.03

FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
s/ Michael A. Ponto
Michael A. Ponto, #203944 mponto@faegre.com
Martin S. Chester, #031514X mchester@faegre.com
Christopher H. Dolan, #0386484 cdolan@faegre.com
Zack L. Stephenson, #0391533 Zstephenson@faegre.com
2200Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 (612) 766-7000
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Mary Bauer* Christine P. Sun* Samuel Wolfe* 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 956-8200
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS Christopher Stoll* Ilona M. Turner* 870 Market Street, Sutie 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 365-1335
*Motion for admission pro hac vice forthcoming
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

68

 
 CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JANE DOE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v.

)

)

ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT NO. 11, et al.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

and

)

)

E.R., by her next friend and parent, )

Quana Hollie;

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v.

)

)

ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT NO. 11, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 11-cv-01999-JNE-SER COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION JURY DEMAND
NO. 11-cv-02282-JNE-SER

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 24
The United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, hereby alleges:
1. The United States files this complaint-in-intervention against the Anoka-
Hennepin School District No. 11 and the Anoka-Hennepin School Board (collectively
“the District” or “District Defendants”) to remedy and enjoin discrimination on the basis
of sex1 in District schools in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c–2000c-9 (“Title IV”), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (“Title IX”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, and 20
U.S.C. § 1708.
3. The United States is authorized to intervene in this action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24(a) and 24(b).
1 The following definitions apply to the terms that are related to discrimination on the basis of sex in this Complaint:
“Harassment” includes the use of derogatory language, intimidation, and threats, unwanted physical contact and/or physical violence, and the use of derogatory language and images in graffiti, pictures or drawings, notes, e-mails, electronic postings and/or phone messages related to a person’s membership in a protected class. “Sex-based harassment” includes both sexual harassment and gender-based harassment. “Sexual harassment” means harassment of a sexual nature. “Gender-based harassment” means non-sexual harassment of a person because of the person’s sex, including harassment based upon gender identity and expression. Gender-based harassment includes, but is not limited to, harassment based on the person’s nonconformity with gender stereotypes, regardless of the actual or perceived sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the harasser or target of the harassment. “Gender stereotypes” refers to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity or expectations of how boys or girls should act.
2

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 24
4. The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, on delegation from the Attorney General, has certified that all pre-filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6(a) have been met. The Certificate of the Assistant Attorney General is appended to this Complaint as Attachment A and is incorporated herein.
5. Venue in the District of Minnesota is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the District defendants are located within the District of Minnesota and the claims alleged in this complaint arose within this judicial district.
DEFENDANTS 6. The District Defendants are legally responsible, in whole or in part, for the operation of all of the schools in the District, and for the conditions therein. 7. The District Defendants are organized, and exist pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, Minn. Stat. §§ 123A.55–123A.79, 123B.02, 123B.09, and are responsible for the administration of educational services for all students enrolled in the District, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.02, 123B.09, 123B.25(a), and as such are subject to the prohibitions of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8. Defendant Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 can be sued “for an
injury to the rights of the plaintiff arising from some act or omission of [the school] board.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.25(a).
9. Defendant Anoka-Hennepin School Board is the legal entity charged with
defending law suits against the District. See Minn. Stat. § 123B.02. 3

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 24
10. District Defendants administer the Anoka-Hennepin public schools and are therefore subject to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c–2000c9.
11. Defendant Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 is a recipient of federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1– 106.71.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 12. In November 2010, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) received a signed, written complaint claiming that a student in the District was harassed by other students on a daily basis due to the student’s nonconformity to gender stereotypes and that the District did not address the harassment adequately. Upon receiving the complaint, the DOJ opened an investigation of sex-based harassment in the District pursuant to its Title IV authority. 13. The United States Department of Education, through its Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), joined the investigation pursuant to its Title IX authority. OCR is the office within the Department of Education responsible for administratively enforcing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 14. The DOJ and OCR (collectively, the “United States”) conducted an investigation into allegations of sex-based harassment in the District. As numerous additional allegations of sex-based harassment within the District arose, the scope of the
4

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 24
investigation grew to encompass all the middle and high schools in the District. The investigation included multiple visits to the District; interviews of over 60 individuals, including current and former students, parents, teachers, and District staff and administrators; and the review of over 7,000 pages of documents from the District.
15. Plaintiff Jane Doe and plaintiffs K.R., D.F., B.G., D.M.-B., and E.R., by and through their next friends and parents, (collectively “Student Plaintiffs”) filed complaints in federal court on July 21, 2011 and August 9, 2011, alleging claims of peeron-peer harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in the Anoka-Hennepin School District under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.13–363A.14 (“MHRA”). See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, No. 11-cv01999-JNE-SER (D. Minn. July 21, 2011), Docket No. 1; Complaint, E.R. ex rel. Hollie v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, No. 11-cv-02282-JNE-SER (D. Minn. Aug. 9, 2011), Docket No. 1.
ALLEGATIONS 16. The United States alleges that the District defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and its implementing regulations. During the course of the investigation, the United States identified students who have been the targets of sex-based harassment. Upon information and belief, the following has occurred in the District to these students:
5

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 24
a. Student A is a former student in the District. He attended a District middle school from 2008 to 2011 and was harassed throughout this time period. His gender expression does not conform to male stereotypes both in dress and behavior. Instead, he dresses and engages in physical expressions that are stereotypically female. Because of his gender nonconformity, Student A was harassed by other students in his District school. Students in the District middle school told Student A, “You’re a guy, act like it,” and called him “so gay” and “fag,” even though Student A has not identified his sexual orientation. Students spread false rumors about him, including rumors that that he is a pedophile and rapes his mother. Students threatened to kill him, pushed him, threw food at him, and called him names nearly every day for two years. Most of the harassment took place in the hallways, locker room, and lunchroom.
Student A and his parents reported the harassment to assistant principals and the principal at the school as frequently as once a week. In response to these harassment reports, the District discouraged Student A from engaging in gender nonconforming behavior and implemented measures that isolated Student A and failed to stop the harassment. Student A indicated that, for example, one assistant principal told Student A’s parents to prohibit him from wearing feminine clothing to school. Some staff members took away Student A’s feminine clothing and, in reference to his singing, told him, “Boys don’t do that.” In addition, the school assigned Student A an escort to his classes and had him change for physical education in the assistant principal’s office. However, having an escort isolated Student A and made him feel as if he was being punished.
6

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 24
Although Student A continues to reside within the District’s boundaries, his parents transferred him to another school district in 2011 because the harassment persisted. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because, until his parents removed him from the District, Student A and his parents continued to report the harassment to school administrators. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student A experienced denied him the ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
b. Student B is a current high-school student in the District. He attended a District middle school from 2008 to 2011 and was harassed throughout this time period. He identifies as straight and participates in a sport that his peers view as a feminine activity. Because of his gender nonconformity, Student B was harassed by other students in his District school. Students in the District middle school told Student B that he participates in “a girl’s sport,” and “If a boy is in a girl’s sport, then he must be gay.” They also said, “Why don’t you join a real sport like football?” He has been called “gay boy,” “homo,” and “fag” because of his gender nonconformity. Students have pushed him up against a wall and forcibly restrained him. Students have harassed him with language of a sexual nature such as, “Your dads are gay, so you’re going to be gay. Why don’t you just go and suck their cocks now?”
Student B and his parents have reported the harassment to his teachers, counselors, assistant principals, principal, a school board member, the Superintendent, and other District staff. According to Student B’s parents, one school administrator told them that
7

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 24
the school does not have the resources, tools, or authority to proactively educate and train students and teachers about this type of harassment in order to prevent harassment from recurring. The District’s response to this harassment was to inform Student B to make a hand signal to a hallway camera when he is harassed so that he could flag the incident for administrators when they reviewed the video tape, and to leave each of his classes a few minutes early in an attempt to avoid the students harassing him. Because Student B had to leave class early in an attempt to avoid his harassers, he often did not receive homework assignments in a timely fashion and lost valuable educational time, thereby limiting his ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District. These District responses required Student B to take action to avoid harassment, rather than requiring the students harassing Student B to stop the harassment. Moreover, the harassment continued in his classes, in the restrooms, and in the lunchroom. In addition, a student who was frequently sent to the hallway for disrupting class continued to harass Student B in the hallway. Student B’s counselor began talking with him and his parents weekly, but the harassment continued. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because Student B and his parents continued to report to school administrators that students were harassing him.
Student B used to enjoy school, but now he no longer wants to go because he does not feel safe. He rarely got sick before the harassment began. But after he began experiencing harassment regularly, he had nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and recurring headaches nearly every day for several weeks. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its
8

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 24
effects. The harassment Student B experienced limited his ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
c. Student C is a current high-school student in the District. She attended one District middle school from 2008 to 2010 and another District middle school from 2010 to 2011, and was harassed throughout this time period. Her gender expression does not conform to female stereotypes in either dress or behavior. She states that she does not dress in a “girly” way, has a low voice, and likes playing video games, which her peers have called a “boy’s activity.” Because of her gender nonconformity, Student C was harassed by other students in her first District school. At her first middle school, a student tripped her on the stairs and students called her “guy,” “fag,” and “transvestite” because of her gender nonconformity. Student C reported these incidents to the principal, whose response simply was to tell her to not let the comments bother her. Instead of attempting to stop the harassment and prevent it from recurring, the District permitted the harassment to continue. The harassment did continue, prompting, in part, Student C to transfer to another District middle school. The hostile environment that resulted in Student C’s transfer limited Student C’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the first District middle school.
Because of her gender nonconformity, Student C was also harassed by other students in the District at the second District middle school she attended. Students called her “guy” and “manly,” and one student told her that she should “go kill herself.” Students who Student C did not know tripped her in the hallway twice, pushed her into the lockers multiple times, and pushed her into a trash can once. Although the school
9

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 24
counselor talked to Student C at least once a week about the harassment she experienced and its effect on her self-esteem, the harassment continued unabated. Student C reported specific incidents of verbal and physical harassment to the counselor, but the counselor rarely asked Student C for the names of the students harassing her. Student C also reported the physical harassment to her assistant principal, who told Student C that she would put more adults in the hallway where the physical harassment occurred. However, Student C is unaware of any actions the District took in response to the harassment reports and the harassment continued unchecked. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because Student C continued to report that students were harassing her. As a result of the harassment she experienced, Student C’s grades declined, her self-esteem plummeted, and she was hospitalized for suicidal thoughts. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student C experienced limited her ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
d. Student D is a former student in the District. She attended a District middle school from 2010 to 2011 and a District high school in 2011, and was harassed throughout this time period. Her gender expression does not conform to female stereotypes in both her dress and mannerisms; for example, she wears masculine clothing. Because of her gender nonconformity, Student D was harassed by other students in her District school. Students in her District middle school called her “gay,” “faggot,” and “dyke” nearly every day in the hallway, in her math class, and when she was on the bus.
10

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 24
In the locker room, students called her “he/she,” “faggot,” and said, “What’s that boy doing here,” and “Boys aren’t supposed to be here.” Students bumped into her in the hallway and looked back at her and laughed. One male student punched her in the stomach and called her “he/she.” Student D said that there was often a teacher close by when students called her names, but only one teacher ever reprimanded a student, sending that student to the office for calling Student D names.
Student D and her mother reported the harassment to teachers, the principal, and an assistant principal. The school officials told Student D that they would talk to the other students who harassed her, but the same students continued to harass her after she reported them. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because Student D and her mother continued to report that students were harassing her. Student D stopped attending physical education, because she did not feel comfortable in the class. Because she skipped physical education to avoid harassment, she received lunch and after-school detention and a failing grade in the class. She also stayed home from school many days to avoid the harassment. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student D experienced limited her ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
e. Student E is a former student in the District. He attended one District middle school from 2008 to 2010, another District middle school from 2010 to 2011, and a District high school during 2011, and was harassed throughout this time period. His gender expression does not conform to male stereotypes in both mannerisms and
11

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 24
interests. People who know him describe him as “feminine” and “flamboyant.” Because of his gender nonconformity, Student E was harassed by other students in his District schools. At the first District middle school he attended, students told him that he is a “wimp” because he is in theater, theater is not a sport, and that only girls are in theater. They also told him he has a vagina, he has “titties,” and they called him, “gay,” “fag,” “he/she,” and “girl.” Students called him these names multiple times a day. They threw objects at him and pushed him up against the lockers. This harassment caused Student E to cry at home regularly.
Student E and his parents reported the harassment to his teachers, counselor, assistant principal, and principal. He and his parents met with his assistant principal and counselor to discuss the harassment five or six times over the span of two school years. After each meeting, the administrators told Student E and his parents that they would address the harassment. But the school responded by transferring Student E to a different math class to avoid a student who was harassing him instead of transferring the student who was harassing Student E, thereby placing the burden on Student E instead of the harasser. In addition, after one incident where Student E was pushed against a locker, a school administrator told Student E that there was nothing the school could do because Student E could not identify the student who pushed him and the incident was not captured on camera. Although the District did discipline two students who harassed Student E (one was sent to the office several times, and one was suspended after throwing an object at Student E while calling him a “fag”), Student E continued to be harassed by so many other students that the list of harassers filled two pages. That list was given to
12

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 24
Student E’s school counselor, with whom he met with weekly to discuss the harassment. Because the harassment continued, administrators told Student E and his parents that they did not want him in school because the environment was not safe for him. Student E left school as a result, missing approximately five days of school. He returned after the school said it had conducted a seminar for students about harassment and that it had improved the school environment. However, Student E continued to experience harassment when he returned to the school. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because Student E and his parents continued to report to school administrators that students were harassing him. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment that Student E experienced limited Student E’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
Student E transferred to another District middle school the following year. Because of his gender nonconformity, Student E was harassed by other students in the second District middle school he attended. Students called him “gay” and “fag.” One student threatened to beat him up. That same student made sexual gestures towards Student E; the student put his hand around his mouth and made it look as if he was performing fellatio. Again, Student E and his parents reported the harassment to his teachers, counselor, and assistant principal. Although the school responded by talking to the student who made the verbal threat and the gesture and having Student E meet with his counselor once a week to discuss the harassment, students continued to harass Student E. The District knew that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate
13

