2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-10-2005 

# B o s t ic v . S m yrn a S ch D i s t P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1463

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Bos t ic v . S m yr n a S ch Di s t " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 619. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/619P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 04- 1463

____________ J A M E S B O ST I C ; C H E R I E B O ST I C , as next fr i ends of m i norpl ai nt i ff J enni ferB os t i c;

J ENNI F ER B OST I C, A pp el l ants
v. S M YR NA S CH OOL DI S T RI CT ; S M YR NA BO AR D OF E DUC AT I ON; S M YR NA HI GH S C H O O L ; C L A R E N C E E
. L L O Y D , i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; ANT HONY E . S O L IG O , in h is in d iv id u a l an d o f f icia l capa ci t i es ; J O H N SM I T H , i n hi s i ndi vi dual a n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; EVELY N SM I TH

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D
. C
. N o. 01- 0261) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e K entA
. J or danT he H onor abl e A
. W al l ace T as hi m a, Senior U ni t ed St at es * C i r cui tJ udge fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 A r gued J une 9, 2005 B E F O R E : A MB R O , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d T A S H I MA , * C ir c u it J u d g e s , ( Fi l ed A ugus t10, 2005) R i char d R
. W i er , J r . ( A r gued) D ani el W
. Sci al pi Ri c h a r d R. Wi e r , J r . , P
. A. 1220 M arketSt
. Sui t e 600 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts J onathan L. Par s hal l ( A r gued) M urphySpadar o & L andon 1011 C entr e R oad Sui t e 210 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19805 C ouns el f orAppel l ees
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge J a m e s , C h e r i e , a n d J e n n i f e rB o s t i c ( c o l l e c t i v e l y,For eas e of r efe r ence , w e w il l ref er o n ly to Jenni feras 1 B os t i c. 3 “A ppel l ant s ”) appea l a j ur y ver di ct i n favor of S m yr na School 1 D i s t r i ct , t he Sm yr na B oar d of Educat i on, Sm yr na H i gh School ( col l ect i vel y , “A ppel l ees ” o r“Sm yr na D efe ndant s ”) , and vari ou s i nd i vidual defe nd ants
. B ost i c fi l ed suitagainst D efe ndant s underT i t l e I X o f the E ducat i on A m endment s of 1 9 7 2 , a s a m e n d e d , 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 , et
. s eq. , b a se d u p o n th e ir al l eged de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s exual r el at i ons hi p betw een B ost ic a n d h er track coach John S m i t h, al so nam ed as a d ef en d a n t, w h il e sh e w as a h igh sch o o l stu d en t. T h e jury re tu rn e d a v e rd ict in f

a v o r o f a ll d e f e n d a n ts, e x c e p t S m ith , o n a ll cl ai m s agai ns tt hem, fi ndi ng o nl ySm i t h l i abl e. T he D i s t r i ct Co u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y d e n i e d Bo s t i c ’ s mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l
. On a p p e a l, A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y on w ho i s an “a ppr opr i at e off i ci al ” and w hat c o n s t i tu t e s “ a c tu a l n o t i c e ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

T i t l e I X l i a b i l i t y. I
. J UR I S DI CT I ON T he D i s t r i ctC our thad fe deral q ues t i on j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331 and exe r ci s ed s u p p le m ent al j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant to 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367. T hi s C our thas ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291. I I
. F AC T UAL AND P RO CE DUR AL BA CK GR OUND4 A
. Factual B ackgr ound In th e s p ri n g o f

