## Facts

- Two sixth-grade students (Ethan Bryan and Nolan Hairr) attended a Clark County School District junior high school and played trombone in band class in fall 2011.
- Two classmates repeatedly directed homophobic and sex-based slurs at the boys and committed physical assaults, including an incident where Nolan was stabbed in the groin with a pencil while being taunted about whether he was “a boy or a girl.”
- The harassment included vulgar, sexually explicit comments implying the boys were in a homosexual relationship and questioning their gender expression.
- The students and their mothers reported the conduct to school officials in September and again in October 2011.
- A Nevada anti-bullying statute (NRS 388.1351) required the school to initiate a formal investigation upon a report; the school spoke with at least one alleged harasser and a parent but did not conduct the mandated investigation.
- The harassment continued, and the students began avoiding school and band; the record included serious emotional harm, including suicidal ideation.
- The parents ultimately withdrew the students and enrolled them in private school.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the parents on Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and later awarded attorney’s fees, reasoning in part that failure to follow NRS 388.1351 established deliberate indifference.
- The school district appealed the merits judgment and the post-judgment fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes student-on-student harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender nonconformity.
2. Whether a school’s violation of NRS 388.1351, by itself, establishes “deliberate indifference” for Title IX and § 1983 liability.
3. Whether the district court applied the correct federal standards governing institutional liability for student-on-student harassment under Title IX and § 1983.

## Decision

- The court held that Title IX’s protections extend to discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, transgender status, and perceived sexual orientation.
- The court agreed the harassment at issue was “on the basis of sex” under Title IX.
- The court held the district court erred by treating violation of the state anti-bullying statute as per se proof of deliberate indifference under federal law.
- The court reversed the judgment on both the Title IX and § 1983 claims.
- The court remanded for further findings on the Title IX claim under the correct deliberate-indifference standard.
- The court reversed the § 1983 judgment without remand.
- The attorney’s fees award was vacated as a consequence of reversal of the underlying judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX institutional liability for student-on-student harassment requires: (1) actual knowledge, (2) harassment that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive so as to deny access to educational opportunities or benefits, and (3) the recipient’s deliberate indifference.
- “On the basis of sex” under Title IX includes discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and perceived sexual orientation, consistent with the logic applied to analogous “because of sex” language in federal anti-discrimination law.
- Deliberate indifference is shown only when the school’s response to known harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
- Noncompliance with a state anti-bullying investigation statute may be relevant evidence of an unreasonable response but does not automatically satisfy deliberate indifference for Title IX or § 1983.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court recognized Title IX coverage for harassment tied to sexual orientation and gender nonconformity but reversed the plaintiffs’ trial judgment because the deliberate-indifference element cannot be established solely by proving the school failed to follow a state bullying-investigation statute, requiring a fact-specific assessment of whether the school’s response was clearly unreasonable.


Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Bryan, 136 Nev. 689 (Nev. 2020)