Opinion ID: 3054700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Employee/Student Victim Distinction

Text: In applying the Gebser framework to ES’ Title IX claim, the district court noted the following: With one exception, all of Mr. Moody’s prior incidents of harassment were directed at other employees, not students. While such a history, if proven, could suggest Mr. Moody might harass an adult coworker, ES has not explained why it should have put the School Board on notice that Mr. Moody was a danger to students. Doc. # 44 at 6 (emphasis in original). The district court went on to hold that “Mr. Moody’s history of harassing coworkers is insufficient to meet the actual-notice requirement of ES’ Title IX claim.” Id. In support of its holding, the district court cited Hackett v. Fulton County Sch. Dist., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (N.D. Ga. 2002), a case which states, in pertinent part, as follows: 4 Case: 12-15518 Date Filed: 09/30/2013 Page: 5 of 16 [E]ven if the evidence could not be construed as placing the school district on notice that there was a peculiar relationship between Kriel [the teacher] and Green [another teacher], a teacher’s harassment of another teacher can not be considered sufficient to put the principal on notice that the teacher may be committing sexual misconduct against students. Cf. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291, 118 S.Ct. 1989 (the principal’s notice of a teacher’s sexually suggestive comments to students in class does not equate to notice that the teacher might be sexually molesting a student). Id. at 1349-50 (emphasis in original). Relying on Hackett, the district court declined to consider many of Mr. Moody’s past instances of sexual harassment which, according to ES, provided the School Board with actual notice of the possibility of Mr. Moody’s later sexual assault of KB. The only prior complaints of sexual harassment the district court considered in its actual notice inquiry were the numerous reports of sexual leering against Mr. Moody over a period of a few years immediately preceding his alleged sexual assault of KB. We need not decide whether the district court’s notice rationale was sound. Even if we consider the matters the district court excluded from its analysis, there is insufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to the issue of actual notice. To explain why, we describe these past instances of Mr. Moody’s misconduct in detail. B. The First Complaint (1996) Against Mr. Moody - Kathy Davis In 1996, Kathy Davis, a teacher, and Mr. Moody, a custodian, worked together at Windham Elementary, a Daleville City school. Within her first year at 5 Case: 12-15518 Date Filed: 09/30/2013 Page: 6 of 16 Windham Elementary, Mr. Moody allegedly touched Ms. Davis’ buttocks three to five times. Ms. Davis reported these incidents of sexual harassment at a single meeting with Principal Julia Fulford. During their meeting, Ms. Davis said that she initially believed the contact may have been accidental but, as the number of incidents multiplied, she began to suspect something more sinister. Principal Fulford asked Ms. Davis if she wanted to file a formal complaint, and Ms. Davis indicated that she did not. She simply wanted the problem eliminated. Other than Mr. Moody and Ms. Davis, there were no witnesses. Immediately upon hearing that the alleged acts of sexual harassment/assault took place while Mr. Moody and Ms. Davis were alone, Principle Fulford located Mr. Moody and informed him that he was forbidden from entering Ms. Davis’ classroom without others present. Principal Fulford then made a written record of the incident, placing a report in her office personnel file for further review should another report of similar behavior surface in the future. Principal Fulford never received another complaint regarding Mr. Moody for the remainder of her six-year tenure as principal of Windham Elementary. We first must consider whether Principal Fulford is an “appropriate person” who “at minimum has authority to institute corrective measures on the district’s behalf.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290. “The ultimate question of who is an appropriate person is necessarily a fact-based inquiry because officials’ roles vary among 6 Case: 12-15518 Date Filed: 09/30/2013 Page: 7 of 16 school districts.” Doe, 604 F.3d at 1256. (internal quotation marks omitted). Like the majority of our sister circuits, we have not hesitated in concluding that principals, as the highest ranking school officials present at schools every day, are “high enough on the chain of command to impute liability to the School Board.” Id. at 1255. (internal quotation marks omitted). Principal Fulford is an “appropriate person” under Title IX. We next address whether Principal Fulford had actual notice of the possibility that Mr. Moody might sexually harass a student like KB in the future. Mr. Moody allegedly touched the buttocks of Ms. Davis, and also allegedly touched the buttocks of KB. Each time he claimed his actions were inadvertent. Each time the victim’s focus was elsewhere. And each time the identical act of sexual harassment occurred in a location where no other witnesses were present. These events are strikingly similar in nature and setting. The only difference appears to be the age of the victim, which alone does not preclude a finding of actual notice. A reasonable jury could find, we think, that Principal Fulford had actual notice. Finally, we decide whether there is sufficient evidence that Principal Fulford acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Moody’s misconduct to create a jury issue. “Deliberate indifference is an exacting standard.” Doe, 604 F.3d at 1259. School district officials will only be found deliberately indifferent when their 7 Case: 12-15518 Date Filed: 09/30/2013 Page: 8 of 16 “response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. Of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648 (1999). As the incidents reported by Ms. Davis constituted the universe of known circumstances with regard to Principal Fulford, we find that her response was not clearly unreasonable. Principal Fulford made time to hear from Ms. Davis as soon as she was ready to report Mr. Moody’s alleged misconduct, offered to help her file a formal complaint, and immediately told Mr. Moody that he was forbidden from entering Ms. Davis’ classroom unless others were present. Principal Fulford’s response was immediate, tailored, and effective. She fashioned a solution to eliminate Mr. Moody’s inappropriate advances, while respecting Ms. Davis’ desire to resolve the issue privately. Never again did Principal Fulford receive a complaint concerning Mr. Moody. But in case she did, Principal Fulford dutifully recorded the substance of Ms. Davis’ complaint and placed the record in her personal file for further reference if required in the future. Any omission in Principal Fulford’s response “cannot be said to represent a decision by the school board not to remedy the violation,” Doe, 604 F.3d at 1260 (internal quotation marks omitted), and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. Thus, the first reported instance of sexual harassment does not provide a basis for holding Daleville City liable under Title