1 9 9 9 , B o s t i c w a s f

if te e n y e a rs o ld , a so p hom or e atSm yr na H i gh School , and a mem berof the s chool ’ s t r ack t eam, w hi ch w as coach ed b y Sm i t h. A s exual r el at i o n sh ip de vel oped betw een Bost i c and Smi t h. T he r el at i ons hi p i ncl uded num er ous s exual encount er s dur i ng and aft ert he school day , bot h on and off campus, and cont i nued for ap p rox im atelyo n e y ea r. T he r el at i ons hi p beca m e a t opi c of di s cus s i on am ong s tudent s and gene r at ed r epor t s t hatr eac h ed P r i nci pal C l ar ence L loy d an d A sso ciate P ri n cipa l A n tho n yS o li g o . B o sti c’s par ent s beca m e conc erned about t he cl os e r el at i ons hi p t hatt hey obs erved betw een Bost i c and Sm i t h, i ncl udi ng an i nci dentw hen B o stic a n d S m ith w e re f o u n d a lo n e to g e th e r in a c a r a t n ig h t. I n Sept ember 1999, M r . B os t i c m et w it h L l oy d and e x p re ss e d h is c o n c e rn s. L lo y d to ld M r. B o stic th a t h e w o u ld sp e a k w ith S m ith a n d g e t b a c k to h im
. L lo y d su b se q u e n tly cal l ed Sm i t h i nt o hi s offi ce a nd, i n t he pr es ence of Sol i go and Ja m e s K ig e r, th e sc h o o l’s a th letic d ire c to r, d isc u ss e d w ith S m ith th e a ll e g a ti o n s m a d e b yM r. B o stic . A t th e m e e tin g , S m ith s t at ed thath e w as s i t t i ng i n t he ca rdi s cus s i ng hi s m ar i t al pr obl ems w i t h B os t i c. L l oy d w arned Sm i t h t hatb eing al one w i t h a s tu d en t a tni ghti n a parked ca rw as i nappr opr i at e and to ld S m ith to a v o id im p ro p e r c o n d u c t. S o lig o a lso to ld S m ith th a t h e sh o u ld “ m in im ize c o n tac t” w ith B o stic . S m ith r es ponded that he had “i t cover ed. ” L l oy d s ubs equent l ycal l ed5 M r . B os t i c and l eft a mess age de s cr i bi ng w hathe had done and as ki ng M r. B os t i c t o cal l hi m back i f he ha d anyfur t her conce r ns . M r . B os t i c di d notcal l back. M ich a e l F e ld m a n , a te a c h e r a t th e sc h o o l, su b se q u e n tly s a w S mi t h a n d Bo s t i c s t a n d i n g t o g e t h e ri n t h e h a l l wa yo n t wo occa s i ons . Fel dm an s t at ed t hat t hey w er e s o cl os e t ogethert hat t heyappea r ed t o be tw o s tudent s , r athert han a t eac herand a s t ud e n t
. Fe l d ma n d i s c u s s e d t h e i n c i d e n t s wi t h a n a s s i s t a nt p ri n c ip a l, w h o c o n v e y e d th e in f o rm a tio n to L lo y d
. A ft erl earni ng of the hal l w ayi nci dent s , L l oy d s u m m oned Sm i t h foranotherm eet i ng w i t h hi m and Sol i go. A tt hat m eet i ng, L l oy d r epr i m anded Smi t h and told hi m t o cea s e oneon- one conta ctw i t h B os t i c. L l oy d s t at ed thathe “f el tt hathe gave hi m a ver y s t r ong r epr i m and, t hat t hi s w as notgoi ng t o be t ol er at ed. ” L loy d t hen s poke w i t h B os t i c, w ho t ol d hi m t hat th e re w a s “ n o th in g g o in g o n .” L l oy d t old R on E by , as s i s t ants uper i nt endentfort he sc h o o l d istric t, ab o u t th e c o n c e rn s re g a rd in g B o stic a n d S m ith and w hathe had done. L l oy d al s o as ked w hetherhe s houl d do anyt hi ng el s e. E by t ol d hi m t o keep an ey e on the s i tuat i on and r el ay ed the i nfor m at i on t o D ebbi e W i cks , t he s uper i nt endentof th e d istric t. A f e w mo n t h s l a t e r , Smi t h ’ s wi f e , a l s o a t e a c her at Sm yr na H i gh School , t ol d L l oy d t hats he had c aughtSm i t h and B o stic a lo n e in h e r ro o m a t sc h o o l. T h e n e x t d a y , M rs. B o stic6 t ol d L loy d t hats he had pur chas ed a c l one page r , w as m oni t or i ng B os t i c’ s pages , and had hi r ed a pr i vat e i nves t i gat or t o m o n it o r the s i tuat i on. L l oy d s poke w i t h Sm i t h agai n and expr e s s e d h i s c o n c e r n s . Smi t h a d mi t t e d c a l l i n g Bos t i c , b u the