Richardson ISD persuaded a federal judge to dismiss a Title IX suit alleging student-on-student harassment.  The key was the court’s agreement with the district’s argument that any pervasive harassment was not gender-related, and any gender-related harassment was not pervasive.

To succeed in a Title IX suit like this the plaintiff has to prove, among other things, 1) that the harassment was based on the victim’s sex; and 2) that the harassment was so severe and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.

The parents alleged that their third grade daughter was relentlessly bullied and tormented by four third grade boys.  But the only specific allegation about the “relentless” bullying was that the boys called her “ugly and stupid.”  The court observed that “ugly and stupid” is not “based on the victim’s sex.”  Ugly and stupid can apply to boys and girls alike. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling that “Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children…even where these comments target differences in gender.”  Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999).

Thus the court concluded that “the pervasive harassment…was not gender-related.” Tomorrow we will explain how the court concluded that “the gender-related harassment was not pervasive.”

The case is Chavez v. Richardson ISD, decided by the federal court for the Northern District of Texas on August 23, 2017.  We found it at 2017 WL 3620388.

DAWG BONE: LET YOUR LAWYER BE THE ONE TO ARGUE THAT “NAME CALLING” DOES NOT MATTER.  IT SHOULD MATTER TO THE PRINCIPAL AND THE TEACHER. 

Tomorrow:  The rest of this story...