## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1039 N
. R. D OE, etal. , P laint if fs -App el lants , v . S T . F RAN CIS S CHO OL D I S T R I CT, D efend a nt-A pp ellee,

K ELLY S WEET, D e f e ndan t, an d C O M M UN ITY I NSURANCE C OR PO RA T I ON, Interv enin g D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- C- 0545

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 30, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd P OSNER, C ircu it Judges .2 N o. 12

- 1039 P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s s uit, by a 14- year-o l d ei ghth gr ader and h i s par ents ( w hom we can i gnor e, and so w e r eferto the b oy a s the pl ai nti ff ) , se eks to i m pose li abili ty on th e sch ool d istri ct for sex ua l abu se by a 26-yearol d fe m al e t eacher, Kell y S w eet, no l onge r em plo yed by th e sc ho o l

. The pl ai nt i ffis o f co ur se no t na m ed “N. R. Doe” b ut i s be i ng per m i tte d to l i ti gat e pseudonym ousl y. The sui t alleges that the f ai l ure ofthe pu bl i c sc hool dist r i c t( na med “ S t
. F r a nc i s ” b e c a us e i ti s i n a t o wn of t ha tn a me

— i t i s n o t a p a r o c h i a l s c h o o l ) t o p r e v e n t th e ab us e vi o l at ed th e pl ai nt i ff’ s r i g ht s unde r Ti tl e I X o fthe f e de r a l Ed uc a t i o n A m endme nt s Ac to f1 9 7 2 , 2 0 U. S
. C. § 1 681, and al so const i tuted neg l i gent i nfl i ction of em oti o na l di s t r e s s u nd e r Wi s c o ns i n t o r tl a w. P s y c ho l o g i cal ha rm is all eged an d d am ages sough t. T he d istri c t c o u rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of th e schooldi st r i c ta n d c e r t i fi e d th e d i s mi s s a l f o ri mme d i a t e a ppel l at e r ev i ew. F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 4(b)

. The s ui t r emai ns p en d ing in the d istri ct cou rt against Sw eet. Th e sch ool’ s i nsureri nter vened as a defe nd ant- appell ee but has not fi l e d a b r i e fa nd c a n b e i g no r e d. Tit l e I X prohibi ts sex di sc ri m i nati on i n educati onal pr o g r a ms t ha tr e c e i v e fe de r a l fi na nc i a l a s s i s t a n c e . 2 0 U
. S
. C. § 1 681( a)
. A l though the st atute doe sn’ t m enti on a pri vate r i g hto fa ct i o n, the S upr eme Co ur t has h eld tha t su cha rig h t is im p lied , Cannon v. U nive rs i ty of Chi cago , 441 U
. S. 677, 71 7 ( 1979 ) , and enti tl es the s uccess ful pla i nti ffto d am ag es . Franklin v. Gw innet t C ounty P ubl ic Schools , 50 3 U
. S. 60 , 76 ( 1992 )
. But as i n case s under the Ci vi l Ri ghts A ct of18 71, 42 U
. S. C. § 1983 , a schoo l di str i ct s ued i n a pr i vateN o. 12

- 1039 3 sui t u nd e r Ti t l e I X c a nn o t b e he l d l i ab l e o n the g r o und o f r es po nde ats upe r i o r f o r a n e m pl o y ee ’ s vi o l at i on ofthe st at u te
. G eb se r v. Lago Vis ta IndependentSchool D is tr ict, 524 U
. S. 274, 28 5 ( 1998 )
. The pl ainti ffm ust pro ve that “a n o f fi ci alo fthe sch o o l di st r i ctwho a t a m i ni m um has a uthority t o i nsti tute cor re cti ve m eas ures . . . has ac tu alno ti ce o f, a nd i s del ibe r at el y i ndi ff er en t to , the tea cher ’ s m i sco nd uct. ” Id

. at277 ; s ee al so id . at 2 90 . In D elgad o v. Stegall , 367 F.3d 66 8, 67 2 (7 th C ir. 2 00 4), w e s aid with refere nc e to the fi r sto fthe se r equi r ement s ( an d the onl y o ne we need dis cuss)

— “a c tualnot i ce”