t ol d L l oy d i tw as aboutt r ack pr act i ce a nd agai n deni ed any i l l i ci ti nt er act i on w i t h B os t i c. I n ear l y February 2000, M r s . B os t i c as ked Ll oy d t o al l ow a pr i vat e i nves t i gat ors he had hi r ed ont o t he s chool campus a nd t o i ns t al l came ras to m oni t orB os t i c and Smi t h. E byadvi s ed L l oy d nott o al l ow t he i nves ti g ator on c ampus, butE bys t at ed t hathe w oul d cont actt he D i s t r i ctA t t or n ey ’s o ffi ce r egar di ng t he cam eras . W i cks s etup a meet i ng w i t h E byand S m it h, atw hi ch Smi t h a g a i n d e n i e d a n yi mpr o p e rr e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h Bos t i c. B eca us e Sm i t h s eemed cr edi bl e att he me eti ng, t he admi ni s t r at or s t ook no fur t heract i on. M r s . B o s t i c then s poke w i t h B arr yM eeki ns , a mem ber of the Sm yr na B oar d of Educat i on, about her conce r ns . O n t he s ame day , M eeki ns cal led W icks , as ked w hyhe had notbeen i nfo rm ed o f t he si tuati on , and st at ed that , based o n w hat M rs . B os t i c had s ai d, he w as goi ng t o cal l t he pol ice. A l t hough her r eas ons fordoi ng s o ar e uncl ear , W icks t r i ed t o di s s uade M eeki ns fr om cal l i ng t he pol i ce. O n February2 8, t w o pol i ce o ff icers sp o k e w ith W ic k s an d told h er tha t th eyw ere i nves t i gat i ng a pos s i bl e r el at i ons hi p betw een S m i t h and a d if f e re n t stu d e n t. W ick s s u sp e n d e d S m ith th a t d a y . S m ith7 su b sequent l yw as arr es t ed and pl ed gui l t yt o cr i m es i nvol vi ng bo t h stud ents
. B
. Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound B o stic ’ s c o m p lain t alle g e d th a t th e S m yrn a D e f e n d a n ts w e re liab le u n d e r T itl e IX , an d th a t all d e f e n d a n ts w e re liab le under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, and s t at e comm on law
. T he Sm yr na D efen dan t s m ov ed for sum m ary j ud gm ent on al l cl ai m s agai nst t hem. T he mot i on w as gr ant ed as t o cert ai n s t at e comm on l aw cl ai m s and the Ti t l e I X cl ai m s ag ainstL l oy d and Sol i go. T he D istri c t C o u rt , h o w ev er, l et st an d the § 1 9 8 3 an d T it le IX c laim s. It c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re w e re m a ter ial iss u e s o f f a c t w ith r egar d t o w hether t he r el evant offi ci al s had “a ctual know l edge” o f th e re latio n sh ip a n d w h e th e r th e ir re sp o n se w a s “ d e lib e ra tely in d if f e re n t.” T he ca s e w entt o t r i al and the j ur yfound fort he Sm yr na D ef en d an ts o n all rem ainin g claim s. T h e juryd id, ho w ev er, fi nd Sm i t h l i abl e and a s s es s ed da m ag es agai ns thi m i n t he amount of $400, 000. B os t i c moved fora new t r i al on t he gr ounds t hat( 1) t he ver di ctw as agai ns tt he gr eat w ei ght of t he evi dence , and ( 2) t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju ry i n s tru c tio n s w ith re g a rd to “ a c tu a l n o tic e ,” “appr opr i ate offi ci al , ” “s uper vi s or yl i abi l i t y , ” and “ l ack of t r ai ni ng” w er e err oneous . T he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed the mot i on, a n d B o s tic tim e ly ap p e a le d
.B os t i c does not cont es t t he j ury ’s v erd ict in favorof 2 A ppel l ees on her42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 cl ai m , t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons per t ai ni ng t o “s uper vi s or yl i abi l i t y ” and “ l ack of t r ai ni ng, ” or the d eni al of herm ot i on fora new t r i al bas ed on the w ei ghtof t he evi dence
. 8 III
. A N A L Y S IS B os t i c’ s s ol e cont ent i on on appea l i s t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s o n “ a c tu a l n o tice ” a n d “ a p p ro p ria te o f f icia l” u n d e r T itl e IX m iss tate th e law a n d w e re c o n tra ryto t he t e a c h i n g s o f