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 24
because Student E and his parents continued to report that students were harassing him. Student E was scared to go to school and worried that the harassment was going to get worse when he started high school. Student E’s parents withdrew him from the District and began homeschooling him after he experienced similar harassment in the high school. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student E experienced denied him the ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
f. Student F is a former student in the District. He attended a District middle school from 2008 to 2011, and was harassed from 2009 to 2011. His gender expression does not conform to male stereotypes in both his dress and extracurricular activities and he identifies as straight. Because of his gender nonconformity, Student F was harassed by other students in his District school. Students said, “Your clothes look gay,” “You’re in dance, you must be gay,” and “How big was it in your mouth last night?” Students tripped Student F and pushed him against a wall. After Student F and his parents reported these incidents to his assistant principal, the school contacted the parents of the students who were harassing Student F. The harassment decreased but it did not stop. The District knew or should have known that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because the harassment continued. Student F transferred to another school district for high school, in part to avoid more harassment. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its
14

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 24
recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student F experienced denied him the ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
g. Student G is a current high-school student in the District. He attended a different District high school during the 2009-2010 school year, and was harassed throughout this time period. He identifies as straight. At the first high school he attended, students began harassing him with unwelcome language of a sexual nature. They said, “Did you get butt-fucked last night?” and “Does your dad rape your friends when they sleep over?” Student G reported these comments to his assistant principal, who responded, “Boys will be boys and you just have to deal with it.” The harassing comments continued, and the assistant principal’s response deterred Student G from reporting again. Rather than address the harassment and attempt to stop its recurrence, the assistant principal’s response permitted the harassment to continue and sent a message to Student G that his concerns were not taken seriously. The District knew or should have known that the harassment continued and its response was inadequate. Student G transferred to a different District high school the following school year to avoid additional harassment. Because of the District’s failure to adequately address the harassment Student G experienced at the first school, Student G had to bear the burden of responding to the harassment by transferring to a different school. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student G experienced limited his ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
15

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 24
h. Student H is a current District high-school student. He identifies as straight and his gender expression does not conform to male stereotypes in his dress. Because of his gender nonconformity, Student H is harassed by other students in his District school. Students call him “gay” and “fag” on a daily basis. Student H reported a student who sat next to him in one of his classes to their teacher for calling him “fag.” The teacher said she would talk to the student and move him, but initially took no such action. When Student H reported the student to the teacher a second time, the teacher spoke to the student who was harassing Student H, but did nothing further. That student threatened Student H in retaliation for reporting him. Student H worried that this student was going to beat him up. Students continued to call Student H “gay.” The District knew or should have known that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because the harassment continued. The inadequacy of the District’s response discouraged Student H from making further reports regarding the continued harassment he experienced. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student H experienced limited his ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
i. Student I is a former District student. He attended a middle school in the District from 2006 to 2009 and a District high school from 2009 to 2010, and was harassed throughout this time period. He was sexually harassed in his District middle school during spring 2009; two students grabbed his genitals when he was in the hallway and told him he liked it. Student I’s counselor saw him crying in the hallway after this incident and brought him to the counselor’s office to talk to him. The counselor also
16

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 24
talked to Student I’s friend who told the counselor that Student I had been physically harassed. Student I continued to be harassed after this incident in both middle and high school. The District knew or should have known that the measures it took to address the harassment were inadequate because the harassment continued. Student I took his own life. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student I experienced denied him the ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
j. Student J is a former District middle-school student. She attended a middle school in the District from 2008 to 2009 and was harassed throughout this time period. Her gender expression did not conform to female stereotypes in appearance. Because of her gender nonconformity, Student J was harassed by other students in her District school. Student J reported to her friends that other students called her “boy,” shoved her up against a locker and called her a “dyke,” and tried to shove her down a staircase while calling her a “faggot.” She also told them that she had reported this to an assistant principal, who told her there was nothing he could do about it. The District knew or should have known that failing to address the harassment is an inadequate response. Student J took her own life. The District failed to adequately and appropriately address the harassment in order to prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects. The harassment Student J experienced denied her the ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the District.
17

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 24
17. Beginning in 2008, Students A–J were harassed on the basis of sex in District schools. The harassment the students experienced was sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent to deny or limit their ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program in the middle and high schools in the District. In addition, students who are not the targets of harassment hear harassing language on the basis of sex in District schools several times each school day. This sex-based harassment has created a hostile environment in the District.
18. The school and District officials with authority to address the sex-based harassment knew or should have known about the harassment Students A–J experienced. Students, parents, and District employees reported incidents of sex-based harassment to school and District officials. In addition to the notice enumerated with regard to Students A–J, District officials knew of other and widespread instances of sex-based harassment. During the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, high-ranking District officials met with students at each of the District middle and high schools, and students at every school reported sex-based harassment to these officials. At the meetings in many of the schools, students reported to these District officials that some teachers do not discipline students for verbally harassing other students on the basis of sex.
19. Often, District personnel ignored these sex-based harassment allegations. In some instances, District personnel did not respond at all to reports of harassment of students. In other instances, some District personnel told students that there was nothing they could do if the students could not identify the student(s) harassing them and some District personnel told students to ignore the harassment or deal with it on their own.
18

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 24
After most of the meetings referenced in paragraph 18, District officials failed to take any action to stop the harassment because, according to one District official, they did not hear anything out of the ordinary that would have prompted a response.
20. In those instances when the District did respond to reports of sex-based harassment, the District’s response improperly placed the burden of stopping the harassment on the student being harassed. The District’s response often involved changing the schedule or behavior of the student who was the target of the harassment. The District had some students who were targets of harassment have an escort in the hallways or leave all of their classes early so that they would not be in the hallways with other students. This stigmatized the students who were being harassed and isolated them from the educational environment. In addition, the District has explicitly discouraged some of the students who were harassed from engaging in gender non-conforming behavior so that they might avoid being harassed.
21. The District knew its responses to sex-based harassment were inadequate because the harassment continued and in certain instances escalated. This failure to respond adequately deterred some students from reporting or continuing to report harassment incidents and led to a continuation and exacerbation of the hostile environment in the District.
22. In addition, the District’s policies and procedures do not adequately address and prevent sex-based harassment, and therefore contribute to the hostile environment. The District’s policies and procedures do not include prohibitions against gender-based harassment. The District’s policies and procedures fail to provide clear guidelines
19

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 24
regarding appropriate responses to sex-based harassment, including gender-based harassment. The District does not have an established policy or procedure for when to contact a student’s parent(s)/guardian(s) if the District receives an oral report of student harassment. The District lacks a uniform procedure of tracking incidents of harassment. In addition, the District has not designated an employee who is responsible for coordinating the District’s response to sex-based harassment, which is required by the Title IX regulations. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a). Without these policies and procedures, the District lacks a consistent and effective approach to addressing sex-based harassment.
23. The implementation and interpretation of the District’s policies and procedures by District personnel have contributed to the hostile environment. Some District personnel have failed to follow the District’s policies and procedures by not investigating complaints of sex-based harassment of students. Other District personnel have interpreted the District’s policies and procedures as prohibiting them from addressing sex-based harassment. The failure of District personnel to properly implement and interpret District policies and procedures has deterred many students from reporting or continuing to report harassment, thereby allowing some students to harass their peers without consequence. Therefore, these interpretations of the District’s policies and procedures contribute to the hostile environment by allowing sex-based harassment to go unchecked.
24. In sum, students in the District experienced and reported verbal and physical sex-based harassment because of their gender nonconformity. Male students in the District report that they are called pejorative words such as “girl,” “he-she,” “fag,” or
20

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 24
“gay” on a daily basis because of their failure to conform to male stereotypes. Likewise, female students report being called pejorative words such as “manly,” “guy,” or “he-she” regularly because of their failure to conform to female stereotypes. In addition, District students have faced death threats and other threats to their physical safety because of their gender nonconformity. Furthermore, students have also regularly experienced physical, verbal, and non-verbal conduct that constitutes sexual harassment. The District knew or should have known about the sex-based harassment and either failed to respond at all or failed to respond appropriately and adequately to the harassment and prevent its recurrence.
25. Based on this evidence, a hostile environment based on sex exists in the Anoka-Hennepin School District, the District knew or should have known about the hostile environment, and the District has failed to address it.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 26. The United States realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 12–25 above. 27. Students in the District’s middle and high schools, including but not limited to Students A–J, have been harassed by their peers with derogatory language, threats, and physical assaults because of their nonconformity to gender stereotypes and/or sexually harassed by their peers. Sex-based harassment in the District is severe, pervasive, or persistent, and has denied or limited students’ abilities to participate in or benefit from the District’s educational program. In some instances, the District should have known of the harassment but failed to investigate, address, and/or stop the harassment. In most
21

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 24
instances involving Students A-J, students and their parents have reported sex-based harassment to school and District officials. District officials clearly knew of the harassment but the District either took no action or its response was inadequate. The harassment continued and in many instances escalated.
28. A hostile environment exists in the District, and the District’s existing policies and procedures have contributed to the hostile environment.
29. The District’s failure to appropriately and adequately address sex-based harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c– 2000c-9, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.
30. Unless enjoined by this court, the District will continue to violate the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV, and Title IX.
31. The United States seeks intervention in this lawsuit to obtain relief to ensure that the District will operate a school system that provides an educational environment that is free of sex-based harassment for its students and is in compliance with federal law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court: 1. Declare that the District defendants have denied Students A–J and other students who have been subjected to sex-based harassment and a hostile environment the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
22

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 24
2. Declare that the District defendants have discriminated on the basis of sex by failing to prevent, address, and remedy sex-based harassment and the hostile environment within the District, and in so doing failed to provide the benefits of its educational activities and services to Students A–J and other students in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c–2000c-9, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S, C. §§ 1681–1688;
3. Permanently enjoin the District, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with the District from all unlawful discrimination against students on the basis of sex;
4. Order the District defendants to develop, adopt, and timely implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a safe and secure environment free from sex-based harassment for all students in District schools; and
5. Grant such additional relief as the needs of justice may require. JURY DEMAND
The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
23

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 78 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 24

Respectfully submitted,
B. TODD JONES United States Attorney District of Minnesota United States Department of Justice
GREGORY G. BROOKER, #166066 ANA H. VOSS, #483656 Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota 600 United States Courthouse 300 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tel: 612-664-5600 greg.brooker@usdoj.gov anna.voss@usdoj.gov
PHILIP H. ROSENFELT Acting General Counsel United States Department of Education U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202 Of Counsel
Dated: March 5, 2012

s/ Thomas E. Perez THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
ANURIMA BHARGAVA, Chief KATHLEEN S. DEVINE, Senior Counsel Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section
TOREY B. CUMMINGS TAMICA H. DANIEL Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: 202-305-4204 torey.cummings@usdoj.gov tamica.daniel@usdoj.gov

24

 
 CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JANE DOE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

)

v.

)

)

ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT NO. 11, et al.,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

and

)

)

E.R., by her next friend and parent, )

Quana Hollie,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

)

vs.

)

)

ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT NO. 11, et al.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 11-cv-01999-JNE-SER NO. 11-cv-02282-JNE-SER

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 61
CONSENT DECREE WHEREAS, student plaintiff Jane D oe and stude nt plaintiffs K.R., D.F., B .G., D.M.-B., and E.R., by and thro ugh their next friends and pa rents (collectively “Student Plaintiffs”), brought t wo separate actions ag ainst Anoka-Hennepin School District, it s School Board (together, the “District”), and se veral individual school adm inistrators on or about July 21, 2011 and August 9, 2011, alleging claims of peer-on-peer harassm ent and discrimination on the basis of sex and se xual orientation in th e District under the Equal Protection Clause of th e Fourteenth Amendment to th e United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Am endments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (“Title IX”), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.13–.14 (“MHRA”); WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education, through its Office for Civil Right s, (together, the “Un ited States”), after receiving and investigating a complaint that the District failed to adequately address peeron-peer harassment on the basis of sex, file d a Complaint-in-Interv ention in this action against the District alleging discr imination on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Four teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c –2000c-9 (“Title IV”), and Title IX; WHEREAS, the District denies any vi olation of the Equal Prot ection Clause, Title IV, Title IX, or any other state or fede ral law and denies all liability for any alleged
2

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 61
statutory or regulatory violation, by the District or any of its employees, agents, or School Board members;
WHEREAS, the Student Plaintiffs, the Defenda nts, and the Unit ed States have conferred in good faith and have negotiated the terms of this Consent Decree to fully and finally settle the Title IV and Title IX claims raised by th e United States and the equal protection and federal and state law claims raised by the Student Plaintiffs; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the terms of this Consent Decree, the Court finds them to be fair, just, reasonable, and cons istent with federal law, and the Student Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff-Intervenor United States , and the District agree that entry of this Consent Decree, without further litigation, is in the public interest; ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE A. This Court has jurisdi ction over the subject matter herein pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1345 , and 2201-2202, as well a s 42 U.S.C . §§ 2000c –2000c-9, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, and 29 U.S.C. § 1367(a). B. Venue in the District of Minnesota is proper purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
II. DEFINITIONS A. “Harassment” includes the use of derogatory language, intimidation, and threats; unwanted physical cont act and/or physical violence , or the use of derogator y
3

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 61
language and images in graff iti, pictures or drawings, not es, e-mails, electronic postings and/or phone messages related to a person’s membership in a protected class.
B. “Sex-based harassment” includes both sexual harassment and gender-based harassment.
1. “Sexual harassment” means harassment ( see supra Section II.A. at pp. 3-4) of a sexual nature.
2. “Gender-based harassment” me ans non-sexual harassment of a person because of the person’s sex, includ ing harassment based upon gender identity and expression. Gender-based harassment includ es, but is not limited to, harassment based on the per son’s nonconformity with gende r stereotypes, regardless of the actual or perceived sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the ha rasser or target of the harassment.
C. “Gender stereotypes” refers to st ereotypical notions of m asculinity and femininity or expectations of how boys or girls should act.
D. “Sexual orientation” means having or bei ng perceived as ha ving an emotional, physical or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person; or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment; or having or being pe rceived as having a self image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd.44.
E. “Sexual orientation-based harassment” means non-sexual harassm ent of a person because of the person’s actual or percei ved sexual orientation or association with
4

