This case involved a female student who accused a male teacher of continual sexual harassment and abuse from 1986-1988
Franklin first filed a complaint with the OCR in 1988 who dismissed the case because the abusive teacher, Andrew Hill, and respondent William Prescott both resigned and the school implemented a grievance procedure that met the standards of the OCR
Franklin then pursued damages for the abuse she suffered, which were rejected by the lower courts because monetary damages were not permissible under Title IX
The case was appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court reversed the lower courts’ decision and set the precedent that students who are subjected to sexual harassment in public schools may sue for monetary damages under Title IX
This case involved two middle school girls who were sexually harassed and assaulted by peers on the school bus and later on school grounds.
The girls’ parents made multiple complaints, but felt the school district did not address the situation properly so they filed a lawsuit under Title IX because the girls were subject to a hostile environment.
The case was rejected by lower courts because (at the time) schools were not liable under Title IX for peer-to-peer sexual harassment.
The case was appealed and heard by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
The judges decided on April 2, 1996, that school districts are liable for peer hostile environment sexual harassment. The case set the precedent that institutions were now liable for peer-to-peer sexual violence under Title IX.
This case involved a ninth grade student who had an ongoing secret sexual affair with a teacher, which began in spring of 1992.
The relationship or any harassment was not reported to school officials, nor were any school officials aware of the relationship.
In January 1993, a police officer discovered the teacher and student engaging in sexual intercourse off school grounds and arrested the teacher. The district fired the teacher after the arrest.
In November 1993, the student’s mother filed a law suite seeking monetary damages for harassment under Title IX. The case was rejected by lower courts and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In June of 1998, by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Lago Vista Independent School District, but added criteria to the precedent set by Franklin v. Gwinnett County. The Supreme Court noted that in order for a victim to recover damages for sexual harassment under Title IX, the party must show that the a school district official or responsible employee with the ability to institute corrective measures, knew of the conduct, which is defined legally as “actual notice”.
The party must also show that despite knowledge of the conduct, the educational establishment deliberately failed to respond in a proper manner, which set precedence for the “deliberate indifference standard”.
This case involved a fifth grade student who was repeatedly harassed and abused by another student over a six month period in 1992-93.
The student’s mother complained to the principle about the incidents, but the student was not protected or separated from the accused.
In May 1993, the accused student was charged with sexual battery and pled guilty. In 1994, Davis’s mother sued the district for monetary damages under Title IX.
The case was rejected in lower courts and appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The court decided that because the misconduct was “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive”, had “concrete, negative effect on the student’s ability to receive an education”, and “the petitioner may be able to show both actual knowledge and deliberate indifference on the part of the Board, which made no effort whatsoever either to investigate or to put an end to the harassment” the lower courts decision was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
The case set precedent for the right to sue for monetary damages under Title IX for student on student harassment if the conditions set in the Gebser case are met, i.e. a responsible employee had “actual notice” and the school was deliberately indifferent.
This case involved a student, Tiffany Williams, who accused members of the University of Georgia's football and basketball team of raping her.
The incident took place on January 14, 2002 when Williams had consensual sex with Trevor Cole, unknowingly another student, Brandon Williams was hiding in the closet, once Cole excused himself, the other man assaulted Williams. During this time Cole contacted two other students to come to his room. One student, Steven Thomas came to the room and also assaulted and raped Williams.
Cole, Williams, and Thomas were indicted on criminal charges, but Williams was acquitted, and charges against Cole and Thomas were dismissed.
Tiffany Williams' original lawsuit was dismissed on June 30, 2004 after the criminal cases were dismissed.
She appealed and her case was overturned on March 9, 2006 after the court decided that the UGA failed to appropriately resolve the issue.
This case set a precedent that institutions were liable for "before-the-fact deliberate indifference." This was the case because Cole had a prior record of sexual misconduct at two other institutions that were ignored before getting a special approval acceptance at the UGA to play basketball.
Williams settled for an undisclosed sum with the UGA after her appeal was granted.
This case involved a 15 year old girl who claimed she had been sexually assaulted after being forced into a band practice room.
She wrote a letter to a teacher explaining the assault and the teacher immediately alerted the principle. This took place one day after the assault and an investigation immediately began.
The principle interviewed several people including the accused and police were also involved in the investigation as they were called once the investigation began.
The principle did not find sufficient evidence in his investigation and decided he would wait for the police to finish their investigation before taking further action. In the interim, Doe and the accused were separated during the school day and Doe was allowed to park in a different parking lot at the school.
Two weeks after Doe's complaint, another student accused the same student of assaulting her in a parking lot, but no further action was taken.
Doe complained that she was still being harassed in the interim period, but the school again stated they did not have enough evidence for further action.
The accused eventually pled guilty to misdemeanor simple assault charges and was suspended for 5 days.
The court found that the school did not act promptly and ease the hostile environment and that staff was not properly trained to conduct an investigation or identify sexual assault.
The case set precedent that schools can be found to show deliberate indifference by failing to properly train its employees, and can be liable damages as a result.