— th atthe pla i nti f fm ust prove “actual kno w l edge o fm i sco nd uct, not j ust a ctualkno w l edge o fthe ri sk ofm i sco nd uct. ” S ee al so H a nsen v. B o a rd o f Trustees , 55 1 F
. 3d 599, 60 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); J. F.K. v. Troup Co u nty School D is tr ict, 67 8 F.3d 125 4, 1260 ( 11th Cir. 2012). These are n ot perspi cuous f or m ula ti ons. “Actual noti ce ” an d “ d elibe r at e i ndi ff er en ce ” ar e r edu nda nt, a nd “actual not i ce” and “actualkno w l edge” ar e no t nec essaril y syno ny m s. W ha t’s clear i s tha t a sch ool d istri ct’s l i a b i l i t y mu s tb e p e r s o n a l r a th e r th a n v i c ar i o u s , b u twe ne ed a cl ea r ers ta te m en t o fthe s ta nd ard forho l di ng o f fi ci al s l i ab l e th an th e s ta te m en ts we j us t quo te d. The sta nd ar d has go tte n a l ot ofat tenti on i n ci vilr i ghts case s und er42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, wh i ch ge nera l l y a pp l y, o r at l eas t ar ti cul ate, the cri m inalstan d ar d of re c kle ss ness

— co ns ci o us di sr eg ar d o f a su bs ta nt i ala nd unj us ti fi ab l e r i sko fc au sing h ar m . See , e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Boyd, 475 F. 3d 875, 87 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ); We s tv. Waym ire , 1 14 F.3d 64 6, 649-52 (7th Cir. 19 97 ); A m er ica n L aw Ins tit u te , M ode l Pe nal Code§ 2. 02( 2) ( c)4 N o. 12

- 1039 ( 1962 )
. But as w e poi nted o u t in the Westc as e, many se ct i o n 1 98 3 ca se s no t i nv o l vi ngc r ue l a nd un us ua l puni sh

m ents apply i nstea d the tor t sta nd ar d of rec kl ess ness

— “con scious d isregard of kn ow n or ob vi ous d an ge rs .” 114 F. 3d at 651 ( em phasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; W
. Page K ee to n et al., P ross er & Kee ton on the Law of Torts § 34, pp. 212- 13 ( 5th ed . 198 4). Se e, e.g ., Boa r d of Cou n ty Comm i s s i on e rs v . Br own , 52 0 U .S. 39 7, 41 0-1 5 (1 99 7); Jo nes v. To w n o f E a st Ha ven , N o. 10- 4731

- cv( L), 20 12 W L 31045 23, at* 7 ( 2d C ir. A ug. 1, 2 0 12 ); Sa nfo rd v . Stiles , 4 5 6 F
. 3 d 2 9 8 , 3 0 9

- 1 0 a nd n. 13 ( 3d C ir. 2006) ( p e r curiam ) (noting th e con fl ict i n sta nd ard s). A nd we have f ound a Ti tle I X case thatuses a si m i l ar for m u la: Esc uev. Nor t he r n Oklah om a Col l ege, 450 F. 3d 1146 , 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2006). Bu t there i s l ess to the confl i c t i n sta nd ar ds than m eet s the eye, b e c a us e i n pr a c t i c e the r e i s l i t t l e di ff e r e nc e b etw een know n and o bvi ous, the f or m erbeing a natura l in fer en c e fro m th e la tt er . K ee to n etal., sup ra , § 34, p p. 21 3- 14. Cho o s i ngb e t we e n the m i n thi s c a s e wo ul d n o ta ff ect the o utcom e. T he scho o l di st r i ctc o nc ede s m i sc o nduc t bythe te acher. Af te r a n e xc ha ng e o ft ex t m es sa g es i n whi chs he t o l d the boy t ha ts he wa nt e d h i m t o b e h e r b o y f r i e nd , sh e i nv i te d hi m t o he r a par tment. H e a cce pte d the i nvi ta t i o n a nd wh e n he a r r i v e d the y s pe nt1 5 t o 2 0 mi nu t es ki ssi ng and petting. ( She concedes the k i ssi ng but denie s t he p e t t i ng . ) S e xu a l l y s ug g e s t i v e t ex tme s s a g e s f o l l o we d, th o ug h no fur th erphy si ca l c o nt ac t. Al th o ug h S wee t an d th e bo y had ag r ee d t o k ee p the i r r el at i o ns hi p s ec r et, o ne or m ore of th e m essag es w ere d isc o vered by the boy’sN o. 12