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 61
or advocacy for a person or group (e.g., family members or friends) who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (“LGBT”).
F. The primary purpose of this C onsent Decree is to address sex-based and sexual orientation-based harassment. Accordin gly, for purposes of this Conse nt Decree, the use of the term “harassment” means sex-based harassment and sexual orientationbased harassment, as defined supra.
G. A “hostile environm ent” exists wh en harassment is su fficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to interfere with or limit one or more students’ abilities to participate in or benefit from the educational program.
III. BACKGROUND A. Student Plaintiffs are six current or former students of the District who filed complaints seeking injunc tive and declaratory relief, nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. B. For purposes of this Consent D ecree, “United States” refers to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and th e United States Departm ent of Education, through its Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).
1. DOJ is the federal agenc y responsible for pursui ng enforcement proceedings in federal courts for violations , or suspected violations, of Title IV. See Title IV. DOJ also enforces T itle IX in federal courts either by intervention or as amicus curiae in private lawsuits, or upon referral from OCR. See 20 U.S.C. § 1682; Exec. Order No. 12,250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (1980); 28 C.F.R. § 0.51 (1998).
5

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 61
2. OCR is the office wi thin the Department of Education responsi ble for administratively enforcing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. See Title IX.
C. The District administers a system of one or m ore public schools and is responsible for the assignment of students to or within such system; therefore the District is subject to Title IV. The District is a r ecipient of federal financial assistance and is therefore also subject to Title IX and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.31. The District is an educational institution and therefore subject to the MHRA.
D. Following its investigation of the co mplaint it received, the United States began settlement discussions with the District prior to the commenc ement of the Student Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. After Student Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit and pursuant to the Court’s request, the United States joined the settlement negotiations of the Student Plaintiffs and the District in an attempt to resolve the complaints and avoid protracted litigation. These negotiations resulted in the agreement of the parties as set forth in this Consent Decree.
IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. The District shall take action, in accordance with the re quirements of Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulat ions, and OCR Guidance , to eliminate and prevent future instances of harassment in its education programs and activities. To accomplish this, the District agre es to make all necessary and appropriate revisions to its harassment policies; appropriately and immediately respond to and stop all conduct that
6

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 61

may constitute harassment; ensure it fully investigates reported conduct that may

constitute harassment; escalate remedial effo rts by instituting additional measures when

students are harassed on a repeated basis; and mitigate the effects of harassment that

occurs. The District shall also take proac tive measures to address issues in the school

climate that have arisen from or may ar ise from and/ or contribute to a hostile

environment.

B. No later than April 9, 2012, the Dist rict shall retain the Great Lakes Equity

Center, an Equit y Assistance Center based at Indiana University -Purdue University

Indianapolis, or a nother qualified t hird-party consultant mutually agreed upon by t he

District and the United States, to consult with the District to study and determ ine what

additional measures the District needs to take to effectively address, prevent, and respond

to harassment at District schools and comply with the terms of this Consent Decree. The

entity or individual retained shall be calle d the “Equity Cons ultant” throughout this

Consent Decree. The District will be resp onsible for any costs associated with the

retention of the Equity Consu ltant. The District shall give the Equity Cons ultant access

to any and all data, documents, or informatio n the Consultant deems necessary to fulfill his or her duties under this Consent Decree.1

C. This Consent Decree shall remain in force for five (5) years from the date it

is entered by the Court.

1

The Equity Consultant’s access to pers onally identifiable info rmation shall be in

accordance with the regulations of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34

C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1).

7

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 61
V. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS A. Revisions to District Policies and Procedures
1. The District shall engage the Equity Consultant to review and recommend revisions as necessary to all of th e District’s policies and proce dures related to the issues identified in this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, any policy that impacts harassment, to ensure that th ey specifically and appr opriately address harassment pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV, Title IX, and the MHRA.
2. For purposes of this Consent D ecree, the policies and procedures encompassed by the preceding paragraph that the Equity Cons ultant shall review are referred to as “relevant policies and procedur es” and shall include, but not be limited to : Bullying Prohibition Policy (Board Policy 514.0); Equal Educational Opportunity Policy (Board Policy 102.0); Harassment, Violence and Disc rimination Policy (Board Policy 413.0) (“HVD Policy”); Harassment, Violence and Di scrimination Reporting Form; and Language of Harassment procedures, attached as Exhi bits A, B, C, D, a nd E, respectively.
3. In addition to the recommendati ons of the Equity Consultant, revisions to the District’s relevant policies and procedures shall also include:
a. Adding all of the terms and de finitions set forth in Section II of this Consent Decree, sp ecifying that all harassment, including that based on nonconformity to gender stereotypes and/or gender identity and e xpression, is prohibited in the District;
8

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 61
b. Written guidance providing examples of the types of harassment prohibited by the District’s policies;
c. A requirement that District personnel investigate, address, and respond appropriately to every harassm ent incident, in a ccordance with the requirements of Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, and OCR Guidance, whether reported (verbally or in wr iting) by the harassed student, a witness, a parent, or any ot her individual; observed by any District employee; or brought to the District’s attention by any other means;
d. Adding the contact inform ation, including the physical address, phone number and email address, fo r the District’s Title IX Coordinator and Equity Coordinator (see infra Sections V.B. and V.C. at pp. 16, 21);
e. A protocol for (i) when an inci dent or series of inci dents of harassment of a particular student or group of students rises to a level of severity or persistence requiring District staff to notify the parent(s )/guardian(s) of the harassed student(s), ensuring that the indi vidual notifying parents/guardians of the ha rassment is sensitive to any personal concerns of the st udent in discussing the basis/bases of th e harassment with the harassed stude nt’s parent/guardian, and (ii) when a n incident or series of incidents of harassm ent by a particul ar student or gr oup of student s rises to a level of severity or persistence requiring District staff to no tify the parent/guardian of the harassing student(s);
9

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 61
f. A requirement that the District’s procedures involve tracking electronically all harassment incidents (incl uding any written or verbal report, discipline referral, or complaint invo lving possible sex-based or sexual orie ntation-based harassment (“harassment incidents” ) and that the tracking includes: relevant information related to the student harassed; the person reporting the harassment (if different than the student harassed); the alleged ha rasser; all k nown witnesses to the alleged incident(s); specific details on the date(s), time(s), nature, content, and location(s) of the harassm ent incident(s); the date the complaint or other report was made; the date the alleged harasser was interviewed; a brief summary of the investigating officials’ findings and the basis for those findings (consistent with the Distri ct’s current practice and subject to any recommendations of the Equity C onsultant); and the District’s response to the incident; except that for incidents involving no identified student target(s), the District will develop a district-wide system for tracking the frequency of each incident, including, for example, taking a photo or otherwise recording the date and location of the incident in a matter that can then be sent for tracking and investiga tion purposes to the Title IX Coordinator and/or Equity Coordinator, as appropriate;
g. In order for the District to identify, address, and elim inate harassment, a requirem ent that, at a m inimum, the District tracks all incidents of harassment that are directed at a particular student or students as well as written or graphic statements (e.g., graffiti) located or distributed before, during or af ter school hours on all school pr operty, including the school bus, at school functions, or at school-
10

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 61
sponsored events hel d at other locations; and any off cam pus conduct that has a continuing effect on campus.
i. At the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the District and the Equity Cons ultant shall confer with the United States c oncerning whether the District should track additional types of in cidents in the 2013-2014 school year and beyond.
ii. The District shall consider additional recommendations of the Equity Consultant, if any.
iii. The District, the Equity Consultant, and the United States will work together in good faith to resolve any disagr eements. If the District an d the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a reasonable period of time, either party may request that the Court mediate the dispute.
h. A requirement that any supporting written documentation related to any harassment incident be maintained for the dura tion of this Consent Decree, including but not limited to: any written report or complaint; interview notes; any written statements of the student(s) harassed a nd/or person(s) reporting the harassm ent; any records of correspondence with the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the student(s) harassed and the alleged harasser(s) or his or her parent s or guardi an(s) regarding the incident; and existing documentation of any prior incidents of discrimination or harassment involving the student(s) subject to harassment or the alleged harasser(s).
4. Procedures and Timeline for Revision and Implementation
11

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 61
a. No later than April 23, 20 12, the Equity Consultant shall communicate to the District an d to the Un ited States his or her: (1) findings or conclusions regarding areas needing editing, clarification, or improvement in the relevant policies and proce dures, and (2) recom mendations for revisions to the relevant policies and procedures.
b. No later than May 15, 2012, the District shall submit to the United States for review and a pproval its proposed revisions to its relevant policies and procedures incorporating all of the Equity Consultant’s recommendations, or proposing alternative revisions and explaining how the District’s proposed alternative revisions are less burdensome, more feasible, or more appropriate and still address or remedy the Equity Consultant’s findings and conclusions.
c. Under the terms of this Consent Decree, the United States has authority to review and approve the District’s propos ed revisions for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, thei r implementing regulations, OC R Guidance, th is Consent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree. Such approval will not be unreasonably withheld, and the United States sh all complete such re view within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the proposed revisions. If, ho wever, the District and the United States initially disagree regarding the proposed revisi ons, the District, the Equity Consultant, and the United States will w ork together in good faith to resolve any disagreements. If the Distri ct and the United States ar e unable to resolve any
12

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 61
disagreements in a reasonable period of tim e, either party m ay request that the Court mediate the dispute.
d. After the Unite d States approves the proposed revised policies and procedures, the Board will re view the proposed revised policies and procedures at its next scheduled meeting.
i. If the Board receives the United States’ approval of the revised policies and procedures six (6) or m ore calendar days before its next schedul ed meeting, it shall conduct a vote on whether to adopt the revisions within two (2) public meetings. If the Board receiv es the United States’ approval of the revised policies and procedures within five (5) cal endar days of its next schedul ed meeting, it shall conduct a vote on the revisions within three (3) public meetings.
ii. If the Boar d modifies or rejects the proposed revised policies and pr ocedures, the District shall re submit a new proposal for revisions to the relevant policies and procedures to the United States.
iii. Under the terms of this Consent Decree, the United States has authority to review and approve the District's proposed revisions to its relevant policies and procedures for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, OCR Guidance, th is Consent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree. Such approval will not be unreasonably withheld, and the United States shall complete such revi ew within thirty (30) calendar da ys of re ceipt of t he proposed revisions. The District, the Equity Consulta nt, and the United States will work together
13

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 61
in good faith to resol ve any disagreem ents. If the District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a r easonable period of tim e, either party m ay request that this Court mediate the dispute.
e. The District will continue to distribute annually its student and employee handbooks, and such ha ndbooks shall contain the revised relevant policies and procedures printed in full along with th e title and contact information of the schoollevel and District-lev el individuals responsible for r eceiving and/or responding to harassment complaints, includi ng the names and contact in formation for the Title IX Coordinator and Equity C oordinator. If the District has not yet i dentified or hired t he school-level and District-level individuals re sponsible for receiving and/or responding to harassment complaints, Title IX Coordinator, or Equity Coordinator at the time it prints the annual student and em ployee handbooks, the handbooks sha ll provide full contact information, including an em ail address that the later- identified employee will access (e.g., titleix@anoka.k12.mn.us for the Title IX Coordinator).
f. The District’s website shall contain the revised relevant policies and procedures in full; the name and contact informa tion of the school-level and District-level individuals responsible for receiving harassment complaints, including the Title IX Coordinator and Equity Coordinato r; and a statement encouraging students to report incidents of harassment immediately.
g. The District shall make available a hyperlink to the revised Harassment, Violence and Discrimination Reporting Form (Exhibit E) on the District’s
14

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 61
website in a form-fillable PD F allowing direct electro nic submission of t he completed document to school and/or District officials, available in the languages represented in the District, and the District shall publicize the availability of this onl ine form to all its students and their parents or guardians.
h. When the District revises any of the relevant policies or procedures during a school year pursuant to Section V. A.1-4 at pp. 8-15 of t his Consent Decree, it shall dissem inate notice of t he revised policies and pr ocedures to its students, parents and guardians, and employees and ensure all students, parents and guardians, and employees are able to access a fu ll copy of the revised policie s and procedures (e.g., by announcement on the District’s website, em ail distribution t o parents/guardians and employees, distribution of a written notice to students to take home with information on where hard copies of the revised policies are available, posting on school bulletin boards, etc.) not to exceed thirty (30) days after board approval.
i. The District will work with the Equity Consultant to determine appropriate ways to e xplain and address questions or c oncerns regarding the revised policies and procedures from students, parents and guardians, and employees.
5. Once the District r evises its relevant policies and procedure s pursuant to the terms above, the District wi ll not modify those policies and procedures, rescind any of the poli cies or procedures, or adopt any new polici es or proce dures that relate to, are relevant to, or affect hara ssment during the period of the Consent Decree without following the process set forth in Sections V.A.4.b-d. at pp. 12-15.
15

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 61
B. Title IX Coordinator 1. Under 34 C.F.R. § 106. 8(a), the District, as a recipient of federal
funding, is required to “designate at leas t one em ployee to c oordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its respons ibilities” under Title IX, “includi ng any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient” alleging noncom pliance or actions that would violate T itle IX. The District must al so “notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number” of the Title IX Coordinator.
2. The District will hire or appoint a qualified person knowledgeable in all aspects of Title IX law (as applied to school districts) with experience conducting training on harassm ent or rela ted civil rights issues and in carrying out the duties and responsibilities enumerated in Se ctions V.B.3 infra at pp. 17-18, to serve as Title IX Coordinator. This individual is vested with responsibility from the District to ensure proper implementation of the District’s sex-based harassment policies and procedures.
a. If the District has already en gaged its Equity Consultant, the Equity Consultant s hall assist the Distri ct in hiring or appointing the Title IX Coordinator.
b. Prior to making an offer of employment or an appointment of a Title IX Coordinator, no late r than April 30, 2 012, the District shall submit the name and resume or curriculum vitae of the indi vidual it would like to hire or appoint as the Title IX Coordinator to the Un ited States. Under the terms of this Consent Decree, the
16

