## Facts

- Several current and former students in a California public school district alleged severe, repeated peer harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation from 1991–1998.
- Reported conduct included physical assault, persistent slurs (e.g., “faggot,” “queer,” “dyke”), pornographic and threatening materials placed on a student’s locker, and death threats.
- Students alleged teachers and administrators were repeatedly informed of the harassment but failed to respond meaningfully, sometimes dismissing complaints or punishing the targeted students instead.
- Plaintiffs alleged differential treatment: school staff intervened to stop other forms of harassment (including racial harassment) but did not act comparably when harassment was anti-gay.
- Plaintiffs sued the district and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Equal Protection violations based on intentional discrimination shown through deliberate indifference to known anti-gay peer harassment.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs’ evidence, viewed in their favor, could establish intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause based on officials’ deliberate indifference to known anti-gay peer harassment.
2. Whether, between 1991 and 1998, the right to be free from such intentional discrimination was clearly established so that individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The court held the evidence could support a finding that officials intentionally treated anti-gay harassment differently than other harassment, permitting an inference of discriminatory intent.
- The court held that, by the mid-1990s, it was clearly established that state actors may not intentionally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause, including through deliberate indifference to known, severe harassment.
- Because material factual disputes remained about defendants’ knowledge, responses, and motives, qualified immunity could not be granted at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Protection is violated when state actors intentionally treat similarly situated persons differently because of membership in a targeted group; intent may be inferred from selective provision of protection.
- Deliberate indifference to known, severe discriminatory harassment can constitute intentional discrimination for Equal Protection purposes, particularly when officials respond more vigorously to comparable harassment targeting other groups.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable at summary judgment when, taking plaintiffs’ facts as true, (1) the alleged conduct would violate the Constitution and (2) the right was clearly established at the time.
- On interlocutory review of a qualified-immunity denial, an appellate court may resolve legal questions assuming the plaintiffs’ version of disputed facts.

## Conclusion

The court allowed students’ § 1983 Equal Protection claims to proceed because a jury could find that school officials intentionally discriminated by failing to address known, severe anti-gay peer harassment, and because the unlawfulness of such intentional discrimination was clearly established during the relevant period.


Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)