t h e Th i r d Ci r c u i ta n d t h e Uni t e d St at es S u p re m e C o u rt. 2 A
. O bj ect i on r ai s ed bel ow T h e S m yrn a D e f

e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t B o stic f a ile d to o b jec t to th e T itl e IX ju ryin stru c tio n s b e lo w . I n o r d e r to pr es erve an obj ect i on “t o an i ns t ruct i on ort he fa i l ur e t o gi ve an i ns t ruct i on, ” a pa r t ym us tt i m el yobj ect“on the r ecor d, s tat i ng di s t i nct l yt he mat t erobj ect ed t o and the gr ounds of the obj ect i on. ” Fed. R
. C iv. P. 51( c) ( 1)
. “G ener al l y , a part yw ho does notcl ear l yand spec i fi cal l yobj ectt o a cha r ge he be l i eves t o be err oneous w ai ves t he i s s ue on appea l
. ” A l exande rv. R iga , 2 0 8 F .3 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s e e als o F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 1 (d)( 1)
. H ow ever , w e “maycons i dera pl ai n err ori n t he i ns t ruct i ons aff

ect i ng s ubs t ant i al r i ght s t hat has no t be en pr es erved as r equi r ed byR ul e 51( d) ( 1) ( A ) or( B )
. ” Fed. R
. C i v. P
. 5 1 (d)(2 ).9 D u ri n g a c h arg e co n fe ren ce h eld in ch am b ers, th e C o u rt as ked t h e p art i es t o r evi ew t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons he had f o rm u la te d , ad v isin g th e m to p a y“ p a rticu lar a tten tio n to T itl e I X
. ” A ft era s hor tr ec ess, t he J udge r etur ned and i nqui r ed w hether“ther e [w as ] anyt hi ng . . . i n t h e subst ance of the i ns t ruct i ons t hus fart hatw e oughtt o r ai s e. ” B osti c’s couns el stat ed , “I sti ll req u est o u r i n stru cti o n s o n T it le IX
. B u t I d o n ’t h a v e a n y o b

je c tio n s a t th is p o in t as to t h e i n s tru c tio n .” A l t ho ug h Bos t i c ’ s c ou ns e l s ub s e qu e nt l yr e i t e r a t e d h i s r e qu e st forthe C our tt o gi ve hi s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on, he di d not“s t at [e] di s t i nct l yt he mat t erobj ect ed t o and the gr ounds of the obj ect i on, ” as r equi r ed byR ul e 51( c) ( 1)
. T o t he contr ary , he s peci fi cal l ys t at ed thathe di d nothave a nyobj ect i on s to t he T it le IX instruction
. W e the ref o re rev iew fo r plain e rror.
“ U n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, w e w ill o v e rtu rn a v e rd ict ‘o n ly w her e the err ori s fun dament al and hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al ori f the i ns t ruct i ons ar e s uch thatt he j ur yi s w i t houtadequa t e gui dance on a fundament al ques t i on and our fai l ur e t o cons i dert he err or w oul d r es ul t i n a m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ’ ” W at s on v. S. E

. P enn. Trans p. A uth. , 207 F. 3d 207, 212 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng Sm ith v. B orou gh of W

i lki nsbu rg , 1 4 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 )). B
. J ur yi ns t ruct i ons T itle IX p r o v id e s in p e rt in e n t p a rt th a t “ [ n ]o p e rs o n . . . s hal l , on t he bas i s of sex, be excl uded fr om par t i ci pat i on i n, be deni ed the bene fit s of, orbe s ubj ect ed t o di s cr i m i nat i on under anyeduca t i on pr ogr am or a ct i vi t yr ece i v i ng Feder al fi nanci al as s i s t ance . ” 20 U
. S. C
. § 1681( a)
. T i t l e I X encompas s es s exual10 har as s m entof a s tudentbya t eac herand i s enfor cea bl e thr ough an i m pl i ed pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on fordamages agai ns ta s chool d is tr ic t. Fr ankl i n v. G w i nnet tC ount y Pub. Sch. , 503 U
. S. 60, 7 5 -76 (19 9 2 ). I n or derto en fo rce T it le IX ’s no n d iscri m ination m andat e, an age ncyt hatdi s bur s es fede ral e d ucat i on funds m us tpr ovi de “not i ce t o an ‘a ppr opr i at e per s on’ and an opportuni t yt o r ect i fy anyvi ol at i on. ” G e b se r v. L a g o V ista In d e p . Sc h . D ist. , 52 4 U. S. 27 4, 29 0 (199 8) ( qu oti ng 20 U
. S
. C
. § 168 2). R el y i ng on t hese r e q u i r e me n t s , t h e Su p r e me Cou r t h e l d i n G ebs erthatdamages m aynotbe r ecove r ed underT i t l e I X “fort he s exual har as s m ent o f a s tu d e n t b y o n e o f t h e d i s t r i c t ’ s t e a c h e r s . . . unl es s an o f f icia l o f th e sc h o o l d istric t w h o a t a m in im u m h a s a u th o rityto inst i tut e corr ect i ve meas ur es on t he di s t r i ct ’ s behal f has actual n ot i ce of