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 61
United States has authority to review and approve the hiri ng or appoint ment of the individual the District select s for Title IX Coordinator for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, OC R Guidance, this Cons ent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree . Suc h approval shall not be unreasonabl y withheld.
i. No later than five (5) school days after the Court enters this Consent Decree, the District shall appoint an Interim Title IX Coordinator.
ii. The Interim Title IX Coordinator shall be responsible for the duties referenced in S ection V.B.1 a t p. 16 unt il the st art date of the District’s permanent Title IX Coordinator.
c. Should the Title IX Coordi nator, once hired or appointed, leave that position during the term of this Consent Decree, the District shall immediately notify the United States and shall work wit h the Equity Consultant to hire or appoi nt a replacement pursuant to the terms in Section V.B.2. at pp. 16-17.
3. The Title IX Coordinator’s duties shall include: a. Ensuring the District comp lies with and carries o ut the
requirements of and its obligations under Title IX; b. Implementing District policies and procedures related to sex-
based harassment and ensuring adm inistrators, staff and st udents comply with those policies and procedures;
17

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 61
c. Monitoring all complaints of sex-based discrimination and harassment pursuant to Section V.B.4., infra at pp. 18-20;
d. Identifying trends or common areas of concern related to Title IX compliance and assisting schools in addressing such issues;
e. Coordinating between and am ong school and District staff, students, and parents regarding Title IX issues including, but not limited to, issues related to sex-based harassment;
f. Training District employees and students regarding sex-based discrimination and harassment, and Dist rict policies and pr ocedures pursuant to Section V.D., infra at pp. 22-29; and
g. Consulting with security personnel and administrativ e staff following any physical incidents of sex-based harassment or assault.
4. The District and its Title IX Coor dinator will establish a system for District review of school-level investigations and resolutions of student conduct that may constitute sex-based harassment in order to ensure both compliance with the District’s HVD Policy and that the District properly id entifies all sex-based harassment as a means to assess the effectiveness of its efforts in prev enting and eliminating harassment. The Equity Consultant will assist in the development and implementation of those procedures. That system will require, at minimum, that:
a. The Title IX Coor dinator review all school-level harassment incident reports to ensure that all allege d incidents that invol ved possible sex-base d
18

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 61
harassment were properly identified as su ch and responde d to appr opriately, in accordance with the requirements of Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, and OCR Guidance . The Title IX Coordinato r will follow up with any particular schools or personne l who could improve their identification of or response to sex-based harassment to address the mistake(s);
b. For each harassm ent incident involving possible sex-based harassment, including but not limited to situati ons that result in assaults, the Title IX Coordinator will evaluate, within ten (10) school days of rece iving the report, referral, or complaint of the harassment incident:
i. The investigating official’s findings and the basis for those findings in supporting documentation; and
ii. Whether the school or District’s response complied with the HVD Policy and Title IX.
c. For each i nstance of sex-based harassm ent for w hich the Title IX Coordinator determines that a scho ol’s response could be improved pursuant to the policies and procedures es tablished in the HVD Policy or Title IX, the Title IX Coordinator will:
i. Promptly identify all areas where the school’s response could be improved pursuant to the HVD Policy or Title IX;
ii. Promptly inform the Designated Person at that school who has been designated pursua nt to Section V.D.4 at p. 26 belo w and the employee(s)
19

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 61
who responded to the complain t of the manner in which th e response could be improved under the HVD Policy or Title IX, and provide guidance and support necessary to ensure that a proper response is provided in the future, including, but not limited to, additional training and professional development;
iii. Initiate timely steps to remedy the non-compliance with regard to the particular complaint; and
iv. Within seven (7) school days of com pleting the investigation, contact the parents of both the student(s) subject to the harassment and the offending student(s) to inform them of the Title IX Co ordinator’s review of the complaint, being sensitive to any personal concer ns of the student related to the basis for the harassment, provide the parents a copy of the HVD Policy, as well as the timeline for any additional processing and/or resolution of the underlying complaint. That timeline shall not exceed fourteen (14) school days from the date of parental contact without good cause.
d. The Title IX Coordinator sh all submit for the United States’ approval written copies of the system developed pursuant to Section V.B.4 at pp. 18-20 by August 1, 2012. Under the terms of th is Consent Decree, the United States has authority to review and approve the District’s proposed system for review of school-level investigations and resolutio ns of student conduct that may constitute sex-based harassment for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, th eir implementing regulations, OCR Guidance, this Consent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree.
20

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 61
Such approval will not be un reasonably withheld, and the United States shall complete such review within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the proposed system . If, however, the District and the United States initially disagree regarding the proposed system, the District, the Equity Consultant, and the United St ates will work together in good faith to resol ve any disagreements. If the District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a reasonable period of time, either party may request that the Court mediate the dispute.
C. Equity Coordinator 1. The District shall hire or ap point a qualified person knowle dgeable
in all aspects of the MHRA an d in sexual orientation-based ha rassment, as applied t o school districts, to serve as the Equity Coor dinator. This individu al will ensure proper implementation of t he District’s sexual orientation-based harassment policies and procedures.
2. If the District has already engage d its Equity Consultant, the Equity Consultant shall assist the District in hiring or appointing the Equity Coordinator.
3. The Equity Coordinator shall have t he same duties and responsibilities as the Title IX Coor dinator under Sections V.B.3-4 at pp. 17-21, exce pt that the Equity Coordinator shall focus on sexual orientation-based harassment instead of sex-based harassment.
21

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 61
4. Additionally, the Equ ity Coordinator or other qualif ied individual shall supervise, offer resources to, and act as a District liaison to Gay-Straight Alliance groups (GSAs) in the District, and his or her duties in this regard shall include:
a. Organizing regular meetings of GSA facilitators; b. Providing resources and s upport to ge nder nonconforming students, to stude nts of divers e sexual or ientations, and to st udents whose fam ily members have diverse sexual orientations; c. Providing resources (consistent with the level of resources provided to other non- curricular student groups under the Equal Ac cess Act) on gender identity, gender nonconformity, and sexual orientation for District teachers, staff, administrators, and GSA facilitators; and d. Collaborating with external agencies and organizations for support and assistance. 5. The District may elec t to ha ve the sam e individual act as both the Title IX Coordinator and the Equity Coordinator. D. Training and Professional Development 1. The District will work with th e Equity Consultant, the Title IX Coordinator, and the Equity Coordinator to review and recom mend additions and improvements to t he trainings on harassment, consistent with best practices, for all students and em ployees who int eract with stude nts in the District. All such trainings
22

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 61
shall be mandatory and the Di strict will ensure that any student or employee who misses a scheduled training receives the training in a timely manner.
2. The District provides, and shall c ontinue to provide, age-appropriate instruction to all of its students on harassment on an annual basis and on a m ake-up basis for students who miss the annually scheduled training. By September 1, 2012, the Equity Consultant shall review and rec ommend improvements to the conten t of the District’s training program for students. The Equity Cons ultant’s recommendations for student training content shall include, but are not limited to:
a. The importance of, sensitivity to, and respect for the diversity of the student body, specifically addressing harassment, including but not limited to issues related to sex and gender, including nonconformity with gender stereotypes.
b. For students in grades 6-12: i. Instruction on the types of conduct that constitute
harassment, including the use of multiple exam ples of the different types of behaviors that can constitute harassment;
ii. Instruction on the nega tive impact that such harassment has on students and on the educational environment;
iii. Information regarding how students are expected to respond to harassment they experience or witness, or of which the y otherwise know or become aware, including the reporting avenues available;
23

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 61
iv. Information regarding how teachers, administrators, and staff are expected to resp ond to harassment th ey witness or to incidents that are reported to them;
v. A discussion of pote ntial consequences for students who harass their peer s, including a statement that the District and every school in the District will not tolerate harassment and will address all such incidents;
vi. An introduction of the T itle IX Coordinator and an explanation of his/her role; and
vii. An introduction of t he Equity Coordi nator and an explanation of his/her role.
c. For students in grades K-5, instruction designed to promote an inclusive and safe educational environment for all students, including issues related to the prevention of bullying and violence.
3. The District provides, and will continue to pr ovide, training to all of its teachers and administrators on harassment on an annual basis, and on a make-up basis for those em ployees who m iss the annuall y scheduled training. By July 1, 2012, the Equity Consultant shall review and reco mmend improvements to the cont ent of the District’s staff training program. The Distri ct shall ensure all staff who interact with students receive mandatory annual training. The Equity Consultant’s recommendations for training content shall include, but are not limited to:
24

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 25 of 61
a. In-depth instruction on the type of c onduct that cons titutes harassment, specifically addressing examples of sex-based and sexual orientat ion-based harassment, and a discussion a bout the negative impact that such harassment has on students, employees, and the educational environment;
b. In-depth discussion on the importance o f, sensitivity to, and respect for the diversity of the student body. Such discu ssions will include the following topics: gender identity, gender expression, leve l of conformity to gender stereotypes, and sexual orientation;
c. A facilitated discussion on the root causes of harassment and the harms resulting from such conduct;
d. Specific guidance and discussions of st eps to foster a nondiscriminatory educational environment for all students, specifically students who do not conform to gende r stereotypes and/or who are or might be perceived t o be lesbia n, gay, bisexual, or transgender;
e. A review of the revised ha rassment policies and proce dures with emphasis on the District’s and its employees’ responsibility to respond to all harassment, and to take effective action to en d harassment, prevent its recurrence, and as appropriate, remedy its effects;
f. An introduction of the T itle IX Coordinator and an explanation of his/her role;
25

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 26 of 61
g. An introduction of the Equity Coordinator and an explanation of his/her role;
h. Identification of designated staff at each school who are available to answer questions or address co ncerns regarding the harassment policies and procedures or other issues related to harassment (see infra Section V.D.4 at p. 26);
i. Clarification that failure by sc hool officials to respond in a timely, reasonable, effectiv e, and appr opriate manner, in accordance with th e requirements of Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, and OCR Guidance, to harassment of wh ich they knew or should have known violates District policy as well as federal and/or state laws;
j. Clarifi cation that in countering harassment, staff should inform harassers that the District is ac cepting of al l students, regardless of ge nder nonconformity or sexual orientation, and that comments to the contrary are inappropriate and harmful;
k. Clarification that statements of staff that expressly affirm the dignity and self-worth of student s and any pr otected characteristic of such students are consistent with District policies, subject to the Equity Consultant’s recommendations.
4. The District has des ignated at least one administrator or staff member (“Designated Person”) at each middle and high school who will be responsible for overseeing reports and inve stigations of harassment and answering staff and student questions regarding the harassment policies and procedures in his or her school.
26

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 27 of 61
a. By the first day of school eac h year, the District shall provide the name and contact information of the Designated Person for each school on its website and on a prominent bulletin board in each school’s main office. If the Designated Person is identified at the tim e the annual stude nt and em ployee handbooks are printed, t he District shall also include the name of th e Designated Person in the handbooks. If the Designated Person ha s not yet been ide ntified when the ha ndbooks are pri nted, the District shall include in th e handbooks the full contact in formation for each Designated Person, including an email address (e.g., DPblainehs@anoka.k12.mn.us).
b. Each middle and high school in the District shall also identify and introduce its Designated P erson to all students during student orient ation at the beginning of each school year.
5. By the first day of school eac h year, and then at least annually thereafter for the term of this Consent Decree, the Dis trict, with the Equity Consultant, the Title IX Coordinator, and the Equity Coordinator, will provide additional mandatory training(s) on harassment to every Designated Person. The traini ng shall include, but is not limited to:
a. In-depth instruction on talk ing with stude nts who ha ve been subject to harassm ent, including specific guidance on talking wi th students struggling with sexual orientation and/or gender id entity or expression is sues who may have concerns about unsupportive environments; and
27

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 28 of 61
b. Instruction on talking with students who repeatedly harass their peers on the ba sis of sex and/ or sexual orientation, including examples of ageappropriate interventions for these students.
6. The District, with the Equity C onsultant, may develop a train-thetrainer model for some or all of the required trainings in Section V.D.1-5, supra at pp. 2228. If the District uses a train-the-trainer model, it shall ensure that all individuals leading trainings are sufficiently trained to do so. If, and only if, th e Equity Consultant and the District cannot agree on the details a nd procedures of a tr ain-the-trainer model program, the District shall propose its model to the United States. The United States may reject proposed train-the-trainer models that are not consistent with the terms and spirit of this Consent Decree and/or applicable civil rights laws.
7. The District shall work with the Equity Consultant to determine an appropriate format for each annual and make-up training included in Section V.D.1-6 at pp. 22-28. The District and th e Equity Consultant shall ensu re that the group sizes and potential inclusion of discussions, role-pla ys, and/or tim e for questions and answers conform to best practices in the field, as determined by the Equity Consultant.
8. The District is responsible for assuming any and all costs associated with the required trainings referenced in Section V.D.1-7 at pp. 22-28.
9. Under the terms of this Cons ent Decree, the United States has authority to review and a pprove the Distri ct’s design and content of the stude nt and employee trainings incorporating all of the r equirements in Section V.D.1-7 at pp. 22-28
28

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 29 of 61
for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, their im plementing regulations, OCR Guidance, this Consent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree. The review and approval process shall encompass the following:
a. The District and the Equity Consultant shall work together to submit a written proposal to the United States fo r its student trainings incorporating all of the requirements in Section V.D.1-7 at pp. 22-28 and including any additional recommendations by the Equity Consultant, to the extent permitted by law, by September 30, 2012. The District and th e Equity Consultant shall work together to submit a written proposal to the United Stat es for its e mployee trainings incorporating all of t he requirements in Sec tion V.D.1-7 at pp . 22-28 and incl uding any additi onal recommendations by the Equity Consultant, to the extent pe rmitted by law, by July 27, 2012.
b. The proposal shall include detailed descriptions of the content of the trainings, the intended audience, the size of the audience, the schedule and length of the trainings, and the identity of the individual(s) providing the training.
c. The United States shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the day of receipt of the propo sed trainings to review and approve the District’s proposed trainings for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations, OCR Guidance, this Consent Decree , and the underlying reasons fo r this Consent Decree. If, however, the District, the United States, and/or the Equity Cons ultant initially disagree regarding the proposed training design and/or content, the District, the Equity Consultant,
29

