Jean Doe, as Guardian and Next Friend of Jane Doe Jane Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School District
Docket: 96-50056
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 24, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Jean Doe and her daughter Jane Doe suing the Lago Vista Independent School District for Title IX violations due to a teacher's sexual harassment. The Fifth Circuit Court examined previous relevant cases to determine school district liability under Title IX. Frank Waldrop, the teacher, developed a relationship with Jane Doe, beginning when she was thirteen, which escalated to sexual contact when she was fifteen. These incidents occurred outside of school property, and there was no evidence that school officials were aware of the abuse until it was discovered by police in January 1993. Although complaints about Waldrop's inappropriate remarks were made to the principal, no action was taken against him. The school district successfully obtained summary judgment in its favor, and Jane Doe appealed, specifically challenging the ruling on her Title IX claim. The court noted that while the precedent set by Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools allows for damages in cases of teacher abuse, it does not clarify the liability standard for school districts. The school district argued that liability should not be based on strict liability for teachers' actions, while Doe contended that liability could arise from the teacher’s abuse of his authority over students.
Title IX does not impose strict liability on school districts for teacher-student sexual harassment cases. In Canutillo Indep. School Dist. v. Leija, the court reversed a summary judgment denial involving a teacher who molested a student, clarifying that strict liability is not part of Title IX. To succeed in such cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate a theory less expansive than strict liability, such as constructive notice, where management-level authorities should have been aware of misconduct. However, in Leija, the court found insufficient evidence of constructive notice despite a report of abuse.
Doe, the current plaintiff, did not pursue a constructive-notice theory due to a lack of evidence indicating that Lago Vista officials knew of the abuse. Although there were complaints about the teacher's inappropriate remarks, these did not relate to Doe. Instead, Doe's argument centered on vicarious liability, asserting that Waldrop's position facilitated the abuse. The court referenced Hastings v. Hancock, which allowed a vicarious liability claim but noted it was an exceptional case due to the authority given to the harasser.
The court rejected this agency theory in Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. School Dist., where it established that a school district is liable only if a supervisory employee knew of the abuse and failed to act. Rosa H. indicated that allowing vicarious liability under Title IX based solely on employment status would lead to excessive liability in harassment cases. Consequently, since Doe's claims did not meet the necessary criteria under Title IX, the court upheld the district court's summary judgment favoring Lago Vista Independent School District.