, and i s del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o, t he t eac her’s m i s conduct
. ” I

d. at 2 7 7. A n “appr opr i at e per s on” i s “an offi ci al w ho at a m i ni m um has author i t yt o addr es s t he al l eged d is c ri m in a tio n a n d to in s titu te c o rr e c ti v e m e a s u re s o n th e . . . [di s t r i ct ’ s ] behal f. ” I

d. a t 2 9 0
. “ A c tu a l n o tice ” m u st a m o u n t to “a ctua l kn o w ledg e o f d iscri m ination in the rec ipien t’ s pr ogr ams. ” Id

. F u rth e r, “th e re s p o n s e m u st a m o u n t to d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to d isc rim in a tio n . . . . T h e p re m ise , in o th e r w o rd s, is a n o f

f icia l d e c isio n b yth e re c ip ien t n o t to r emedyt he vi ol at i on. ” I d. H er e, t he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yi n per t i nent partas fol l ow s:11 In o rd e r f

o r Je n n if e r B o stic to e sta b lish h e r T itl e I X cl ai m agai ns t t he Ins t i tut i onal D efe ndant s , s he has t he bur den of pr ovi ng bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hata s chool offi ci al w i t h t he pow er t o t ake a ct i on t o corr ectt he di s cr i m inati on had ac tual n o ti ce o f th e d iscri m ination , a n d , fu rth er, t hatt he I ns t i tut i onal D efe ndant s t hen r es ponded to th a t n o tic e w ith d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e . . . . A n e d u c a tio n a l in s titu t i o n h a s “ a c tu a l n o tic e ,” s om et i m es cal l ed “a ct ual k n o wl edge” of di s cr i m i nat i on[, ] i f an appr opr i at e per s on atthe in stitu tio n h a s k n o w led g e o f f a c ts s u f f icie n tly i ndi cat i ng s ubs t ant i al dangert o a s tudents o t hat the in sti tuti o n ca n rea so n ab lyb e said to b e a w are o f th e d an g er. A n “appr opr i at e p ers on” i s t he type of s chool offi ci al I ’ ve r efe r r ed t o pr evi ous l y , namel yone w i t h t he pow er t o t ake act i on t o correc t t he d iscr i m i nati on . A schoo l pri ncipal w ho is e n tru ste d w ith th e re sp o n sib ili tya n d a u th o rity n o rm a llya ss o c iate d w ith th a t p o sitio n w ill or di nar i l ybe an “ appr opr i at e per s on. ” O t her s c h o o l o f

f ic ia ls m a y b e “ a p p ro p ri a te p e rs o n s ,” dependi ng on t hei rpow ert o t ake c or r ect i ve a c tio n to a d d r e ss th e d isc rim in a tio n a n d in stitu te corr ect i ve m easures.W ar r en w a s c o n c e rn e d w ith w h o is a n “ a p p ro p ria te 3 p e rs o n ” a n d d id n o t a d d re s s th e “ a c tu a l n o tic e ” is s u e . See W ar r en , 2 7 8 F .3 d a t 1 7 1 -7 5 (d isc u ss in g th e sta n d a rd f o r w h o is an “a ppr opr i at e p erson” and w hethert he pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hed that an “a p p rop ri ate p erso n ” h ad ac tual k n o w ledg e). 12 1. A ctual not i ce A ppel l ant s cont end that t he “a ctual not i ce” r equi r ement i s s at i s fi ed by “i nfor m at i on s uffi ci ent t o al er tt he pr i nci pal t o t he p o ss ib ili tyth a t a te a c h e r w a s in v o lv e d in a s e x u a l re latio n sh ip w i t h a s tudent
. ” Theyar gue that t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i ns t ruct i on u s e d a h i g h e rs t a n d a r d o f n o t i c e t h a n t h a tr e q u i r e d b y G ebs er a n d b y W

