Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)

Citation: Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Parent Document: Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-08-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8443663/wetzel-v-glen-st-andrew-living-... ↗

Full Text

1,788 chars

That takes us to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 - 1688. Like the FHA and Title VII, Title IX aims to eradicate sex-based discrimination from a sector of society-education. The Supreme Court has held that Title IX supports a private right of action on the part of a person who experiences sex discrimination in an education program or activity receiving federal financial *864aid. Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago , 441 U.S. 677, 688-89, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education , the Court confronted the question whether a school district's "failure to respond to student-on-student harassment in its schools can support a private suit for money damages." 526 U.S. at 639, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Because Title IX was enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause, private damages were available against a funding recipient only if it had adequate notice of its potential liability. Id. at 640, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Applying that limiting principle, the Court held that the district could be held accountable only for its own misconduct. Id. But that is just what the Davis plaintiff was trying to do. As the Court put it, "petitioner attempts to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its schools." Id. at 641, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Indeed, the district itself subjected the plaintiff to discrimination by remaining "deliberately indifferent to known acts of student-on-student sexual harassment [when] the harasser is under the school's disciplinary authority." Id. at 646-47, 119 S.Ct. 1661. It emphasized that the recipient of funds exercised substantial control over both the harasser and the premises on which the misconduct took place. Id. at 645, 119 S.Ct. 1661.

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text