Libby Hewes, now an adult, sued the Brewer School Department, its superintendent, Title IX officer, principal, and a coach, alleging they failed to protect her from sexual assault by a twenty-year-old coach, Benjamin Pushard, when she was a minor. The abuse occurred over two years, during which Pushard was an intern or contractor for the school. After rumors circulated at her high school, Hewes spoke with the principal, Samantha Pangburn, denying the rumors and asking the school to stop them. Pangburn believed Hewes and took no further action. Hewes also sued a police officer who encountered her with Pushard in a parking lot but failed to serve him properly. The District Court dismissed all claims, ruling that the school officials lacked actual knowledge of the abuse for Title IX purposes, that the coach's actions did not create a constitutional danger, and that the officer was not properly served. Hewes appealed, arguing the school should be liable for deliberate indifference and that the state created the danger.
The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal on multiple grounds. First, regarding the Title IX deliberate indifference claim, the court reiterated that a school must have actual knowledge of harassment to be liable. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents where administrators witnessed inappropriate conduct. Here, the principal only knew of a rumor that Hewes denied. The court held that a single denied rumor, without more, does not constitute actual knowledge or convey a substantial risk of ongoing harassment sufficient to trigger liability. Second, the court addressed the Section 1983 state-created danger claim against the coach. To succeed, a plaintiff must show the state actor's conduct shocks the conscience. The court found that while the coach recommended the student contact the abuser, there was no evidence the coach knew the man was dangerous or intended to harm the student. Mere negligence or poor judgment does not meet the high bar of shocking the conscience. Third, the court rejected the equal protection claim, noting the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing intentional discrimination based on sex. Finally, the court addressed the police officer. It ruled that serving the police department sergeant did not constitute valid service on the individual officer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court also found that denying the motion to amend the complaint to add the officer was not an abuse of discretion because the delay would have unduly prejudiced the defendants and reopened discovery at a late stage.
The decision reinforces the high bar for establishing actual knowledge under Title IX, requiring more than uncorroborated rumors or denials by victims to trigger school liability. It clarifies that the state-created danger doctrine remains limited to egregious conduct that shocks the conscience, protecting officials from liability for mere negligence. Additionally, the ruling emphasizes strict adherence to service of process rules, warning that plaintiffs must serve individual officers directly or through authorized agents, not merely the department.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download