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 30 of 61
and the United States will work together in g ood faith to resolve any disagreements. If the District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a reasonable period of time, either party may request that the Court mediate the dispute.
E. Mental Health Needs of Students 1. The District agrees that a counselor or other professional qualified to
assist students with mental health concerns will always be availabl e during school hours to assist students who have mental health concerns.
2. By September 4, 2012 , the District agrees to hire or appoint a qualified individual who holds a Masters degree or a PhD in a mental health field, a current licensure, and has pre vious experience as a clinician, to act as a consultant (“Mental Health Consultant”). The Mental Health Consultant will review and assess current practices in the District with regard to assisting middle and high school students who are targets of harassment, including studen ts who may be at risk for mental health problems that include, but are not limited to depression, anxiety, cutting and other selfinjurious behaviors, and/or suicidal ideation or suicide attempts.
3. By December 31, 2012, the Mental Health Cons ultant will prepare a report (the “Mental Health Report”) recomme nding action steps for the District to effectively address, assist, and respond to middle and high school students who are targets of harassment, including students who may be at risk for mental health problem s that include, but are not limite d to depression, a nxiety, cutting and ot her self-injurious behaviors, and/or suicidal ideation or suicide attempts.
30

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 31 of 61
4. At a m inimum, the Mental Health Re port shall include t he following:
a. Assessment of the me ntal health needs of m iddle and high school students in the District who were targets of harassment;
b. Recommendations for ways in which the District can better meet the mental health needs of such middle and high school students;
c. A review of the District’s procedures for identifying risk factors for such m iddle and high school studen ts struggling with serious m ental health issues and recommendations for improvements, if necessary;
d. A review of the District’s pr ocedures for intervention with such middle and high school st udents at risk for depressi on, anxiety, cutting and other self-injurious behaviors, and suicide, consistent with its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac t, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131– 12134, and Section 504 of th e Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, 794a, and recommendations for improvements, if necessary;
e. A review of the District’s procedures for tracking such middle and high school students at risk for depressi on, anxiety, cutting a nd other self-injurious behaviors, and suicide, and recommendations for improvements, if necessary;
f. A review of t he District’s policies and pr ocedures for handling suicidal ideation, suicide attemp ts, and other mental health crises a mong students in the District and recommendations for improvements, if necessary; and
31

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 32 of 61

g. A review of the District’s training(s) for m iddle and high

school administrators, counselors, psychologists, and any ot her District mental health

professionals related to any of t he recommendations contained in the Mental Health

Report, and recommendations for improvements, if necessary.

5. The District, after hiring or a ppointing its Mental Health Consultant,

shall provide the Mental Health Consultant with all information he or s he believes is

necessary to prepare the Mental Health Repo rt pursuant to the requirements set forth in Sections V.E.3-4, supra at pp. 30-31.2

6. Within seven (7) cal endar days of its receipt, the District shall

provide the United States with a copy of the Mental Health Report.

7. By January 31, 2013, the District shall submit to the United States

for its review and a pproval a plan detaili ng how the District i ntends to address the

recommendations contained in the Mental Health Report for the 2012 -2013 school year

and subsequent school years. Under the terms of this Cons ent Decree, the United States

has authority to review and approve the District’s plan for addressing t he Mental Health

Report recommendations for its complian ce with Title IV an d Title IX, their

implementing regulations, O CR Guidance, this Cons ent Decree, and t he underlying

reasons for this Consent Decree. Such appr oval will not be unreas onably withheld, and

the United States shall complete such review within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of

2

The Mental Health Consultant’s access to personally identifiable information shall

be in accordance with the regu lations of the Federal Educa tional Rights and Privacy Act,

34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(1).

32

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 33 of 61
the District’s plan. If, however, the Distri ct and the United Stat es initially disagree regarding the proposed plan, the District and the United States will work together in good faith to resolve any disagreements. If the District and the U nited States are unable t o resolve any disagreements in a reasonable peri od of time, either party m ay request that the Court mediate the dispute.
F. Anti-Bullying Survey 1. The District will continue to ad minister an Anti- Bullying Survey
(“Survey”) and will do so once pe r school year. The District shall ensure that the Survey includes questions re garding the “hot-spots” ( see infra Section H at pp. 36-37) within each school where harassment is occurring.
2. In consultation with the Equity Consultant, th e District shall review the Survey to ascertain its effectiveness in assessing the pres ence and impact of harassment at each middle and high school in the District. By October 16, 2012, the Equity Consultant shall make recommendations to enhance the Survey’s effectiveness.
3. In making his or her recommendations regarding the Survey, the Equity Consultant shall consid er (i) the number and adequacy of the questions related to harassment; and (ii) the appropriate survey participants.
4. The District shall implem ent the Equity Consultant’s recommendations in revising the content and participants of th e Survey, unless the District disagrees with the recom mendations. If the District disagrees with the Equity Consultant’s recommendations regarding the Survey, the District shall submit to the
33

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 34 of 61
United States an alternative proposal re garding the Surve y, detailing the Equi ty Consultant’s recommendations and explaining why the District disagrees with them. Under the terms of this Consent Decree, the United States has authority to r eview and approve the District’s alternative Survey proposal for complia nce with Title IV and Title IX, their im plementing regulations, OCR Guidance, this Cons ent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Consent Decree. Such approval will not be unreasonabl y withheld, and the United States shall complete such review within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the District’s plan. If th e District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a reasonable peri od of time, either party m ay request that the Court mediate the dispute.
6. With assistance from the Equity Consultant, the District will analyze the results of the Survey in writing. The analysis will include any climate issues identified through the Surveys and recommendations to address harassm ent as needed. Within 30 days of when the Di strict receives the survey re sults, the District will produce a copy of the Survey analysis and recommendations to the United States.
7. The Equity Consultant will train the District administrators on how to properly interpret the results of its Survey and respond to the findings (e.g ., modify policies or procedures as necessary, according to the terms of this Consent Decree).
34

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 35 of 61
G. Anti-Bullying/Anti-Harassment Task Force 1. The District has formed an Anti-Bullying/Anti-Harassment Task
Force (“Task Force”) to advise the Distri ct regarding how bes t to foster a positive educational climate free of harassment.
2. The District shall wo rk with the Equity Consultant to assess and expand the composition, mission, and functi ons of the Task F orce pursuant to the guidelines outlined herein by July 31, 2 012. At a minimum, memb ers of the Task Force shall include, but are not limited to: the Title IX Coordinator, the Equity Coordinator, students (including at least two Gay-Straight Alliance (“GSA”) members, so long as there are two GSA members who wish to participate), parents of stude nts in t he District (including at least two parent s of GSA members, so long as there are two GSA parents who wish to participate), teachers or school counselors, and sc hool administrators. The Equity Consultant shall ensure that parents and students have meaningful representation on the Task Force.
3. The Title IX Coordina tor, or his or her des ignee, shall coordinate and schedule the Task Force’s meetings and work.
4. The Task Force shall meet at least twice per school year and maintain documentation of th e date and duration of each meeting as well as meeting minutes.
5. At least once per school year, and more often if the Task For ce deems it appropriate, the Title IX Coordina tor or his/her designee will prepare a written
35

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 36 of 61
report (“Task Force Report”) summarizi ng the Task Force’s recom mendations and suggestions. Each annual Task Force Report shall be complete d no later than June 30 of each year that the Consent Decree is in eff ect. The Task Force Re port shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Concerns of student s and parents related to hara ssment incidents and the District’s overall climate;
b. Recommendations for strategies to prevent harassment and improve the climate;
c. Outreach strategies to parents and families to build awareness around, address conc erns related to, and gain feedback re garding the District’s antiharassment efforts.
6. Within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the Task Force Report, the District shall provide the Equity Consultant and the Unite d States with copies of the Report. The District shall carefully cons ider the findi ngs and recommendations of the Task Force.
H. Harassment Hot-Spots 1. In consultation with the Equity Consultant in 2012-2013 a nd on its
own for the remainder of the term of the Consent Decree, at least once each trimester during the school ye ar, the District will iden tify “hot-spots” in its middle and hi gh schools where harassm ent is m ost often oc curring, including outdoor locations on each
36

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 37 of 61
school property where students congregate (e .g., parking lots) and on school buses. The District shall seek and consider student input in identifying hot-spots.
2. Based on a review of the da ta and t he recommendations of t he Equity Consultant, the District will work in good faith with the Equ ity Consultant to agree on appropriate corrective actions by th e District to eliminate harassment in the identified hot-spots. The corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, training students to assist in m onitoring hot-spots, a ssigning staff to m onitor hot-spots, and/or adding additional cameras in certain school locations or on buses and m onitoring those cameras. The District will im plement the agreed actions a nd promptly notify the United States of its actions no later than fourteen ( 14) school days after the last day of each trimester.
3. The District shall ens ure that any person designated t o monitor a harassment hot-spot has attended trainings on the Di strict’s harassment policies and procedures. The District will ensure that those employees who begin employment after such annual training has occurred will work w ith the Title IX Coordinator and Equity Coordinator to ensure each new employee recei ves training on the District’s harassment policies and procedures.
4. The parties acknowledge that the school bus drivers who work in the District are not District em ployees, but rather are the em ployees of vendors with whom the District contracts. The District will work with its school bus ve ndors to ensure that school bus drivers re ceive annual training on the District’s harassment policies and
37

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 38 of 61

procedures, and to e nsure that the bus vendors have processes in place to provide eac h

new bus driver with training on the District’s harassment policies and procedures.

I. Peer Leadership 1. The District shall ensure that all of its middle and high schools have

a peer lea dership program addressing ha rassment by the begi nning of the second trimester of the 2012-2013 school year. 3 The District may tailor its peer leadership

programs to the specific needs of each indi vidual middle and hi gh school, so long as

every program has an anti-harassment component. The Equity Consultant may assist the

District in setting up or im proving its pee r leadership programs and in tailoring the

programs to each school building.

2. The District will work with the Equity Consultant to review the need

for additional training on respon ding to or preventing harassment for students in the peer

leadership programs.

J. Student Meetings

1. The Superintendent or an Associ ate Superintendent of the District

shall continue the District’s practice of c onvening annual meetings with students at every

middle school and high school, including alternative schools, in the District. Each school

administration shall select 15-20 students to attend the Superintendent m eeting, making

3

See, e.g., Roosevelt Middle School’s peer l eadership program, in w hich student

leaders are identified in each grade level to establish a student-led anti-bullying gr oup

that leads team-building, anti-bullying activities during ad visory periods, stands up

against bullying when they see it, assist s targeted stude nts who are struggli ng with

bullying, and makes videos, posters, and other displays to raise awareness.

38

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 39 of 61

every effort to choose students with a di

versity of backgrounds, interests, and

experiences. Each school shall endeavor to choose at least two students who are

members of the school’s GSA.

2. The meetings shall last at least one class pe riod, and students must

be specifically asked about and provide d with the opportunity to discuss any concerns

they have about incidents of harassment.

3. During each meeting, the District will emphas ize its commitment to

having a school envir onment free from all ha rassment and infor m attendees about the

Task Force (see Section V.G. at pp. 34-36 of this Consent Decree), including identifying

the representatives on the Task Force from that particular school.

4.

If students identify any specific incidents of harassment during or

after the meeting, the District will com mence an investigation of each incident as soon as

possible, in accordance with the HVD Policy. If students express concerns about the

school climate, the District will address the concerns consistent w ith the terms of this

Consent Decree.

5. During each mee ting, the District will al so remind the students of

their right to file a complain t of harassment at any time th ey believe they ha ve been

subjected to harassment and w ill advise the students of the procedure they should follow

if they wish to do so.

6. During each meeting, the District will inform students that if they

have concerns they wi sh to share with the S uperintendent or Associate Superintende nt

39

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 40 of 61
privately, they m ay do so im mediately after the group m eeting or at any other tim e by email.
7. The Superintendent or an Asso ciate Superintendent shall submit a written summary of all meetings, identifying key issues by school and all necessary follow-up tasks, if an y, to the Equity Cons ultant, the Title IX Coordinator, the Equity Coordinator and the United States no later than thirty (30) calendar days after all of the middle and high school meetings have taken place in that school year.
K. Monitoring and Assessment of Program Effectiveness 1. By September 4, 2012, the District will develop and begin
implementing a m onitoring program to assess the effectiveness of its anti-harassment efforts. In developing th e monitoring program, the District will consider the recommendations and suggestions made by the Equity Consultant.
2. At the conclusion of each school year, the District, in collaboration with the Equity Consultant, the Title IX Coordinator, and the Equity Coordinator, will conduct an annual assessment of the effec tiveness of the District’s anti-harassment efforts. Such assessment shall include, but is not limited to:
a. A review of the Anti-Bully ing/Anti-Harassment Task Force Report(s);
b. A review of the anti-bullying surveys and related analysis;
40

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 41 of 61
c. The Title IX Coordinator’s revi ew of all reports of sex-based harassment and District responses thereto in its electronic databas e, including any and all supporting documentation and/or underlying analyses;
d. The Equity Coordinator’s review of all reports of sexual orientation-based harassment and District responses in its electronic database;
e. An analysis of all harassm ent incidents in the District disaggregated by the s ex, school, and grade of both t he accused harasser and harassed student;
f. Evaluation and anal ysis of th e data collected, including an assessment of whether the reported incide nts of harassment have increased or decreased in number and severity; whether certain st udents are repeatedly harassed or repeated alleged perpetrators in ha rassment complaints; and differences betwee n and am ong individual District schools in the numbers, types, and severity of harassment incidents.
3. Based on the annual assessm ent conducted pursuant to Section V.K.2. at pp. 40-41, the District shall devel op recommendations for wa ys to improve its anti-harassment program.
4. By July 15 of each year this Consent Decree is in effect, the District shall submit to the United States for review: (1) a report analyzing all of the inform ation collected and reviewed pursua nt to Sect ion V.K.2. at pp. 40-41; (2) its proposed recommendations for im provements to its an ti-harassment program pursuant to Section V.K.3. at p. 41; and (3) timelines for the implementation of the recommendations.
41

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 42 of 61

5. If the Unit ed States provi des comments on the District’s proposed recommendations for improvement actions and timelines for their implementation, it will do so no later than the first Fr iday in August of each year. The District shall incorporate the United States’ comments into the District’s action plans, unless the District disagrees with the recommendations. If the parties di sagree about the United States’ comments to the District’s proposed recommendations, the District and the United States will work together in good faith to resolve any disagreements. If the District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagre ements in a reasonable period of t ime, either party m ay request that the Court mediate the dispute.
L. Reporting 1. The District will provide all reports, documents, and information
required to be produced to the United States, including all information required pursuant to this Consent Decree, in electronic form, usable by the United States, or in written form if the data in electronic form would not be usable, in accord ance with the timelines set forth herein.4