- 1039 5

m ot h er . Sh e t h en tra n sf er re d h im to a p riv at e s c h oo l. S wee t was fi r ed, pr o se cut ed, an d pl ea ded g ui l ty to f o ur th

degre e s exual a ss au l t i n vi ol ati on o fW i s. S tat
. § 940.225(3m ). Swee twa s di s l i k e d b y the o the r e i g hth- g r a de t e a c he rs . They tho ught she failed to m ai ntai n dis ci pli ne. One of them co m pla i ned to the s chool ’ s princi pal thatS w eet w as text m ess agi ng duri ng the scho olday. S he deni ed i t. The princ ip alto l d her not to send textm ess age s o n the j ob. Com p lai nts about Sweet’ s cl ass ro om m anage m en t and text m essag ing reach ed the sc h o ol d istri ct’s superi nt endent, Caro l Topi nka, wh o tol d the pri nci pal to i nvesti gat e the al l ega ti ons. S w eetdeni ed the al l ega ti ons and the pri nci pal w as sati sfi ed. But Topink a was no ta nd i nt e r v i e we d s e v er a l o fthe o the r e i g hth- g r a de tea cher s. They c om pla i ned that Sweet had “b re ached the l i ne” a nd “bl urr ed the l i ne” bytr eat i ng stud ents as f r i e nd s

— i ncl ud i ng o ur pl ai nti ff

. One ofthe tea cher s, Eli zab e t h Gr i dl e y , s a i d tha tS we e ta nd the p l a i nt i ffh ad so m ethi ng“ l i k e ane i g hth g rad e g i r l f r i en d/bo y f r i en d re latio nshi p, ” “ l i ke a cr ush. ” Topi nka a ske d G ri dle y w hethershe thought ther e was anythi ng ill ega l go i ng o n and she sa i d no. A nd the tea chers a cknowle dged to T op in ka th at t h ey h ad n o ev id en c e to c on firm t h eir su sp ici ons. Top in ka i nter vi ew ed Sweet a nd co ncl ud ed that he r d e n ial s of an y i m p rop riety w ere sincere. Th ere m att er s s too d untilthe dis cove ryo fthe re l ati onshi p by th e pla in tiff’s m ot h er an d th e rep or t of it to t h e s c h oo l, w here up on pro m pt m ea su re s to te rm i nate Sweet wer e unde r ta k en .6 N o. 12

- 1039 Topinka m ust hav e co nsi dered the pos sib i l i ty that Sweet a nd the pla i nti ffwere ro m anti cal l y i nvol ve d w hen she a ske d G ridle y w hethershe suspecte d that S w eetwas doi ng any thi ng “i l l ega l

. ” Gri dle y sai d she di dn ’ t s uspect t ha t, a nd S we e t de ni e d a ny i mpr o pr i e t i e s , a nd i t i s no t cl earwh at furtheri nvest i gat i on Topi nka s hou l d have conducted at that poi nt. N o m att er. N ei therTopi nka n or the pri nci pal knew about the re l ati onshi p ( sti l l in th e te xt
- m es sa g i ngs ta g e) b efo r e i t cul m i na te d i n the apar tmentv i si t, a nd i nde ed ti l l a fte r the pl ai nt i ff’ s m othe r disc ove re d t h e text m ess age s. N orwas the re l ati onshi p obvi ous. W hat th e p rinci pal and the superi ntendent knew w as that Sweet’ s co l l eag ue s, i n part i cul arGri dle y, suspec te d a n i m pr o perr el at i o ns hip b etwee n S wee t an d the pl ai nti ff. But to kno w thatso m eone suspect s s om ethi ng is n ot to know the s om ethi ng and does not m ean th e so m ethi ngi s o bv i o us . The pl ai nt i ffu nw i tt i ng l y c o ncedes th i s i n hi s r epl y b ri efwh en he sta tes that “Gri dle y’ s a nd the othe r Teacher s’ rep or ts ofan i napp ro p r i a t e r o ma n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we e n S we e ta n d NR Doe , i nc l udi ngS wee t’ s r ec i pr o ca ti o n o fNR Doe ’ s cr us h, an d o f th ei r co nc ern f o r N R Doe , was su ffi ci en t to put the S choolDis tr i ct o n n o tice o fmis co nduc t su g g es ting sexual hara ssm ent. ” The ter m w e’ ve i tal i ci zed d enot es m er el y know l ed ge that w oul d cause a r eas onabl e per son to inv es tig at e fu rt h er . It i s w h at in s ec u rit ies law is cal l ed “i nquir y no tice
. ” M e r ck& Co. v. Reynol ds , 13 0 S
. Ct. 1784 , 17 97- 98 ( 2010 ) ; M cCa nn v. Hy-Vee, Inc. , 66 3 F
. 3d 92 6, 92 9-3 0 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); City of P o ntia c Gen e r al Em pl oyee s’ R et irem entSyst em v. M B IA, Inc. , 637 F. 3d 169, 17 3- 74 ( 2dN o. 12

- 1039 7 Ci r . 2 01 1)
. I t f al l s wel l s ho r t o f recklessne ss i n e i th erthe ci vi l