arren v. R ead i ngSch

. D ist . , 2 7 8 F
. 3 d 1 6 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 3C o n tr a ry to B o s tic ’s c o n t e n tio n , G ebs ern e v e r se t f o rth a s t andar d of “ac tual not i ce” bas ed upon “i nfor m at i on s uffi ci ent t o al ert the pr i nci pal t o t he pos s i bi l i t yt hata t eac herw as inv o lved in a s ex u al relat ion sh ip w ith a stu d en t. ” R athe r, G ebs ercl ear l ys t at ed thatan “a ppr opr i ate per s on” musthave
“ a c tu a l k n o wl e d g e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n t h e r e c i p i e n t ’ s p r o g r a ms and fai l [] adequa t el yt o r es pond. ” G ebs er , 524 U
. S. at290. T he excerptof G ebs er c i t e d b y Bos t i c i s t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t fr om a s ect i on of the op inion i n w hi ch the C our tappl i ed the fr amew or k i thad es t abl i s hed t o t he fac t s of t he ca s e. W hatt he C our tactual lys t at ed w as t hati nfor m at i on t hat“cons i s t ed of a compl ai ntfr om par ent s of ot her s tudent s char gi ng onl yt hat[the t eac her ] had m ade i nappr opr i at e com m ent s dur i ng cl as s . . . w as13 p l a i n l y in s uffi ci entt o alertt he pr i nci pal t o t he pos s i bi l i t yt hat [the t eac her ] w as i nvol ved i n a s exual r el at i ons hi p w i t h a s tudent
. ” I

d. at 29 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). M or eover , gi ven the C our t ’s expr es s r ej ect i on of co n stru cti v e n o ti ce o r r es pondeat s uper i orp rin c ip les to p e rm it r ecove r yunderT i t l e I X , i ti s unl i kel yt hati ti nt ended “ actual n o t i c e ” t o b e b a s e d o n a “ p o s s i b i l i t y . ” S ee id. at285- 90. In d e e d , in a su b se q u e n t o p in io n , the C o u rt n o ted th a t “ G ebs er t h u s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a ta r e c i p i e n ti n t e n t i o n a l l y v i o l a t e s T i t l e I X .

. . w her e the r eci pi enti s del i ber at ely indi ffe r entt o kn o w n a c ts of t eac her

- s tudentdi s cr i m i nat i on. ” D av is v . Monr oe C ount y Bd. of E duc. , 52 6 U
. S
. 62 9, 64 3 ( 19 99 ) ( em ph asi s added ). B ecause a “ p o s s ib ility” c a n n o t b e e q u a te d w ith a “ k n o w n a c t,” A ppel l ant s ’ pr offe r ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on on “ac tual not i ce” di d not corr ect l y s et for t h t he l aw ; t her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not e rr in re jec tin g it. B o stic a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in i ncl udi ng l anguage r el at i ng t o “s ubs t ant i al danger ” i n t he
“ a c tu a l n o t i c e ” i n s t ru c t i o n . Th i s l a n g u a g e i s i d e n t i c a l t o t hat u sed in 3 C F ed
. Ju ry . P rac . & Instr. § 1 7 7
. 3 6 (5th ed
. 2 0 0 1 ): A n educa t i onal i ns t i t ut i on has “ act ual kn ow l edg e” i f i tk n o w s the u nd erl y i ng fact s, in d ica tin g su f

f ic ien tlysu b sta n tial d a n g e r to stud en ts, an d w as th ere fo re a w are o f th e d an g er.14 Id

. T he i ns t ruct i on s ubs equent l yci t es t o bot h D av is and G ebser
. Al t h o u g h t h e “ s u b s t a n t i a l d a n g e r ” l a n g u a g e d o e s n ot ap p ea r i n eit h er c ase , n eith er is i t i n co n sist en t w ith the s tand ard s etfor t h i n t hos e ca ses rega r di ng “ac tual know l edge. ” See D a v is , 5 2 6 U .S . at 6 4 3 (re c ip ien t m u st b e d e lib e ra tely ind iffe ren t to “kn o w n ac ts of teac h er-stud en t discri m ination ”); G ebs er , 524 U
. S. at 290 ( r eci pi entm us thave “ actual know l edge o f d iscri m ination ”). B os t i c corr ect l ypoi nt s outt hatt he s ubs t ant i al d an g er l anguage or i gi nat es fr om a pr e- G ebs erFi fth C i r cui topi ni on, R o sa H. v. Sa n E liza rio In d e p . Sc h . D ist. , 106 F. 3d 648, 653 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H o w e v e r, G ebs er itse lf a f f irm e d a n o th e r F if

