Whether a school district may be held liable under Title IX for student-on-student (peer) sexual harassment.

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · 11th Cir.Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ.74 F.3d 1186
• Discussed · 9th Cir.Doe v. Petaluma City Sch. Dist.54 F.3d 1447

  “Dist., 54 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir.1994) (denying relief on qualified immunity grounds but noting that under current law qualified immunity would not protect a school official from liability in a peer sexual harassment claim).” — Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 2d Cir.Murray v. New York Univ. College of Dentistry57 F.3d 243

  “College of Dentistry, 57 F.3d 243 (2d Cir.1995) (finding no liability when patient harassed a dental student because the university did not have sufficient notice of the harassment).” — Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 1st Cir.Lipsett v. University of P.R.864 F.2d 881

  “University of P.R., 864 F.2d 881 , 897 (1st Cir.1988) (applying title VII standards to a peer harassment case in a medical school because medical students should be viewed as employees).” — Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · U.S.Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:

qualified immunity