Liability of School Districts for Student-on-Student Harm
Student hazing and bullying have become endemic and intractable problems with often tragic outcomes. Headlines of abuse are becoming common with details of students inflicting egregious physical and emotional harm on other students. Hazing can include brutal physical acts, sexual assaults, mandatory binge drinking, forced calisthenics and other harmful conduct. Bullying, on the other hand, is any unwanted physical, verbal or other aggressive behavior by one student directed at another. While hazing is typically used to gain membership in a group, bullying uses tactics to exclude the victim.
June 12, 2017 at 05:13 PM
7 minute read
Student hazing and bullying have become endemic and intractable problems with often tragic outcomes. Headlines of abuse are becoming common with details of students inflicting egregious physical and emotional harm on other students. Hazing can include brutal physical acts, sexual assaults, mandatory binge drinking, forced calisthenics and other harmful conduct. Bullying, on the other hand, is any unwanted physical, verbal or other aggressive behavior by one student directed at another. While hazing is typically used to gain membership in a group, bullying uses tactics to exclude the victim.
To address this problem, Gov. Tom Wolf signed a bill to end the misconduct in May 2016, and to expand Pennsylvania's anti-hazing law, 24 P.S. Section 5353. The law was previously limited to college students and now extends its reach to student perpetrators in grades 7 through 12. The law also requires private and public secondary schools to prepare written anti-hazing policies, post them on their websites, and provide all athletic coaches with copies. A violation qualifies as a third-degree misdemeanor. The law also allows secondary schools and colleges to punish students through fines, probation, suspension, or to withhold diplomas and transcripts. In more extreme cases, the amendments also permit students to be expelled and even face jail time.
When hazing and bullying occur, victims and their families often feel betrayed by the school officials and seek to bring claims against the school district. Frequently, these incidents involve students victimized by other students, while school officials took no action to prevent the foreseeable harm. Claims filed in Pennsylvania state courts against a public school district or public charter school are typically not viable because local agencies are protected by Pennsylvania's governmental immunity statute, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8541 et seq.. Private schools, however, do not have this defense and remain susceptible to claims filed in state courts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState-Sanctioned Discrimination: Title IX’s Expansive Loophole for Religious Institutions
8 minute readFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250