4

The District shall provi de to DOJ and OCR one copy of all docum ents and

information it is required to produce to the United States in this Consent Decree, directed

to the following attorneys:

Torey Cummings and Tamica Daniel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section, PHB 4300 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20004
42

Leticia Soto U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Citigroup Center 500 W. Madison Street Suite 1475 Chicago, IL 60661-7204

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 43 of 61
a. The District shall produce to the United States all reports , documents, and information required by this Consent Decree, including those that contain private student information. The law enf orcement exception to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) applies to the United States in this matter, allowing it to receive documents containing private student information. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (b)(1)(C)(ii); see also United St ates v. Bertie Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 319 F. Supp. 2d 669, 671–72 (E.D.N.C. 2004 ). The United States shall mainta in the confidentiality of any protected private student information it receives from the District.
b. The District acknowl edges that, pursuant t o the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. St at. § 13. 01–13.99 (“MGDPA”), the Student Plaintiffs are entitled, upon request, to copies of all documents that the District is required to provide to the U nited States pursuant t o this Consent Decree, with any private data redacted as required by statute. The Distri ct agrees that it will provide those documents to counsel for the Student Plai ntiffs pursuant to their request under Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 3, appended hereto as Exhibit F. Such reports will be provided concurrently with the District’s delivery of those reports to th e United States. However, the District shall not produce to Student Plaintiffs any documents or information containing private student information subject to FERPA, see 20 U.S. C. § 1232g, and the MGD PA. Instead, the District will provide documents or information containing pr ivate student information to the United States only. The United States will then provide Stude nt Plaintiffs with summaries or redacted reports so that Student Plaintiffs do not receive any private student
43

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 44 of 61
information. The District ag rees to pr omptly notify St udent Plaintiffs and the United States of the submission of any reports to the United States that are in need of redaction.
2. If the District, despite its good f aith efforts, is unable to meet any timeline set forth in this Consent Decree, it will immediately notify the United States, of the delay and the reason therefor. The United States may provide a reasonable extension of the timeline at issue and will consider any request for extension of time in good faith.
3. At the end of each trimester, the District will provide documentation of its compliance with this Consent Decree through written electronic compliance reports, which will be produced to the Un ited States within fourteen ( 14) school days of the last day of each trimester of each y ear this Consent Decree is in force. Each compliance report will cover the immediately preceding trimester, and will in clude the following information and documents:
a. The date a nd duration of ea ch training se ssion required by this Consent Decree; copies of all agendas fo r such training sessions; and copies of any training materials distributed at the trai nings, including videos or Power Point presentations;
b. The number of people , by po sition and school, w ho did not receive each required training and the District’s plan for these individuals to receive the training(s) they missed. The Dis trict will provide additional verification of com pleted training for those individuals who received rescheduled training;
44

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 45 of 61
c. A summary of harassment in cidents that includes data, by school, on: the num ber and types of com plaints; the prevalence of each type of harassment (e.g., physical, verbal, or written); th e remedial or disciplinary actions taken; the sex of harassed stude nt and accused ha rasser; and any ot her relevant inform ation. Copies of all supporting documentation shall be maintained at the Title IX Coordinator or the Equity Coordinator’s office for review, upon request, by the United States;
d. Copies of any District polic ies and proce dures related to harassment or discrimination that the District has revised, adopted, or rescinded since the last compliance report;
e. Certification by the Title IX Coordinator that he or s he has reviewed all harassment incidents related to bullying, discrimination, and harassment based on sex, and all doc umentation related to such i ncidents, to determine whether all harassment incidents were properly identified, investigated, and resolved consistent with District policies and procedures, or, if not, that he or she has taken appropriate corrective action pursuant to Section V.B.4. at pp. 18-21 of this Consent Decree;
f. Certification by the Equity Co ordinator that he or she has reviewed all harassment incidents related to bullying, discrimination, and harassment based on sexual orientation, and all documentation related to such incidents, to determine whether all harassm ent incidents were proper ly identified, investigated, and resolved consistent with District policies and proce dures, or, if not, t hat he or she has take n appropriate corrective action pursuant to Section V.C.3. at p. 21 of this Consent Decree;
45

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 46 of 61
g. Certification by the Title IX Coordinator that, if and when corrective action was necessary for Title IX compliance pursuant to Section V.B.4.c at pp. 19-20 of this Consent Decree, he or she, at a minimum, took the following corrective action: re viewed all docum entation from the incident; identified all areas where the school or District response did not comply with District policies and procedures; initiated timely steps to remedy violations of District policies and procedur es; and contacted the parent(s) of the student(s) subject to th e harassment and parent (s) of the offending student(s) to inf orm them of the Title IX Coordinator’s involvement in the matter, the applicable policies and pr ocedures, and th e timeline for re solving the underlying complaint;
h. Certification by the Equity Coordinator that, if and whe n corrective action was necessary for MHRA compliance pursuant to Section V.C.3. at p. 21 of this Consent Decree, he or she, at a mi nimum, took the following corrective action: reviewed all docum entation from the inciden t; identified all areas where the school or District response did not comply with Dist rict policies and proc edures; initiated timely steps to remedy violations of District policies and procedures; and contacted the parent(s) of the student(s) subject to the harassment and the parent(s) of the offending student(s) to inform them of the Equity Coordinator’s involvement in the matter, the applicabl e policies and procedures, and the timeline for resolving the underlying complaint; and
i. Certification by the District that it has fully and sufficiently addressed all incidents alleging harassment.
46

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 47 of 61
M. Enforcement 1. The United States will monitor and review complia nce with this
Consent Decree. 2. As part of its responsibility to monitor and review compliance with
this Consent Decree, the United States may observe trainings, interview District staff and students (including ex parte com munications with stude nts and em ployees other t han school and District administrators), and reque st such additional reports or data as are necessary for the United Stat es to monitor the District and to determine whether the District is in compliance with this Consent Decree. A response to a request by the United States for additional reports or data necessary to determine if the District is in compliance with this Consent Decree shall not be unre asonably withheld. Also, with ten (10) calendar days advance notice, th e United States may visit any school in the District to monitor compliance with the terms of this Consent Decr ee and the District agrees to provide full access to the United States to perform such monitoring.
3. In the event that th e United States believes that the District has violated any provision of this Consent De cree, the United States will provide written notice (including the relevant section(s) of this Consent Decree and t he factual basis) of such violation to all parties, and the District shall then respond to such notice and/or cure such non-compliance within thirty (30) calendar days. The parties shall negotiate in good faith in an attempt to resolve any dispute relating t hereto before the United States seeks relief with the Court. If the District and the United States are unable to r esolve any
47

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 48 of 61
disagreements in a reasonable period of tim e, any party m ay request that the Cour t mediate the dispute.
4. Where there is a requirement in th is Consent Decree that the District submit material to the United States for review and approval for compliance with Title IV and Title IX, their implementing regulations , OCR Guidance, this Consent Decree, and the underlying reasons for this Conse nt Decree, and the District is unable to obtain approval that it believes has been unreasona bly withheld, the Dist rict will raise its concerns in writing with the United States an d the United States sh all then respond to such notice and/or issue the approval within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of written notice. The United S tates and the District shall negotiate in good faith in attem pt to resolve any dispute relating theret o before seeking relief. If the District and the United States are unable to resolve any disagreements in a reasona ble period of tim e, any party may request that the Court mediate the dispute.
5. If any dispute under this Consent De cree is not resolved pursuant to Sections V.M.1-4, supra at pp. 46- 47, any aggrieve d party m ay file a m otion with t he Court for such further orders as may be necessary for, or consistent with, the enforcement of this Consent Decree.
VI. STUDENT PLAINTIFFS’ RELEASES, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
The terms and conditions in this Secti on VI are by a nd between only the Student Plaintiffs and the District:
48

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 49 of 61
A. In exchange for the full and final rele ase of claims as se t forth in Section VI.B., the District’s insurance carrier shall pay to the Studen t Plaintiffs the total amount of Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($270,000) within ten (10) business days of the entry of the Court’s approval of the Petitions for Approval of Settlement of Claims of Minor Plaintiffs. Such payments shall be consistent with Minn. Stat. § 540.08, where applicable.
B. In consideration of the terms se t forth in this Consent Decree, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged , each Student Plainti ff does hereby release and forever discharge the District; the School Board; the m embers of the Sc hool Board, and any a nd all of the District’s de partments or divisions; t ogether with all past and present Board members, officers, employees , agents, insurers, reinsurers, and selfinsurers; attorneys and each and every one thereof, from a ll actions, claims, causes of action, suits, debts, sums of money, controversies, trespasses, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity, including claims for attorney s’ fees or costs, that were or coul d have been asserted in the Complaints.
C. The Student Plaintiffs certify, re present, and warrant that they are authorized to enter into and consent to the terms and cond itions of the Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind the parties to it.
D. The Student Plaintiffs hereby certify, represent, and warrant that (a) they are the only and lawful owners of the claim s and causes of action arising out of the fa cts giving rise to the allegations described in the Action, and (b) they have not assigned or
49

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 50 of 61
otherwise transferred to any other third party or entity any interest in any claim or cause of action arising out of the facts giving rise to the allegations described in the Action.
E. Each Student Plaintiff certifies that to the extent he or she has received Medicare or Medicaid benefits arising out of and/or relating in any manner to the Action he or s he has provided notice of the Action and will provid e additional notice of this Consent Decree as mandated by a pplicable law. Each Studen t Plaintiff further certifies that he or she will honor such subrogation claims as are ultimately asserted relating to his or her receipt of Medicare and/or Medicaid benefits. Student Plaintiffs acknowledge that any and all past, present and/or future me dical expenses and/ or benefits, expenses, reimbursements, liens and/or costs of any ki nd arising out of and/or relating in any manner to the Action shall be their sole and continuing responsibility and not that of the District or its insurer. Each Student Plaintiff further certif ies that he or she will honor any valid subr ogation claims that are assert ed relating to his or her receipt of nongovernmental medical benefits.
F. The Student Plaintiffs represen t and warrant that—other than the complaints filed in this Ac tion—they have filed no other complaints, charges or othe r claims against the District in any court or administrative or regul atory body (including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Education or the U.S. Department of Education).
G. The Student Plaintiffs agree that they shall not represent this Consent Decree or any agreements contained herein as an admission of liability or wrongdoing on
50

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 51 of 61
the part of the District or any of the indi vidual defendants nam ed in the Action. The Student Plaintiffs further agree that they will not identify individual District defendants or other District employees by name in public st atements concerning the allegations in the Complaints or resolution of this matter. If the District belie ves that one or m ore of the Student Plaintiffs has violated this provision, the District may seek an order of the Court requiring the violating Student Plaintiff(s) to issue a corre ctive statement, but only after first providing the St udent Plaintiff(s) the opportunity to issue a corrective statemen t within 10 days of receipt of notice of any claimed violation of this provision.
I. Each of the Student Plai ntiffs and the District is responsible for the tax implications that may occur to the party or their attorneys in connection with the payment or receipt of funds pursuant to this Consent Decree. The District has made no representation regarding the ta xability of the payments ma de to Student Plaintiffs pursuant to this Consent Decree. The District will not be liable for any tax consequence to the Student Plaintiffs as a result of the paym ents made pursuant to t his Consent Decree.
J. The Student Plaintiffs, by their signatures to this Consent Decree, acknowledge and agree that they have carefully read and understood all provisions of this Consent Decree and that they have entered into this Consent Decree knowi ngly and voluntarily. The Student Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have been represented by their own attorneys, and that they are voluntarily entering into this Consent Decree to resolve the causes of action that were or could have been brought in the Complaints, and that this
51

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 52 of 61
Consent Decree is agreed to an d signed with the intent that it be final, binding, and enforceable. The Student Plaintiffs also acknowledge that they have agreed to settle their claims based on the advice and recommen dation of their ow n attorneys, and that the District has not made any representations or advised them as to the terms of this Consent Decree.
K. The Student Plaintiffs are permanently barred and e njoined from asserting, commencing, prosecuting, or continuing any of the claim s that were settled and released in this Consent Decree.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the date of entry. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the duration of this Consent Decree to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. B. In consideration of, and c onsistent with, all the terms of this Consent Decree, the United States agrees to refrain fr om undertaking further investigation into, or pursuing further legal proceedings regarding, all matters containe d within the Consent Decree, except those rights and remedies identified in the Consent Decree. C. The requirements and procedures in this Consent Decree shall be implemented consistent with the rights a nd protections afforded under the MGDPA; FERPA; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 191, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164 (“HIPAA”); and other applicable law.
52

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 53 of 61
D. In consideration of, and c onsistent with, all the terms of this Consent Decree, the Student Plaintiffs ’ Complaints are hereby dism issed with prejudice and without taxing costs to any part y. Student Plaintiffs retain the right to petition the Court for the purpose of enf orcing their indivi dual rights under Sections V.L.1. b. at p. 42- 43 and VI.A. at p. 48 of this Consent Decree. In the event that the Student Plaintiffs believ e that the District has violated either Sections V.L.1.b. at p. 42 or VI.A. a t p. 48, the Student Plaintiffs will provid e the District written notice of such violation, and the District shall have ten (10) calendar days to cure any violation.
E. In consideration of, and c onsistent with, all the terms of this Consent Decree, the United States’ Comp laint-in-Intervention is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. The United States retains th e right to petition the Court, at any time during the duration of this Decr ee, for the purpose of enforcing the Decree consistent with Section V.M.3 at p. 47 of this Consent Decree.
F. The individual defendants named in the Student Plaintiffs’ Complaints shall not have any individual responsibility to carry out any of the requirements of this Consent Decree, except (to the extent applicable) as employees of the District.
G. The parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Conse nt Decree, litigation is not “reasonably foreseeable” concerning the matters described herein. To the extent that any party previously implemen ted a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored inform ation, or t hings related to the matters described herein, the
53

