## Facts

- A fifth-grade student at a public elementary school allegedly experienced repeated sexual harassment by a male classmate over several months.
- The alleged conduct included attempts to touch the student’s breasts and genital area and repeated sexually explicit comments.
- The student and her mother allegedly reported multiple incidents to a teacher and school administrators.
- The complaint alleged school officials took no meaningful corrective action despite notice.
- The alleged inaction purportedly created a hostile school environment and caused educational and emotional harm, including declining grades and suicidal ideation.
- The student’s mother sued the county board of education under Title IX, seeking monetary and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Title IX permits a private damages action against a federally funded school board for student-on-student sexual harassment.
2. What standard of institutional liability governs when school officials are aware of peer harassment but fail to respond.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- A private Title IX damages action may lie for student-on-student harassment only if the funding recipient:
  - has actual knowledge of the harassment,
  - responds with deliberate indifference, and
  - the harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies the victim access to educational opportunities or benefits.
- At the pleading stage, the allegations—repeated harassment, repeated reports to school personnel, and ineffective response—were sufficient to state a claim.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX damages liability for peer harassment is limited to the funding recipient’s own misconduct, not vicarious liability for students’ acts.
- “Actual knowledge” by an appropriate school official is required; constructive notice is insufficient.
- “Deliberate indifference” requires a response that is clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances.
- Actionable peer harassment must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and must effectively bar access to educational opportunities or benefits; ordinary teasing and name-calling are not enough.
- Because Title IX is Spending Clause legislation, liability must be defined in a manner that provides recipients clear notice of the conditions attached to federal funds.

## Conclusion

Title IX authorizes damages against a school board for student-on-student sexual harassment only when the board, with actual knowledge, responds with deliberate indifference to harassment that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive and that denies the victim equal access to educational opportunities.


Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999)