Photo: Shutterstock

A complaint that a Pennsylvania school district violated Title IX for failing to adequately investigate a teenager's claims that she was being harassed by an ex-boyfriend on school grounds should be allowed to proceed to trial, a federal magistrate judge has ruled.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Rice of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Pennridge School District's summary judgment motions, which sought to dismiss the case Doe v. Pennridge School District.

Much of the opinion focused on an unwritten policy at the district that made a distinction between sexual harassment under Title IX and simple “peer conflict.” According to the court, the unwritten rule held that both types of incidents would be investigated, but the school's Title IX coordinator would not be notified until it was determined that the complainant was facing sexual harassment.

The district had argued that, even though it did not involve its Title IX coordinator following the plaintiff's harassment complaints, it properly handled the claims because the harassment did not constitute sexual harassment entitled to protection under Title IX.

Rice, however, agreed with the plaintiff—referred to in court papers only as Jane Doe—and found that the harassing conduct, which allegedly included being called “bitch” and “whore” on multiple occasions, potentially constituted pervasive sexual harassment that the school failed to properly address.

“Viewed in the light most favorable to Doe, a reasonable jury could find PSD's unwritten policies were clearly unreasonable, and the district was deliberately indifferent to Doe's repeated complaints of sexual harassment when it followed those unwritten policies instead of the Title IX guidance, regulations and official PSD policy regarding categorization of behavior as sexual harassment, investigation of sexual harassment and involvement of the Title IX coordinator once sexual harassment has been alleged,” Rice said.

According to Rice's opinion, Doe dated a boy—referred to in court papers only as N—from the fall of 2014 through April 2015. Rice said they broke up after an allegedly violent incident occurred in Doe's bedroom. Rice noted that the incident, which left Doe with multiple bruises, was not sexual.

Rice said Doe first reported the relationship and breakup to a guidance counselor in June 2015 and complained that N was harassing her during school hours. Doe and her father also met with the school's assistant vice principal, told the administrator about the relationship, and said they were worried the abuse might continue. The harassment, according to Rice, included N allegedly calling Doe a “whore” and a “slut,” among other things, and threatening that he would kill himself if she didn't begin dating him again.

According to Rice, Doe also told school officials she wanted to be transferred to a full-time technical program.

Rice said Doe continued to complain of harassment, including harassment from another student, a threat from N's cousin and stalking by N. Rice also said she continued to request a transfer.

The school eventually denied her request for full-time placement in a technical program, but in April 2016, she was transferred to a program that allowed for evening classes. Rice also noted Doe did not attend school during her senior year, but graduated in 2017.

In its summary judgment motion, the school contended the harassment wasn't sexual, it wasn't pervasive and Doe couldn't show that the school was indifferent to her claims. Rice disagreed with the school on all those points.

Doe had also raised supervisory liability claims against the superintendent and principal, in part, for failing to investigate all the claimed harassment. But Rice said the theory that the school was obligated to investigate the assault that occurred in Doe's bedroom “fails as a matter of law.”

Although Doe had cited the U.S. Department of Education's 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, saying incidents needed to be investigated regardless of where they occurred, Rice said the letter did not establish any regulatory obligations, or change the existing statute. He further noted those rules were rescinded in 2017.

Rice, however, also said the administrators could be held liable for failing to notify the Title IX director of the harassment complaints.

Neither Christopher Boyle of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, who is representing the school, nor Aurelie Ercoli of DLA Piper, who is representing Doe, returned a call seeking comment.