- l aw o r the c ri m i nal

- l aw se nse. Else w here the b rie fst ate s that “ the info rm ati on pr o vi ded bythe Te ac he r s sh o wed a k no wn o r o bv i o us r i s ko fs e x u a l mi s c o n d u c tb y S we e t
. ” K n o wnt o w h o m? N o t to the pr i nc i p al or the s upe r i nt en den t. W e add unneces sa ril y that nei theri s there any proo fo fa del iber ate f ai l ure by the schoo l di str i ct t o tak e pr om pt r em edi al ac tio n . N ot on ly b ec au se T op in ka d id ac t p ro m p tly afte r l ea r ni ngo fthe i m pr o perna tu r e o fthe r el at i o nshi p between Sweet and the pl ai nti ff, but al so because i t i s uncl earwh at m or e Topi nka s hou l d have done after he ar i ngSw eet’ s den i al s. The pl ai nt i ffs ug g es ts tha t sh e sh o ul d ha ve que st i o ne d the pl ai nt i ffa nd hi s par en ts a nd ot h er st u d en ts , bu t t h at w ou ld h av e c au se d co n sid er ab le dist re ss to the pl ai nti ff’ s par ents (w h o had encoura ged hi s f r i en dl y r el at i o ns hi p wi thS wee t wi th o utha ving an y i dea tha t i t ha d a r o m an ti c o r s exua l di m en si o n) a nd w oul d have di str acte d the o ther st ud ents f ro m thei r studie s. J ud ges m ust be se nsitiv e to the eff ects o n educatio n of h ea vy -h an d ed ju d icia l int ru sio n int o s c h oo l d isc ipl i na r y i ss ue s, o r he av y - ha nde d a dm i ni st r at i ve i nt r usi on r equi re d by j u d ges i nter preting Ti tl e I X and other st atut es tha t, a l o ngwi thfr ee - wheel in gi nt er pr et at i o ns o fthe s pe e c h a nd r e l i g i o n c l a us e s o fthe F i r s tAmen dm en t, h av e m a d e e d u c at ion on e o f th e m os t h ea vily re gul ate d A m er i can i nd ustr i es. S ee, e. g. , Barba ra A
. Lee, “F ifty Y ea rs of H igh er E d u c at ion L aw : Tu rn in g t h e K ale ido s c o pe , ” 36 J. Coll ege& U ni ve rs i ty L
. 6 49 ( 20 10 )
. Le t us8 N o. 12

- 1039 not f or getthato ne co m ponent o faca d em i c fre edom i s th e r i g hto fs ch o o l s to a de g r ee o fa ut o no m y in the m anage m ent o fthei r in ter nal aff ai rs . S ee B ran dt v . B o a rd of Educ at i on , 480 F.3d 46 0, 46 7 (7 t h C ir. 20 07 ); C row ley v . M cK inn ey, 4 00 F
. 3d 96 5, 9 69

- 70 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ; Rob ert M
. O’Neil, “J ud i ci alDef er ence to A cad em i c Deci si ons: A n Outm oded Concept?” 3 6 J
. Col l ege& U ni vers i ty L
. 729 (2010 ). W h at w e hav e s ai d so f aral so dispos es ofthe supp l em e nt a l s t a t e l a w c l a i m f o r ne g l i g e nt i nfl i c t i o n of em oti onaldi str ess . W i sco nsi n l aw pro vi des i m m unity f orexer ci ses o fdi scr eti on bypubli c o fficials unl ess an offici al disregard s a know n d an ger. W is. Stat. § 893.80(4); Pri e s v. M cM i l l on , 784 N
. W
. 2d 648, 6 5 5 -5 6 (W is. 2010); Lodl v. P r ogre s s i veNor t he r n Ins . Co. , 646 N
. W
. 2d 314, 32 0- 24 ( W i s. 2 00 2)
. Buta g ai n the d an g ermustb e k no wn to the off i c i a l, n ot kn ow n to so m eo n e e lse (in t h is c as e, m er ely su spe ct ed bys o m eo ne e l se ) a nd c o m m uni ca te d t o the offic ial w ith ou t p r o o f

. Lodl v. Pr ogre s s i veNor t he r n Ins . Co. , sup ra , 646 N .W .2d at32 0-2 4; C. L. v. O l s on , 42 2 N
. W
. 2d 614, 6 2 2

- 23 (W is. 19 88 ); H e us e rex re l
. Jac ob s v. Com m uni ty Ins. Corp
. , 774 N
. W
. 2d 653, 659-60 (W is. A p p . 2009).A FFI RMED .

9- 10- 12