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 54 of 61
party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. Nothing in this paragraph relieves any party of any other obligations imposed by this Consent Decree.
H. This Consent Decree, including its a ttached exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement by the parties and no other statemen t, promise, or agreement, either written or oral, made by any party or agen ts of any party, that is not contained in this written Consent Decree, shall be enforceable regarding the matters raised in this Decree.
I. This Consent Decree is final and has binding effect on the parties, including all principals, agents, executors, administrators, representatives, employees, successors in interest, beneficiaries, assigns, and legal representatives thereof.
J. Failure of a party to s eek enforcement of this Consent Decree pursuant t o its terms with respect to any in stance or provision shall not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances or any provisions.
K. This Consent Decree does not cover any other pending or future complaints or investigations by OCR and/or DOJ.
L. This Consent Decree does not affect th e District’s duty to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV, Title IX, the MHRA, or any other law.
M. The District (including its officers, agen ts, affiliates, subsidiaries, servants, employees, and all other persons or entities in ac tive concert or privity with it) agrees not to retaliate against any student or employee who in relation to the allegations outlined above has testified, assisted, or participated in a proceeding or investigation under the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV, Title IX, or the MHRA.
54

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 55 of 61
N. The undersigned representatives of th e parties certify that they are authorized to enter into and consent to the terms and cond itions of the Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind the parties to it.
O. All parties to this Consent Decree shall undertake all reasonable and necessary action to facilitate approval of this Consent Decree, including but not limited to jointly petitioning the Court for approval under applicable Minnesota Statutes and governing law for minor settlements and school district settlements.
P. If any pr ovision of t his Consent Decree is determ ined by a ny court to be unenforceable, the ot her terms of this C onsent Decree shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect, provided however, that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the parties, the United States, Student Plaintiffs, and the District shall engage in good-faith negotiations in order to adopt su ch mutually agreeable amendments to this Decree as may be necessary to restor e the parties as closely as possible to the initially agreed-upon relative rights and obligations.
Q. The Court orders that not hing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as an acknowledgement, admission, or evidence of liability of the District or any individual defendant. The Court further orders that nothing in this Consent Decree may be used as evidence of District liability by Student Plaintiffs or any other private litigants in any other proceeding.
R. The Court hereby refers to the Magist rate Judge all m atters regarding the management and execution of the Consent Decree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
55

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 56 of 61
SO ORDERED s/ Joan N. Ericksen Honorable Joan N. Ericksen United States District Judge Dated: 3-6-2012
56

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 57 of 61

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

B. TODD JONES United States Attorney District of Minnesota United States Department of Justice

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice

GREGORY G. BROOKER, #0166066 ANA H. VOSS, #0483656 Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota 600 United States Courthouse 300 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tel: 612-664-5600 greg.brooker@usdoj.gov anna.voss@usdoj.gov
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. Department of Education Of Counsel

ANURIMA BHARGAVA, Chief KATHLEEN S. DEVINE, Senior Counsel Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section
s/ Torey B. Cummings TOREY B. CUMMINGS (admitted pro hac vice) TAMICA H. DANIEL (admitted pro hac vice) Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: 202-305-4204 torey.cummings@usdoj.gov tamica.daniel@usdoj.gov

Dated: March 1, 2012

57

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 58 of 61
FOR DEFENDANT ANOKA-HENNEPIN SCHOOL DISTRICT:

Dated: March 5, 2012

s/ Paul Cady Paul Cady, #0189406 General Counsel Anoka-Hennepin School District 11299 Hanson Blvd. N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Tel: 763-506-1089 paul.cady@anoka.k12.mn.us

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 59 of 61

Dated: March 1, 2012
Dated: March 1, 2012 Quana
Rebecca Dated: March 1, 2012
Rebecca Dated: March 1, 2012
Jim
Burnetta Dated: March 1, 2012
Dated: March 1, 2012 Jeffrey
B.G.,
Dated: March 1, 2012
Dated: March 1, 2012 Michael

STUDENT PLAINTIFFS:
s/ Jane Doe Jane Doe
E.R., by her next friend and parent, Quana Hollie
s/ Quana Hollie Hollie
K.R., by his next friends and parents, Rooker and Jim Rooker
s/ Rebecca Rooker Rooker
s/ Jim Rooker Rooker
D.F., by his next friends and parents, Frei and Jeffrey Frei
s/ Burnetta Frei Burnetta Frei
s/ Jeffrey Frei Frei
by her next friends and parents, Marty Geldert and Michael Geldert
s/ Marty Geldert Marty Geldert
s/ Michael Geldert Geldert
D.M.-B., by his next friends and parents,

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 60 of 61

Michael
Dated: March 1, 2012 Michael
Dated: March 1, 2012

McGee and Jason Backes
s/ Michael McGee McGee
s/ Jason Backes Jason Backes

AS TO FORM, COUNSEL FOR STUDENT PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE, K.R., D.F., B.G. and D.M.-B.

Dated: March 1, 2012

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
s/ Michael A. Ponto Michael A. Ponto, #203944 Martin S. Chester, #031514X Christopher H. Dolan, #0386484 Zack L. Stephenson, #0391533 2200Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 (612) 766-7000 michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com martin.chester@FaegreBD.com chris.dolan@FaegreBD.com zach.stephenson@FaegreBD.com
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Mary Bauer (admitted pro hac vice) Christine P. Sun (admitted pro hac vice) Samuel Wolfe (admitted pro hac vice) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 mary.bauer@splcenter.org christine.sun@splcenter.org sam.wolfe@splcenter.org (334) 956-8200

CASE 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER Document 79 Filed 03/06/12 Page 61 of 61

NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS Christopher Stoll (admitted pro hac vice) 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 cstoll@nclrights.org (415) 365-1335

AS TO FORM, COUNSEL FOR STUDENT PLAINTIFF E.R.

Dated: March 1, 2012

CULBERTH & LIENEMANN, LLP

s/ Celeste E. Culberth Celeste E. Culberth, #228187 Leslie E. Lienemann, #23019 1050 UBS Plaza 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 cculberth@clslawyers.com llienemann@clslawyers.com (651) 290-9305
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS Christopher Stoll (admitted pro hac vice) 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 cstoll@nclrights.org (415) 365-1335

 
 CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 1 of 15
CLOSED,CV,PHV,PROTO,RELTD
U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−01999−JNE−SER

Doe et al v. Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11 et al Assigned to: Judge Joan N. Ericksen Referred to: Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/21/2011 Date Terminated: 03/21/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jane Doe

represented by Christine P Sun Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave Montgomery, AL 36107 334−956−8200 Email: christine.sun@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Dolan Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402−3901 612−766−8849 Fax: 612−766−1700 Email: chris.dolan@FaegreBD.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St Ste 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Email: cstoll@nclrights.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilona M Turner National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St Ste 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Email: iturner@nclrights.org TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin S Chester Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402−3901 612−766−7000 Fax: 612−766−1600 Email: martin.chester@FaegreBD.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave Montgomery, AL 36107

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 2 of 15

334−956−8200 Email: mary.bauer@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A Ponto Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402−3901 612−766−7000 Fax: 612−766−1600 Email: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Wolfe Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave Montgomery, AL 36107 334−956−8200 Email: sam.wolfe@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary L Stephenson Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402−3901 612−766−7000 Fax: 612−766−1600 Email: zachary.stephenson@faegrebd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
K.R. by his next friends and parents, Rebecca Rooker and Jim Rooker

represented by Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Dolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colton D. Long Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 90 S 7th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402−3901 612−766−6943 Fax: 612−766−1600 Email: colton.long@faegrebd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilona M Turner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 3 of 15

Martin S Chester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A Ponto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Wolfe (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary L Stephenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
D.F. by his next friends and parents, Burnetta Frei and Jeffrey Frei

represented by Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Dolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilona M Turner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin S Chester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A Ponto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Wolfe (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 4 of 15

Zachary L Stephenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
B.G. by her next friend and parent, Marty Geldert

represented by Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Dolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilona M Turner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin S Chester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael A Ponto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel Wolfe (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zachary L Stephenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
D.M.−B. by his next friends and parents, Michael McGee and Jason Backes

represented by Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher H Dolan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 5 of 15

Ilona M Turner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Chester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2013 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A Ponto (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel Wolfe (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary L Stephenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Tamica Daniel United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4721 Email: tamica.daniel@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/24/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E Perez United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4609 Email: tom.perez@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Torey B Cummings United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−350−4204 Email: torey.cummings@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 6 of 15
Gregory G Brooker United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5600 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: greg.brooker@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11
Defendant Anoka−Hennepin School Board

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: jbazis@greeneespel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M Baker Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: jbaker@greeneespel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen K. Statler Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−8327 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: kstatler@greeneespel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark L. Johnson Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: mjohnson@greeneespel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sybil L Dunlop Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−8345 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: sdunlop@greeneespel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M Baker

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 7 of 15

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dennis Carlson in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Farley in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jerri McGonigal in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 8 of 15

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tom Hagerty in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/21/2011
07/21/2011 07/21/2011 07/21/2011 07/21/2011 07/21/2011 07/21/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, Jerri McGonigal ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 40056960.) assigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen per Civil Rights List and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, filed by K.R., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, B.G.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (kt) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
Summons Issued as to Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, Jerri McGonigal. (kt) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym by Jane Doe. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym filed by Jane Doe. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
4 Declaration of Jane Doe (Pseudonym) in Support of 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym, 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Jane Doe. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
5 Declaration of Christopher H. Dolan in Support of 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym, 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Jane Doe. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
6 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Jane Doe re 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Jane Doe. (Dolan, Christopher)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 9 of 15

07/21/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011
07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011
08/03/2011 08/08/2011
08/09/2011 08/12/2011 08/12/2011

(Entered: 07/21/2011)
7 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym : Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
8 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Christine Sun by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. (Ponto, Michael) Modified on 7/27/2011 (MMC). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
9 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Mary Bauer by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. (Ponto, Michael) Modified on 7/27/2011 (MMC). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Sam Wolfe by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. (Ponto, Michael) Modified on 7/27/2011 (MMC). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
11 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Ilona M. Turner by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R.. (Ponto, Michael) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
12 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Christopher F. Stoll by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R.. (Ponto, Michael) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY − ORDER granting 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of attorneys Christine Sun, Mary Bauer, Samuel Wolfe, Ilona M. Turner and Christopher F. Stoll for plaintiffs. Fees paid; receipt number 4−057139. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 7/26/11. (MMC) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. re 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym (Ponto, Michael) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. re 2 MOTION for leave to proceed under a pseudonym AMENDED (Ponto, Michael) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by K.R., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, B.G.. Anoka−Hennepin School Board served on 7/27/2011, answer due 8/17/2011; Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11 served on 7/27/2011, answer due 8/17/2011; Dennis Carlson served on 7/27/2011, answer due 8/17/2011; Michael Farley served on 7/25/2011, answer due 8/15/2011; Tom Hagerty served on 7/25/2011, answer due 8/15/2011; Jerri McGonigal served on 7/25/2011, answer due 8/15/2011. (Ponto, Michael) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 8/3/2011. A telephone conference was held regarding case management. (kt) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
17 STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
18 ORDER that Defendants shall have until September 16, 2011, to answer or otherwise respond to the PlaintiffsComplaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 8/9/11. (kt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
19 NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for 8/23/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 8/12/11. (kt) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
20 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO THE CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE that 11cv2282 is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 8/12/2011. (JME) (Entered: 08/12/2011)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 10 of 15

08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011 08/22/2011 08/22/2011 08/22/2011 08/23/2011 08/24/2011 08/24/2011 08/25/2011 08/31/2011 09/01/2011 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011
09/20/2011

21 STIPULATION Regarding Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal re 21 Stipulation, (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
23 ORDER That Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym [Doc. No. 2 ] is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 08/16/2011. (jz) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
24 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 8/22/2011. Discussion regarding upcoming Settlement Conference. (haz) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 8/22/2011. Discussion regarding upcoming Settlement Conference. (haz) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 8/22/2011. Discussion regarding upcoming Settlement Conference. (haz) Text modified on 8/24/2011 (Arent−Zachary, Heather). (Entered: 08/24/2011)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 8/23/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
26 STIPULATION for Protective Order by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal re 26 Stipulation, for Protective Order (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
30 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 8/25/11. (kt) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
31 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 8/31/2011. A telephone conference was held regarding discovery dispute. (kt) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 9/1/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
33 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Telephone Conference held on 9/14/2011. (LPH) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
34 STIPULATION extending Defendants' time in which to answer by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Bazis, Jeanette) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
35 ORDER re 34 Stipulation; Defendants shall have until seven (7) days after Plaintiffs provide Defendants with written notice that settlement discussions are at an impasse. Defendants may, however, file their answer or other response to the Complaint at any time before there is an impasse in settlement discussions or before it receives notice of an impasse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 9/16/11. (LPH) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 9/20/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 11 of 15

09/26/2011 09/28/2011 10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/06/2011 10/06/2011 10/06/2011 10/13/2011 10/13/2011
10/14/2011 10/17/2011 10/19/2011 11/02/2011
11/04/2011 11/14/2011 11/18/2011

37 NOTICE of Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/5/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 9/26/11. (kt) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/28/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 10/5/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
39 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/6/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8E (MPLS) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
40 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/13/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
41 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/14/2011 08:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 10/6/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 10/13/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
46 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: DUPLICATE ENTRY. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/13/2011. A continued Settlement Conference was held before Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, in Saint Paul, Minnesota. No settlement was reached. (kt) Modified on 10/14/2011 (kt). (Entered: 10/14/2011)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/14/2011. A continued Settlement Conference was held before Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, in Saint Paul, Minnesota. No settlement was reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
47 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/17/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 10/19/2011. Continued settlement discussions. (kt) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
49 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 11/4/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 11/14/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 11/18/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
50 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 11/4/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 11/14/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 11/18/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/23/2011)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 12 of 15

12/01/2011 12/15/2011 12/29/2011 01/06/2012 01/18/2012 01/27/2012 02/14/2012 02/24/2012 02/24/2012 02/24/2012
02/24/2012
02/29/2012
03/01/2012 03/01/2012 03/05/2012