th C i r cuit o p inion thatr el i ed upon the r eas oni ng i n R os a H

. See G ebs er , 5 2 4 U .S . at 2 7 9 -8 0 ; D oe v. L a g o V is t a I ndep. Sch. D ist. , 1 0 6 F
. 2 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 6 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) (cit ing the s tand ard i n R o s a H. that “sc h o o l d istri cts are n o t li ab le in t o rt fo r t ea ch ers tudenthar as s m ent under T i t l e IX unl es s an empl oy ee w ho has been i nves t ed byt he s chool boar d w i t h s uper vi s or ypow erover the offe ndi ng empl oy ee a ctual l yknew of the abus e, had the p o w er to e n d the a b u se , a n d f a ile d to d o so ”). W e the ref o re re jec t A p p e llan t’s co n ten tio n th a t R o s a H. and the “s ubs t ant i al danger ” l anguage ar e no l onger val i dl y appl i ed t o T i t l e I X
. T he D istric t C o u rt’s in stru c tio n o n a c tu a l n o tice d id n o t co n stitu te erro r, m u ch less p lai n erro r.

2. A ppr opr i at e per s on B os t i c al s o chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on15 reg ard ing “a p p rop ri ate p e rs o n . ” S h e c o n tend s tha t th e jury sh o u ld h a v e b e e n in stru c ted th a t L lo y d a n d S o li g o w e re b o th ap p rop ri ate o ff

ic ia ls as a m att er o f law , g iven that L loy d ’s pos i t i on as pr i nci pal and Sol i go’ s pos i t i on as as s i s t antpr i nci pal w er e undi s put ed. W e conc l uded i n W

ar r en th a t “ a sc h o o l p rin c ip a l w h o is e n tru ste d w ith th e re sp o n sib ili ty a n d a u th o ri ty n o rm a lly a ss o c iate d w ith th a t p o sitio n w ill o rd in a rilyb e ‘a n a p p ro p ria te per s on’ underT i t l e I X
. ” W ar r en , 2 78 F. 3d at171. N evert hel es s , contr aryt o A p p ell ant s ’ cont ent i on, t hatdi d not e n d th e in q u iry
. R a th e r, w e w e n t o n to sta te th a t “w e m u st s til l d e t e r mi n e i f

t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e wa s s u f f i c i e n tt o a l l o w a r eas onabl e j ur yt o concl ude that‘ an appr opr i at e per s on’ had actual know l edge of .
. . [the] abus e. ” I d. W ar r en there fo re does nots uppo rtA ppel l ant s ’ ar gum entt hatL l oy d and Sol i go s houl d be dee m ed appr opr i at e per s ons , as a mat t erof l aw , by v ir tu e o f th e irp o s it io n s . W

ar r en di d concl ude thatt he di s t r i ct cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o i ns t ruct t he j ur yt hatt he s chool gui dance couns el orcoul d notbe an a ppr opr i at e per s on, bas ed on the re c o rd in th a t c a s e . I

d. at174. H ow ever , t hi s i s notanal ogous to sa y in g , as B o stic c o n ten d s, th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h e re sh o u ld have i ns t ruct ed t hat L l oy d and Sol i go are app ropri at e off i ci al s. T h e C o u r t d i d n o te r ri n f a i l i n g t o s o i n s t ru c tt h e j u r y. M or eover , i t s i ns t ruct i on r egar di ng a s chool pr i nci pal fol l ow ed t he l anguage of W

ar r en p r e c i s e l y.B eca us e of ourr es ol ut i on of the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons i s s ues 4 rai sed b y A p pell ants , i ti s unn ecessaryt o ad dress A pp el l ees’ cont ent i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n hol di ng t hatt he rel at i on shi p b et w een S m ith an d B ost i c w as “unw el com e” as a m at t erof l aw , ort o r es ol ve w hetherA ppel l ees pr es erved the i s s ue, des pi t e thei rfai l ur e t o fi l e a c r os s - appea l on t he i s s ue. 16 I V. CO NC L US I ON B as ed upon the for egoi ng, w e af fi r m t he j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. 4