Opinion ID: 2780540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of a Title IX Action

Text: Title IX provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has construed Title IX to provide a private right of action for individuals to sue educational institutions that receive federal funds. Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 65, 76 (1992). A plaintiff suing a school district for student-on-student harassment under Title IX must show that the district (1) had actual knowledge of the harassment, (2) the harasser was under the district’s control, (3) the harassment was based on the victim’s sex, (4) the harassment was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit,” and (5) the district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment. 5 Case: 14-40239 Document: 00512940326 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/19/2015 No. 14-40239 Sanches v. Carrollton–Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156, 165 (5th Cir. 2011) (alteration omitted) (quoting Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999)). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings that (1) Allen ISD had no knowledge of the harassment; (2) C.K.’s harassers were under Allen ISD’s control; (3) C.K.’s harassment was not based on his sex; (4) the question of the severity of the harassment was properly left for a jury; and (5) Allen ISD was not deliberately indifferent to the harassment. Because the Kellys could not show genuine disputes of material fact as to three key elements of their Title IX claim, the district court granted summary judgment for Allen ISD. The Kellys appeal the court’s first, third, and fifth determinations. Because we agree with the district court that Allen ISD lacked actual knowledge of the alleged harassment as a matter of law, we need not reach the remaining issues.