53 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 12/15/2011 09:00 AM and 1/18/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
54 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 12/15/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
55 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Turner, Ilona) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 1/6/2012. Continued settlement discussions. (kt) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 1/18/2012. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
58 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing:Settlement Conference set for 3/1/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference via Telephone held on 2/14/2012. Continued settlement discussions. (jz) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
60 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
61 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 60 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings : Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
62 MEMORANDUM in Support re 60 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings filed by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal re 60 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
64 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: At a date and time to be set by the Court, or on the written submissions if the Court so prefers, the plaintiffs and defendants will jointly move the Court for an order consolidating these cases for pretrial proceedings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, without prejudice to future motions by any party to separate claims for trial. The parties have no objection if the Court wishes to consider this motion without a hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (Johnson, Mark) Modified text on 2/29/2012 (lmb). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
65 ORDER granting 60 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 1, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 3/1/2012. (kt) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
67 STIPULATION by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Intervenor Complaint of the United States, # 2 Attorney General Certification)(Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 13 of 15

03/05/2012
03/05/2012
03/05/2012
03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012

68 JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal, United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
69 MEMORANDUM in Support re 68 JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE filed by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
70 NOTICE of Lodging of Consent Decree by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, Michael Farley, Tom Hagerty, K.R., Jerri McGonigal, United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
71 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., K.R.. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
72 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERORR (Duplicate Entry): MOTION to Approve Consent Decree. Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
73 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney for Torey Cummings by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
74 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney for Thomas Perez by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
75 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: MOTION for Non−Resident Pro Hac Vice Admission for Tamica Daniel by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY−ORDER granting 73 74 Motions for Admission of U.S. Government Attorneys Torey B Cummings,Thomas E Perez for United States of America. Fees waived. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 03/06/2012. (MAP) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., K.R. re 71 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
77 ORDER re 67 Stipulation, filed by D.M.−B., Jerri McGonigal, K.R., Jane Doe, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, United States of America, Tom Hagerty, B.G., Dennis Carlson, D.F., Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Michael Farley. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 6, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
78 Intervenor COMPLAINT , filed by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
79 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 6, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s), # 7 Exhibit(s)(slf) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
80 ORDER granting 71 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 7, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
81 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement by B.G.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/8/12. (Dolan, Christopher) Modified on 3/12/2012 (akl). (Entered: 03/07/2012)
82 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement by D.F.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/8/12. (Dolan, Christopher) Modified on 3/12/2012 (akl). (Entered: 03/07/2012)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 14 of 15

03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/08/2012 03/09/2012
03/09/2012
03/09/2012
03/09/2012
03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 03/20/2012 04/30/2013 04/30/2013 05/06/2013 05/16/2013 05/16/2013
05/16/2013

83 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement by D.M.−B.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/8/12. (Dolan, Christopher) Modified on 3/12/2012 (akl). (Entered: 03/07/2012)
84 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement by K.R.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/8/12. (Dolan, Christopher) Modified on 3/12/2012 (akl). (Entered: 03/07/2012)
85 MOTION for Non−Resident Pro Hac Vice Admission for Tamica Daniel by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY−ORDER granting 85 Motion for Admission of U.S. Government Attorney Tamica Daniel for United States of America. Fee waived. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 03/09/2012. (MAP) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
86 AFFIDAVIT of Service by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., K.R. re 82 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 84 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 81 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 83 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
87 AFFIDAVIT of Service by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., K.R. re 82 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 84 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 81 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement , 83 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., K.R. of the Proposed Order − Petition K.R., Proposed Order − Petition B.G.; Proposed Order − Petition D.F., Proposed Order − Petition D.M. (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
89 ORDER approving 81 Petition to Approve Minor Settlement. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 20, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
90 ORDER approving 82 Petition to Approve Minor Settlement. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 20, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
91 ORDER approving 83 Petition to Approve Minor Settlement. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 20, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
92 ORDER approving 84 Petition to Approve Minor Settlement. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 20, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
93 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document − forthcoming Modification Petition (Unopposed Motion) by K.R.. (Long, Colton) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by K.R. re 93 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document − forthcoming Modification Petition (Unopposed Motion) (Long, Colton) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
95 ORDER denying 93 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document − forthcoming Modification Petition (Unopposed Motion) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on May 6, 2013. (CBC) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
96 MOTION to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds Release of Minor Settlement Funds From the Settlement Account of Minor Plaintiff K.R. by K.R.. (Long, Colton) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
97 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 96 MOTION to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds Release of Minor Settlement Funds From the Settlement Account of Minor Plaintiff K.R. : at date and time to be determined. (Long, Colton) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
98 MEMORANDUM in Support re 96 MOTION to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds Release of Minor Settlement Funds From the Settlement Account of Minor Plaintiff K.R. filed by K.R.. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Long, Colton) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-01999-JNE-SER As Of: 01/30/2014 01:47 PM CST 15 of 15

05/16/2013
05/16/2013 05/17/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 07/23/2013

99 Declaration of Rebecca and Jim Rooker in Support of 96 MOTION to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds Release of Minor Settlement Funds From the Settlement Account of Minor Plaintiff K.R. filed by K.R.. (Long, Colton) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by K.R. re 96 MOTION to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds Release of Minor Settlement Funds From the Settlement Account of Minor Plaintiff K.R. (Long, Colton) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
101 ORDER granting 96 Motion to Withdraw/Disburse/Release Funds. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on May 17, 2013. (CBC) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
102 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney of Christine P. Sun and Mary Bauer (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by B.G., D.F., D.M.−B., Jane Doe, K.R. re 102 Notice of Withdrawal as Attorney of Christine P. Sun and Mary Bauer (Dolan, Christopher) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
104 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Daniel, Tamica) (Entered: 07/23/2013)

 
 CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 1 of 8
CLOSED,CV,PHV,PROTO,RELTD
U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−02282−JNE−SER

E.R. v. Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11 et al Assigned to: Judge Joan N. Ericksen Referred to: Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/09/2011 Date Terminated: 03/21/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

E.R. by her next friend and parent, Quana Hollie

represented by Celeste E Culberth Culberth & Lienemann, LLP 444 Cedar St Ste 1050 St Paul, MN 55101 651−290−9300 Fax: 651−290−9305 Email: cculberth@clslawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher F Stoll National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St Ste 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Email: cstoll@nclrights.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ilona M Turner National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market St Ste 370 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−392−6257 Email: iturner@nclrights.org TERMINATED: 12/30/2011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie L Lienemann Culberth & Lienemann, LLP 444 Cedar St Ste 1050 St Paul, MN 55101 651−290−9300 Fax: 651−290−9305 Email: llienemann@clslawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Gregory G Brooker United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5600 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: greg.brooker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 2 of 8
Tamica Daniel United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4721 Email: tamica.daniel@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/24/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E Perez United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−4609 Email: tom.perez@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Torey B Cummings United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−350−4204 Email: torey.cummings@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: jbazis@greeneespel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M Baker Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: jbaker@greeneespel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen K. Statler Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−8327 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: kstatler@greeneespel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 3 of 8

Mark L. Johnson Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−0830 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: mjohnson@greeneespel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop Greene Espel PLLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 612−373−8345 Fax: 612−373−0929 Email: sdunlop@greeneespel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Anoka−Hennepin School Board

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dennis Carlson in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 4 of 8

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Celeste E Culberth (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tom Hagerty in their official capacities

represented by Jeanette M. Bazis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen K. Statler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark L. Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sybil L Dunlop (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/09/2011
08/09/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011
08/12/2011 08/12/2011 08/12/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Tom Hagerty ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4−057720.) assigned to Judge Joan N. Ericksen per Civil Rights List and referred to Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron, filed by E.R. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet). (lmb) Modified filed date on 8/10/2011 (akl). (Entered: 08/10/2011)
Summons Issued as to Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Tom Hagerty. (lmb) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
Summons Reissued as to Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Tom Hagerty. (akl) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
FILED IN ERROR: Summons Reissued as to Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Tom Hagerty. (TSS) Modified on 8/10/2011 (TSS). (Entered: 08/10/2011)
2 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Ilona M. Turner by E.R.. (Culberth, Celeste) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
3 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Christopher F. Stoll by E.R.. (Culberth, Celeste) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
4 ORDER OF DIRECTION TO THE CLERK OF COURT FOR REASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron no longer assigned to case. The new case number is 11cv2282 JNE/SER. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 5 of 8

08/15/2011
08/15/2011
08/23/2011 08/30/2011 08/31/2011 09/01/2011 09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/07/2011 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011
09/20/2011 09/28/2011 10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/07/2011

8/12/2011. (JME) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
5 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE A settlement conference will be held on August 23, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3C, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 08/15/2011. (jz) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY−ORDER granting 2 3 Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorneys Ilona M Turner, Christopher F Stoll for E.R.. Fees paid; receipt number 4−57910. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 08/15/2011. (MAP) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
6 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 8/23/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
7 STIPULATION for Protective Order by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Culberth, Celeste) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
8 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 8/31/11. (kt) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 9/1/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
9 STIPULATION extending Defendants' time in which to answer by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty. (Dunlop, Sybil) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, Tom Hagerty re 9 Stipulation and Proposed Order (Dunlop, Sybil) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
12 ORDER that Defendants shall have until September 16, 2011, to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 9/8/11. (kt) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Telephone Conference held on 9/14/2011. (LPH) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
14 STIPULATION extending Defendants' time in which to answer by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty. (Bazis, Jeanette) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
15 ORDER re 14 Stipulation; Defendants shall have until seven (7) days after Plaintiffs provide Defendants with written notice that settlement discussions are at an impasse. Defendants may, however, file their answer or other response to the Complaint at any time before there is an impasse in settlement discussions or before it receives notice of an impasse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 9/16/11. (LPH) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 9/20/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/28/2011. (kt) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
18 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 10/5/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
19 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 10/6/2011. No settlemend reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
20 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/6/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8E (MPLS) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 6 of 8

10/07/2011 10/07/2011 10/13/2011
10/14/2011
10/17/2011 10/19/2011 11/02/2011
11/04/2011 11/14/2011 11/18/2011 12/01/2011 12/15/2011 12/29/2011 01/06/2012 01/18/2012 01/27/2012
02/14/2012

21 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/13/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
22 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 10/14/2011 08:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
24 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/13/2011. A continued Settlement Conference was held before Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, in Saint Paul, Minnesota. No settlement was reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/14/2011. A continued Settlement Conference was held before Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, in Saint Paul, Minnesota. No settlement was reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 10/17/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 10/19/2011. Continued settlement discussions. (kt) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
27 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 11/4/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 11/14/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 11/18/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Settlement Conference held on 11/4/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 11/14/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 11/18/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
31 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 12/15/2011 09:00 AM and 1/18/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 12/15/2011. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
33 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Turner, Ilona) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 1/6/2012. Continued settlement discussions. (kt) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 1/18/2012. No settlement was reached. (kt) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
36 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 3/1/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. Settlement Conference set for 3/2/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (ME) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Status Conference held on 2/14/2012. Continued settlement discussions. (jz) (Entered: 02/15/2012)

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 7 of 8

02/24/2012 02/24/2012 02/24/2012 02/24/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/01/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012
03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012
03/05/2012 03/06/2012

38 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
39 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 38 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings : Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau. (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
40 MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings filed by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty re 38 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings (Johnson, Mark) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
42 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 38 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Proceedings: Date and Time to be Determined. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Johnson, Mark) Modified link and text on 2/29/2012 (akl). (Entered: 02/29/2012)
43 ORDER granting 38 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 1, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau: Continued Settlement Conference held on 3/1/2012. (kt) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
45 STIPULATION by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Intervenor Complaint of the United States, # 2 Attorney General Certification)(Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
46 NOTICE of Lodging of Consent Decree by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty, United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
47 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney for Torey Cummings by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
48 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorneyfor Thoma Perez by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
49 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: MOTION for Non−Resident Pro Hac Vice Admission for Tamica Daniel by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
50 JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE MOTION by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty, United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
51 MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE MOTION filed by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Dennis Carlson, E.R., Tom Hagerty, United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified docket text on 3/6/2012 (TSS). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
52 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document by E.R.. (Stoll, Christopher) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
53 ORDER re 45 Stipulation, filed by Anoka−Hennepin School Board, E.R., Anoka−Hennepin School District No. 11, Tom Hagerty, United States of America, Dennis Carlson. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 6, 2012. (slf) (Entered:

CaSe: 0:11-cv-2282 As Of: 04/24/2014 06:38 PM CDT 8 of 8

03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012
03/06/2012 03/07/2012 03/07/2012 03/08/2012 03/09/2012
03/20/2012 08/24/2012 09/12/2012 07/23/2013

03/06/2012)
54 Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) Modified on 3/7/2012 (jz). (Entered: 03/06/2012)
55 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 6, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit(s), # 3 Exhibit(s), # 4 Exhibit(s), # 5 Exhibit(s), # 6 Exhibit(s), # 7 Exhibit(s)(slf) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY−ORDER granting 47 48 Motions for Admission of U.S. Government Attorneys Torey B Cummings,Thomas E Perez for United States of America. Fees waived. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 03/06/2012. (MAP) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by E.R. re 52 MOTION to Seal Pleading/Motion/Other Document (Stoll, Christopher) Modified on 3/7/2012 (jz). (Entered: 03/06/2012)
57 ORDER granting 52 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 7, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
58 PETITION for Approval of Minor Settlement by E.R.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/9/12. (Culberth, Celeste) Modified on 3/12/2012 (akl). (Entered: 03/07/2012)
59 MOTION for Non−Resident Pro Hac Vice Admission for Tamica Daniel by United States of America. (Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY−ORDER granting 59 Motion for Admission of U.S. Government Attorney Tamica Daniel for United States of America. Fee waived. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E Rau on 03/09/2012. (MAP) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
60 ORDER approving 58 Petition to Approve Minor Settlement. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on March 20, 2012. (slf) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
61 REQUEST (Petition) for Additional Distribution by E.R.. SEALED DOCUMENT RECIEVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 8/27/12. (Culberth, Celeste) Modified on 8/28/2012 (akl). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
62 ORDER approving 61 the petition for approval of additional distribution of minor plaintiff E.R. Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 9/12/12. (CBC) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
63 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Daniel, Tamica) (Entered: 07/23/2013)