FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1156 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0015 1 C V -W CO -2 K E V IND A L E , ind ivi dua lly and a s th e ne xt fr ie nd and n at

ur al pare nt and n at

ur al guard ian of M. D . , am ino r ch ild , A BB Y D A L E , ind ivi dua lly and as the next friend and natural parent and natural gu ard ia n o f M.D., a m in or , BRYAN CARLYLE, ind ivi dua lly

and a s th e ne xt f

ri en d and n at

ur al pare nt an d natur al guard ian of

A . C. , am ino r ch ild , L IS A J. CA RL Y L E , ind ivi dua lly

and a s th e ne xt f

ri en d an d n atur al pa ren t an d n atur al gu ard ia n o f A.C., a m in orch il d, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us W HITE COUNTY, GEORGIA SCHOOL DISTRICT , W HITE COUNTY, GEORGIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, DONNA AL LEGOOD, ROGER FITZPATRICK, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 27, 200 7)Honora ble Stephen N. L imbaug h, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Missouri, sit ting by

desig nation. In a May 23, 2006 order , a pane l of this Court determined this Court has jurisdiction 1 over the interlocutory

appea ls of Alleg ood and F itz patrick ba sed on their de fense of qualified immunit y . I t also found this Court has pendent appe llate jurisdiction over the inter locutory 2 Before BL ACK

and PRY OR , C ircuit Judg es, and LI MBA UG H , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: I. BACK GROUND K ev in and Abby

D al e an d B ry anand L isa Carl y le , ind ivi dua lly

and o n be ha lf of the ir m ino r daught er s, ( Pl ai nti ff s) sue d Whit e Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct , White CountyBoard of E ducation, Donna Allegood, and Roger F itzpatrick (D ef en dants ) fo r vari ous cl ai m s in cl udi ng v iol at ion s of 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 and 2 0 U . S. C. § 16 81 ( T itl e IX ). T he sui t ari se s f ro m P la int if fs ’ a lle ga tio ns tha t Whit e Co unty S ch ool D istri ct

te ac he r Joe y

W ils on m ole ste d th ei r daught er s w hil e the girls wer e students in his class. A t the tim e the conduct occurred, Allegood was th e Pri nc ip al of t he sch oo l an d F it zp at ric k was th e Ass is ta nt Pri nc ip al . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtg r a n t e dD e f e n d a n t s s u mmary j u d g me n to n s e v e r a l c l a i ms an d de nie d th em

sum m ar y j udgm en t onoth er s. A lle good and F itzpa tr ic k no w ap pe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe § 19 83 c la im s and White CountySchool District and White CountySchool Board appeal the denial o f s u mmary j u d g me n to n th e T i t l e I X c l a i m. 1a

pp e a l of Whit e County

Sc ho ol D istri c t. O n July 27 , 2 00 6, thi s Co ur

t de nie d Wh ite County School District permission to im mediately appea l the district court’s de nial of its motion for summa ry jud g me nt o n Pl a int if

f’ s § 19 83 c la im b a se d o n th e sc ho ol d istri c t’ s a lle g e d f a ilure to tr a in o ff ic ia ls. In th is i nte rl oc uto ry a pp e a l w e do no t ha

ve jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

he § 1 98 3 c la im a g a ins t Whi te County

Sc ho ol D istri c t, a

nd the re fo re it r e ma ins in t

he dis tr ic t c ourt . 3 II. D ISCU SSION W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , ap pl y in g t he same leg al st an da rdas t he di st ric t co ur t. M ize v . J ef fe rso n CityB d. of Educ. , 93 F . 3d 7 39, 742 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . Am oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t i s g r a n t e di f , v i e w i n g th e f

a c t s i n th e l i g h tmo s tf

a v o r ab l e t o th e n o n mo v i n g p a rt y, there is no genuin e issue as to any m aterial f

act and the nonm ovin g party has fai le d t o m ak e a s uf

fic ie nt sh owi ng of a n e ss en ti al ele m en t i n i ts cas e. Id . Plaintiffs allege their daughters w ere m olested bytheir fifth-gra de teacher , W ils on, w hil e the y

w er e stu de nts a t a

Whit e Co unty

sc hool . T he y

a sse rt the Pr inc ipa l and A ssi stant P ri nc ipa l are li ab le f or vio la tio ns o f the stu de nts ’ co nst itu tio na l r igh ts t o bo dil y int eg ri ty und er sup er vis or y li ab ili ty , and the sc hool district is liable for violatio ns of Title I X. T hey contend Allegood and Fitzpatrick re spon de d w ithde lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to i nc ide nts that sh oul d have put the m on not ic e of W ils on’ s im

