Background
A fifteen-year-old male freshman football player at Piedmont High School was subjected to a campaign of hazing, including an attempted sexual assault known as keying, by older teammates. The harassment was intended to emasculate the student. He reported the incidents to school officials, including the head football coach, who responded with perfunctory discipline and made comments suggesting the student was too sensitive. The student transferred schools and sued the school district and the coach under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling the harassment was based on anti-freshman bias rather than sex.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the student plausibly alleged that the harassment was sex-based because it was designed to punish him for failing to conform to masculine stereotypes. The court found that the school district received federal funds and had actual knowledge of the harassment through the coach. The conduct was severe and pervasive enough to potentially bar access to education. The court also found the student plausibly alleged that the coach violated the Equal Protection Clause by being deliberately indifferent to the known harassment.
What it means going forward
School districts and coaches must ensure that hazing and harassment targeting students for failing to conform to sex stereotypes are addressed with more than perfunctory discipline to avoid liability under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.