Opinion ID: 2057900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability of VPAA for student-student harassment claims

Text: ¶ 18. We conclude that the VPAA encompasses hostile school environment claims based on peer harassment. When the Legislature added 16 V.S.A. § 11(a)(26)'s definition of harassment and 16 V.S.A. § 565's requirement that schools adopt harassment policies, it stated that, in doing so, it intended to implement the provisions of [the VPAA] as they affect schools as places of public accommodation. 1993, No. 162 (Adj Sess.), § 1. A school administration's power over its students is custodial and tutelary, permitting a degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 655, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995); see also Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (recognizing that school officials have comprehensive authority over students, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools). This authority necessarily places a responsibility on school administrators to exercise their power so as to provide their charges with an atmosphere conducive to education and personal growth, free from impediments like pervasive student misbehavior. Not surprisingly, the Legislature has explicitly recognized that it is the policy of the state of Vermont that all Vermont educational institutions provide safe, orderly, civil and positive learning environments. 1999, No. 120 (Adj.Sess.), § 1. ¶ 19. In light of these responsibilities, the VPAA encompasses claims against school officials, as owners and operators of places of public accommodation, as well as their agents and employees, for unlawful in-school harassment of their students, even when the harassing conduct is perpetrated by other students. First, 16 V.S.A. § 11(a)(26)'s definition of harassment at the time of the alleged claim is broad enough to cover harassing conduct by students. See 1993, No. 162 (Adj.Sess.), § 2 (defining harassment as verbal or physical conduct based on a student's race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation or disability and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a student's educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment). Nothing in the statute exempts conduct committed by students from its definition of harassment. [2] To read the definition otherwise would conflict with the Legislature's stated purpose to rid Vermont schools of harassment. See 1999, No. 120 (Adj.Sess.), § 1 (Harassment, hazing and bullying have no place and will not be tolerated in Vermont schools. No Vermont student should feel threatened or be discriminated against while enrolled in a Vermont school.). ¶ 20. Further, the clear links between the anti-harassment provisions of Title 16 and the VPAA confirm that the Legislature intended harassment in schools, including that perpetrated by students, to come within the VPAA's sweep. The VPAA makes it unlawful to, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex or sexual orientation of any person, refuse, withhold from or deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of the place of public accommodation. 9 V.S.A. § 4502(a). The Act expressly includes any school within its definition of a place of public accommodation. Id. § 4501(1). Thus, the definition of harassment in 16 V.S.A. § 11(a)(26) mirrors the VPAA's definition of unlawful conduct in the context of harassment in schools. ¶ 21. Additionally, when the Legislature added 16 V.S.A. § 11(a)(26)'s definition of harassment and § 565's requirement that schools adopt anti-harassment policies, its stated purpose was to protect students by defining unlawful harassment as a form of discrimination which withholds from or denies to a student the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the school. 1993, No. 162 (Adj.Sess.), § 1 (emphasis added). The emphasized language appears verbatim in § 4502(a) of the VPAA, suggesting that the Legislature intended that any form of harassment in school, whether perpetrated by staff or students, would violate the VPAA. ¶ 22. Further, the 2004 amendments to Title 16 make explicit reference to VPAA claims for in-school harassment. For example, 16 V.S.A. § 14(b) explains an educational institution's obligation to take prompt remedial action [i]n regard to claims brought pursuant to 9 V.S.A. chapter 139, when it has received actual notice of conduct that may be harassment. Section 14(b) also states that [n]o action shall be brought pursuant to 9 V.S.A. chapter 139 until the plaintiff has exhausted the school's administrative remedies or satisfied one of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. Thus, the addition of 16 V.S.A. § 14 confirms that the Legislature envisioned the VPAA as the means of legal redress for victims of in-school harassment. Accordingly, given the fact that § 11(a)(26)'s definition of harassment includes harassment committed by students, we hold that the VPAA encompasses claims based on in-school student-student harassment.