pr ope r co nduc t. P la int if

fs c la im Whit e Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct is lia ble und er T itl e IXf

or the de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e of

an of fi ci al w ho ha d t he au th or it y

to co rrec t t he ha ras sm en t.4

A. § 198 3 claim s against Allegood andFitzpatrick Pl ai nti ff s a sse rt li ab ili ty und er § 19 83 b as ed

on a lle ga tio ns A lle good

and Fi tz pa tr ic k ha d no tic e W ils on w as adange r to s tud en ts and r es pond ed w ith de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e. A lle good

and F itzpa tr ic k a sse rt

( 1) qua lif

ie d im m uni ty pr ote ct s th em

f ro m li ab ili ty , ( 2) the y

did not have not ic e W ils on w oul d se xua lly m ole st a c hil d, and ( 3) the ir

r es pons e to any

inc ide nts r eg ar din g W ils on d id n ot am ount to deliberate indiffere nce. Qualified im

m unityprotects governm ent officials perf orm ing di scretionary fu nc ti on s fr om

civ il li ab il it y . H

arl owv . F

itz ge rald , 457 U . S. 800 , 818 , 102 S . Ct . 2727 , 273 8 ( 1982 ). Whe the r anof fi ci al is en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty is a tw oste p in qui ry : ( 1) w he the r the f ac ts a lle ge d sh owthe of

fi ce r’ s c ondu ct

vio la te d a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , and (2) whet he r th atrig ht was c le arl y est ab li sh ed . Saucier v. Ka tz , 533 U. S. 194, 201, 121 S. Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Pl ai nt iff s, we as su m e Wils on vi ol at edth e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f Pl ai nt iff s’ dau gh te rs . A lle good and F itzpa tr ic k di d no t pe rs ona lly m ole st the stu de nts ; the re fo re the iss ue in thi s c as e is whe the r the sc hool dis tr ic t and i ts o ff ic ia ls are li ab le f

or Wi l s o n ’s c o n du c tu n d e r

s up e rv i s o ry l i ab i l i t y.5

Su pe rv iso ry of fi ci al s m ay

not be he ld l ia

ble und er § 19 83 f or the a ct s of th ei r su bo rd in at es un de r a t he ory of r es po nd eatsupe rio r orvi cari ou s l iabi li ty. H art le y v. P arne ll , 193 F. 3d 12 63, 1269 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). H owever , e ven if a supe rv iso r did

not pe rs ona lly

pe rp etrate the vio la tio n, sup er vis or s m ay

be he ld lia ble und er § 19 83 f or c onst itu tio na l vi olatio ns o f the ir sub or din at es w he n a supe rv iso r “ pe rs ona lly

part ic ipate s” in the c onst itutio na l vi olatio n or w he n th er e is a “ causal connection” between the supervising o fficial’ s acts and the constitu tional de pr iv at io n a ll eg ed . Id

. a t 12 69. Aparty

c ane sta bli sh a c au sa l c onne ct ionin se ve ra l w ay s. F ir st, aparty c ansho wasup er

vis or sho uld have be enon n oti ce of the need to correc t uncons titutio nal conduct by“ a history of w idespread abuse” th atis “ ob vi ou s, fl ag ran t, ra m pa nt an d o f co nt in ue d d ur at io n.” B rown v. Craw ford , 906 F . 2d 6 67, 671 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . “ A c au sa l c onne ct ionc ana lso be es ta bli she d by

f ac ts whic h su

ppor t an in fe re nc e that the sup er vis or dir ec te d th e subo rd inate s to a ct

unl aw fu lly

or kne wthat the sub or din at es w oul d a ct unl aw fu lly and failed to stop th em

from doing so.” D alr

ym ple v . R en o , 334 F . 3d 9 91, 996 (11th Cir. 2003). In addition , a plaintiff can show a superviso r im posed an im proper custom

or policy that constitu ted deliberate indiffer ence to constitut ional rig ht s. Hartley , 193 F . 3d at 12 69.6

