Tag Archives: Sexual Harassment

Dawg Bones

USING A STUDENT AS “BAIT”?  NOT A GOOD IDEA

There is a lawsuit brewing in Alabama in which the plaintiff alleges that an 8th grade girl was used as “bait” so that a boy could be “caught in the act” of sexual harassment.  The plan was for teachers to intervene before the girl was harmed.  But according to the suit, the sting operation did not go well.  The boy took the “bait,” but the rescue squad arrived at the scene of the crime in the boys’ bathroom too late.  Medical evidence confirmed the girls’ story—she had been raped.

The suit is against the district, the principal, two assistant principals and a teacher’s aide.  The district court dismissed most of the lawsuit for reasons that are too complicated to explain here.  But suffice it to say that regardless of how the legalities are resolved, this was a colossally bad idea in the first place.

Two points are worth emphasizing.  First, the tragic miscalculation here sprung from the notion that the school could not address the boy’s reported sexual advances until he was “caught in the act.” That’s just not true. What is true is that punitive disciplinary action could not be taken without some evidence of wrongdoing. But a school district should have other tools in the toolbox to address sexual harassment.  Where was the counseling? Where was the proactive effort to teach appropriate conduct between boys and girls?  Where was the parent involvement?

Second, there is no way that students should be allowed to be involved in “sting” operations like this.  Schools need to enforce their policies about sexual harassment without putting kids at risk.

The case is on appeal to the 11th Circuit, and it has drawn considerable interest from advocacy groups and the Department of Education.  The case is Hill v. Madison County School Board, 957 F.Supp.2d 1320 (N.D. Ala. 2013).

DAWG BONE: LET’S NOT BE USING STUDENTS IN A “STING” OPERATION.

 

 

Dawg Bones

WHO IS AN “APPROPRIATE” PERSON IN THE SCHOOL SETTING?

Like many terms used in the law, “an appropriate person” has a special meaning, and it has nothing to do with your table manners.  The term comes from a Texas case that made its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—Gebser v. Lago Vista ISD.  In that case, the Court outlined the circumstances that would make a school district liable for something that one of its employees, or students did.  Gebser involved teacher-to-student harassment.  The issue was: should Lago Vista ISD be held responsible?  Under what circumstances?

The Court held that LVISD would not be liable unless “an appropriate person” had actual knowledge of what was going on, and responded with “deliberate indifference.” What makes a person an “appropriate person”? Generally, it means that you are vested with the authority to take corrective action.

So if the harassment is being done by a teacher, the principal would probably qualify as an “appropriate person.”  As the teacher’s boss, the principal has the power to take corrective action.   If the harassment is done by the principal, the superintendent would be viewed as “an appropriate person.”

The Office for Civil Rights has a very expansive notion of who is “appropriate” although they use the word “responsible.”  The bottom line on this is that if someone employed by the school district has the power to take action to address sexual harassment that is going on in the school setting, that person is likely to be considered “appropriate.”  Make sure you are providing training for everyone about these responsibilities.

Here’s your Dawg Bone for the day:

DAWG BONE: MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE “APPROPRIATE PERSONS” ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.