Lisa Ryan Fitzgerald, etc., et. al. v. Barnstable School Committee, et. al., 504 F. 3d 165 (2009)

On February 14 th, 2001 a kindergarten student told her parents that she had been bullied on the bus by an older boy. She claimed that a third grade boy had bullied her into raising her skirt. Over the next two weeks she would further claim that he also bullied her into pulling down her panties and spreading her legs. Her parents immediately notified the principal of her school. Facts of the Case The Accusation

The principal met with the Fitzgeralds the same day they called. Over the next two days the BSC identified the accused boy, met with both children, interviewed the bus driver and most of the children on the bus. None of them collaborated her story. The BSC continued to respond quickly to each call from the parents as the issue escalated over the next two weeks. Facts of the Case The Schools Response

Schools Proposals Transfer Jacquline to another bus. Have the kindergarten students sit at the back of the bus with several rows of empty seats between them and the older students. Facts of the Case Proposed Actions Fitzgerald Proposals Move the boy to another bus. Add monitors to the bus.

Facts of the Case Legal Suit The Fitzgeralds filed concurrent suits in the Federal District Court Against BSC for pier-to-pier sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of Against the school’s superintendent for §1983 violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for his part in the incident. Result: The court ruled in favor of the BSC in the Title IX suit and dismissed the §1983 suit because the Title IX suit precluded their right to file the §1983 suit.

Relief Sought The parents wanted the §1983 dismissal overturned so they could seek judgment against the superintendent. The school district wanted the dismissal affirmed.

Issues: 1.Was the BSC in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for PP-SH? 2.Was the superintendent in violation §1983 of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? 3.Did filing a Title IX case preclude filing a §1983 case for sexual harassment?

Holdings: CourtRuling United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts BSC was not guilty of PP-SH under Title IX. Title IX suit precluded §1983 suit. Dismissed the §1983 suit against the superintendent. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Affirmed the rulings of the lower court on the preclusion of the §1983 suit. The United States Supreme Court Suits involving violations on constitutional rights cannot be precluded. Reversed the Appellant Court in an unanimous decision (9-0-0).

Reasoning: BSC – not guilty of PP-SH Area to be provedYes/NoWhy The school accepted federal funds for Title IX YesThis is a matter of public record. The school was aware of the harassment Yes The Fitzgeralds kept them informed. If the allegations are true, the harassment was of a severe nature Yes There is no proof that the incidents happened, but if they did they would have been repulsive. The school’s response was inadequate, inappropriate or unreasonable No BSC responded quickly and held reasonable investigations into the accusations.

Reasoning: Preclusion of §1983 case (District & Appellant Courts) The Supreme Court had already ruled that while the statutes cited in these cases did not include explicit wording that precluded the filing of §1983 suits, it can be inferred that Congress had intended the punitive remedies of these statutes to "be the exclusive avenue through which a plaintiff may assert [the] claims.” Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. Smith v. Robinson Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams The District Court held that the same logic applied to Title IX and ruled that it had “exclusive avenue” seeking punitive remedies. So they dismissed the §1983 suit against the superintendent. The Appellant Court affirmed this ruling.

Reasoning: Allowing §1983 case (Supreme Court) The “exclusive avenue” did not apply to this case because the §1983 suit claimed that Jacqueline’s constitutional rights had been violated – specifically her 14th Amendment rights. The Supreme Court unanimously (9-0-0) ruled that cases involving the constitution could not be precluded. It reversed the decision of the Appellant Court.

Reasoning: Superintendent & Constitutional Rights The Fitzgeralds dropped their case. If it had gone to court, the superintendent would have been found not guilty in the §1983 suit. He hadn’t committed that harassing acts. The Fitzgeralds did not like his decisions, but he had not violated their constitutional rights.

Significance to Special Education We can apply the tenets of case to special education. The keyword is “reasonable”: Just like the principal we must make reasonable efforts to do the best we can. As we go through the IEP process we need to be responsive to the parents; we need to diligent in our assessment of the students situation; we need to base our need step on the facts as they are known at that time. We do not have the duty to make heroic measures. Just like the superintendent we must make reasonable decisions. The EIP decisions need to be appropriate, but they do not have to be ideal. Furthermore, we do not have to insure that everyone is happy with those decisions. IDEA originated in statutory legislation. The constitution does not address education, much less special education. This affords us a measure of safety from personal litigation as long as our actions/decisions are reasonable – and do not violate the student’s or parent’s constitutional rights.