Pl ai nti ff s do not a lle ge A lle good

or F itzpa tr ic k pe rs ona lly

part ic ipate d inthe violatio n and have failed to show a causal c onnection suppo rting sup ervisory lia bil ity . T he f

ac ts a lle ge d do not

sho we ith er

de fe ndant ( 1) ha d no tic e W ils on wa s a threat to students th rough a hist ory of obviou s, f

lagrant, and widespread ab use of stu de nts by

W ils on, ( 2) kne wW ils on w oul d a buse stu de nts and f

ai le d to sto p hi m , or

( 3) ins tit ute d an im

pr ope r cu sto m

or pol ic y that r es ult ed

in de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to s tud en ts’ c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. W e co nc lud e A lle good and Fi tz pa tr ic k are not

li ab le f or the a lle ge d c onst itu tio na l vi olatio ns unde r a the or y of s up e rv i s o ry l i ab i l i t y. Si nc e w e fi nd the re w as no c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n onthe part of the se de fe ndants und er

the f ir st p ro ng o f the qua lif

ie d im m uni ty ana ly sis , w e do n ot re ac h th e que sti on o f w he the r the vio la tio n w as c le ar ly e sta bli she d. A lle good

and Fi tz pa tr ic k are e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty und er the se c ir cum stanc es . B. Title I X C laim s against White CountySchool District Pl ai nti ff s a sse rt Whit e Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct

is lia ble f or vio la tin g th ei r daught er s’ r igh ts unde r T itl e IXf or dis cr im inatio n onthe ba sis of se x. S ch ool dis tr ic ts m ay

be li ab le und er

T itl e IXf

or ate ac he r’ s se xua l hara ssm en t of astu de nt w he n “ anof

fi ci al of the sc hool dis tr ic t w ho at a m ini m um ha s auth or ity

to ins tit ute co rr ec tiv e m ea sur es on the dis tr ic t’ s be ha lf ha s a ct ua l no tic e of

, and i s de lib er at el y7

indifferent to, the te acher’ s m iscondu ct.” G eb se r v . L ago V ista I nde p. Sc h. D ist . , 524 U . S. 274 , 277 , 118 S . Ct . 198 9, 199 3 ( 1998 ). “ A sc hool dis tr ic t m ust have ac tua l no tic e be fo re it

c anbe he ld l ia

ble in da m ag es f

or int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n based on sex.” D av is v . D eK alb Co unt y Sc h. D ist . , 233 F. 3d 13 67, 1372 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). D el ibe rate ind if

fe re nc e “ is an of

fi ci al de ci sio n . . . not

to re m edy

the vi ol at io n” or a refu sa l t o t ak e act io n t o c om pl y wit h Ti tl e IX. Ge bser , 524 U. S. at 290, 118 S. Ct. at 1999. “ [T ] he relevant inquiry is not whether the m easures taken w er e ef fe ct ive in sto ppi ng d isc ri m inatio n, but w he the r the sc hool dis tr ic t’ s a ct ion s am ount ed to deliberate indiffere nce.” Saul s v . P ie rc e Co unt

y Sc h. D ist . , 399 F . 3d 1279 , 1285 (11th Cir. 2005). Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge A lle good

w as asup er

vis or y of fi ci al w ithauth or ity

to take correc tive action on b ehalf of the school district. A ssum ing sh e w as such an of fi ci al , w e pr ev iou sly

de te rm ine d th at

the e vid en ce doe s no t su ppor t the c la im that Allegood had actual noti ce that W ilson wa s m olesting students . Ther efore, Whit e Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct

is not li ab le und er

T itl e IXf

or any dis cr im inatio n W ils on m ay

have c om

m itt ed . III. CO NC LUS ION W e co nc lud e that A lle good and F itzpa tr ic k are not

li ab le on P la int if

fs ’ § 19 83 c la im s be ca

use the y are e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty , and Whit e Co unty8

Sc hool D istri ct

is not li ab le on P la int if

fs ’ T itl e IXc la im s. T he re fo re , w e re ve rs e the district court’ s denial of Allegood and Fitzpatrick’ s m otion for sum m ary ju d g m en to n th e § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s an dth e d en i al o f Wh i t e C o u n t y Sc h o o l Di s t ri ct ’s m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent on the Title IXclaim s. W e re m and to the dis trict co ur t fo r en try of jud gm en t co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on forAll eg oo d, Fi tz pa tri ck , Whit e Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct , and Whit e Co unty Bo ar d of E duc at ion . REVERSED AND REMANDED.