Seventh Circuit Rules on Sex Discrimination Liability Under Title IX

In a recent case involving teacher sexual misconduct, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a school district cannot be held liable for sexual harassment or misconduct by a teacher unless an administrator of the District has actual knowledge of the teacher's misconduct and acts with deliberate indifference in response to such conduct.

In Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp., an Indiana high school student and her parents sued their school district, claiming it was liable for damages suffered as a result of the student's sexual relationship with her band teacher. Although the relationship took place during the 2000-2001 school year, the student did not report it until January 2004, when she was hospitalized for substance abuse treatment.

Upon learning of the student's claim, the school district promptly suspended the teacher, and initiated an investigation. During the investigation, the district learned that the teacher had engaged in two prior romantic relationships with students. The first was with a student who later became the teacher's wife, although both testified that nothing improper happened between them during the time she was his student. The second relationship was with a student who attended a school where the teacher had previously worked, but no one knew of this relationship until the 2004 complaint.

Citing these prior relationships, the Hansens claimed that the school district "knew or should have known" of the teacher's misconduct and was liable for sex discrimination under Title IX. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, reiterating the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998). Under this standard, a plaintiff must prove that an official of the school district with the authority to take corrective measures must have "actual notice" of the teacher's misconduct. In this case, school administrators engaged in a thorough interview process of the teacher, which included several interviews, a check of the teacher's qualifications and references, and a criminal background check. Citing this process, the court held that the district did not have actual notice of the teacher's misconduct prior to the student's 2004 report and could not be held liable for any damages resulting from the 2000-2001 relationship. Moreover, simply knowing that the teacher was married to a woman who was formerly his student was not enough to establish the actual notice required for Title IX liability.