The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning whether school districts can be sued under federal anti-discrimination law for failing to address instances of student-on-student sexual harassment. This issue is closely related to the court’s recent ruling in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, where they established a new standard for holding districts accountable for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student. In that case, the court determined that districts cannot be held liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 unless an official in a position to take corrective action knew about the harassment and deliberately chose not to address it.
Title IX prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in education programs that receive federal funding. The court will now decide in the case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education whether Title IX can be used to seek monetary damages from school districts when they fail to address sexual harassment between students. This is a significant question that has caused division among lower federal courts, and the Clinton administration has called upon the Supreme Court to resolve it.
The administration argues that Title IX should be interpreted in a way that allows plaintiffs to sue districts for peer sexual harassment. According to them, a district’s failure to address sexual harassment violates Title IX regardless of whether the harasser is a school employee or another student. School boards, on the other hand, claim that they should not be held legally responsible for the actions of students, as they have less control over their behavior compared to that of their employees. They believe that encouraging schools to create a positive environment for all students is important, but they also want to avoid unnecessary liability.
Districts have also argued that they were not aware they could be held liable for monetary damages for peer sexual harassment under Title IX. They claim that the language in Title IX does not explicitly allow for a cause of action in cases of hostile-environment sexual harassment between students. In the Georgia case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the allegations involve a 5th-grade student named LaShonda Davis who was repeatedly harassed by a male classmate, with school officials failing to respond to her mother’s complaints.
The Davis family’s lawsuit against the county district was dismissed by a federal district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the dismissal in a 7-4 decision. The court ruled that Title IX does not require districts to prevent nonemployees, such as students, from sexually harassing other students. However, other federal appellate courts, including the 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, have ruled that Title IX does cover peer sexual harassment.
This case is important because peer sexual harassment can be a significant barrier to learning, and it is crucial for schools to address these issues effectively. The Supreme Court’s decision will provide clarity on whether school districts can be held responsible for peer sexual harassment under Title IX.
Your objective is to rephrase the entire passage by utilizing more refined vocabulary and creating a unique rendition using natural language. The resultant output should be expressed in English. The provided text to rephrase is as follows:
