Teacher Harassment Case Settles for $600K

The Susquehanna Township School District in Pennsylvania will reportedly pay $600,000 to settle a lawsuit filed against it by a former student who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a drivers education instructor, and who thereafter was harassed at school for filing charges against him. We have blogged about this case before when the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. In the latter, the judge determined that the instructor's violation of school policies in the past should have put it on notice that female students were at risk. The judge faulted the school district for taking a “lackadaisical approach” to disciplining the instructor, noting that if officials had followed up to ensure that he was complying with, for example, the policy prohibiting him from being alone with students during "behind the wheel" instruction, it could have prevented plaintiff's assault.

The article linked above notes that Susquehanna lacks the legally-required Title IX Coordinator -- a person designated to receive Title IX complaints from students and oversee the districts implementation of the law. And the superintendent "doesn't know of any district that does" have one. (Hello? OCR?) It's not clear from the article whether that is an issue being addressed by the settlement, but hopefully the district appoints a Title IX coordinator as part of its reported efforts to improve sexual harassment policy going forward.

Drivers Ed Harassment Case Survives Motion to Dismiss

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently held that a student's claims stemming from sexual abuse by a drivers ed instructor could survive the school district's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court agreed that the plaintiff alleged all of the elements for Title IX liability (as well as some of her other claims, including the 14th Amendment). Because the alleged conduct involved a forced sex act, it is necessary severe and pervasive, the first requirement for liability. Also, the school allegedly had adequate notice of the instructor's propensity to commit abuse, based on two prior incidents of harassment (one in which he asked a student to show him her nipple piercing, and another in which he asked a teacher to show him her tattoo), which were reported, and his general reputation. Finally, the school district's response constitutes deliberate indifference, as the instructor was not disciplined for the prior incidents of harassment, and was allowed to take students on one-on-one driving lessons, in contravention of district policy. Thus, the plaintiff may continue to pursue her Title IX claim against the district.

The plaintiff also successfully alleged Title IX retaliation claim against the school district, in that she claimed that school officials did not protect her from the harassment by teachers and peers that she faced after reporting the instructor's misconduct. The plaintiff alleges that she was so uncomfortable at school due to the hostile environment created by teachers' and students' vocal support for the instructor -- one teacher even posted a letter, in the plaintiff's presence, soliciting donations to the instructor's defense fund -- that she withdrew from school and continued her education from home. Recognizing that the school district has an obligation to respond to retaliatory harassment, the court held that the school could be found liable for retaliation if these facts prove true.

E.N. v. Susquehanna Township School District, 2010 WL 483700 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 2010).