School Resources & Training Institute
Legal and Liability Article Database

For assistance with this database contact us at information@school-training.com or at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index

PATC Article Detail


Title: Teacher Provides Personal Biology Lessons: School District Not Liable
Author:
ID: LL158
Issue: SU2-3
Issue Date: 2005-05-01
Edition: School
Type: Article

Body: A school district is not liable for failing to discover that one of its teachers was having an affair with a student, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled.

For a school district to be liable under Title IX and 42 USC ß 1983, the school would have to be deliberately indifferent to complaints about a teacherís sexual involvement with a student, the court said in a ruling issued earlier this year. The court found that the school acted appropriately even though it failed to discover the affair. See Sauls v. Pierce County School District, 399 F.3d 1279; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2043.

Dustin, a student at Pierce County High School in Georgia, began an affair with Blythe, a teacher at the school in late 2000. Dustin was 16 at the time. His sexual activity with an adult was not a crime under Georgia law. The evidence in the case showed that Dustin frequently skipped biology class to have sex with Blythe; they also had sexual contact off school grounds.

In March 2001, the district assistant superintendent received anonymous information that Blythe had had inappropriate relationships with former students. Although she could not substantiate the allegations, the assistant superintendent learned during the course of an investigation that a similar allegation had been made against Blythe in 1998, but was unfounded. Nevertheless, the assistant superintendent cautioned Blythe about having inappropriate contact with students.

The assistant superintendent was later promoted to superintendent. In July 2001, she received a phone call from a ìconcerned citizenî who reported seeing Dustin and Blytheís cars parked together at a local park. The superintendent immediately initiated an investigation. Both Blythe and Dustin were interviewed during the investigation and denied having a relationship. Dustinís parents also were interviewed and said they did not believe their son was having an affair with a teacher. Although she could not substantiate the allegation, the superintendent again warned Blythe and alerted Blytheís principal to monitor the situation. The superintendent also notified the stateís professional standards commission and the local police. Still, no one could prove the two were having an affair.

Finally, in December 2001, a substitute teacher discovered a note that Dustin had written to Blythe in which he threatened to disclose their affair if she did not give him money, a cell phone and sex. Again, the superintendent immediately investigated, and this time Dustin admitted the affair. Blythe then quit her job and surrendered her teaching license.

Dustinís parents filed suit, alleging that the school had violated Title IX by allowing Blythe to sexually harass Dustin. They also alleged that, because he sustained emotional injuries as a result of the affair, Dustinís 14th Amendment due process rights had been violated by the school.

In its analysis, the court said that, for a school district to be liable, two things had to occur: (1) a school district official with the authority to take corrective measures had to have received actual notice of the harassment; and (2) the official with such notice was deliberately indifferent to the misconduct.

The court found that the school acted properly in investigating the allegations against Blythe. The school quickly responded to the complaints, conducted thorough investigations, notified other appropriate entities and maintained records of the action it took. School officials also consistently monitored Blythe's conduct and warned her about her interaction with students. The court also held that the school was not liable for failing to discover the relationship.

The school district greatly limited its liability by acting swiftly and decisively to the reports of teacher misconduct. Likewise, because the district documented its actions, the court was able to find that the school was not indifferent to the complaints.



Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Citation 3:
Keywords:
Other Information: