## Facts

- Derek R. Henkle, a public high-school student in Washoe County, Nevada, alleged persistent verbal abuse, threats, and physical assaults by other students because he was gay and perceived as gender-nonconforming.
- After he appeared on a local television program discussing gay students’ experiences, he alleged harassment escalated on campus and during school hours.
- He alleged school personnel were repeatedly notified of specific incidents and perpetrators but failed to intervene or impose meaningful discipline.
- At Galena High School, he alleged students used anti-gay slurs, threatened violence, and physically menaced him; an assistant principal allegedly laughed when he reported an incident, and the principal allegedly did not discipline known harassers.
- In an English class, he alleged classmates repeatedly wrote slurs, sent notes, and made explicit drawings directed at him, and the teacher allegedly took no corrective action despite knowledge.
- Henkle transferred among schools within the district, alleging similar harassment and continued official inaction at each placement, including an incident where he was punched.
- He alleged administrators responded by blaming him, directing him to conceal his sexual orientation, and conditioning school transfers on his remaining silent about being gay.
- He alleged the district ultimately placed him in an adult-education program rather than addressing peer harassment, impairing access to a typical high-school education.
- He sued the principal and other officials (in individual capacities, with the principal also in an official capacity) and the Washoe County School District, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged unconstitutional restrictions or retaliation based on student speech about sexual orientation (content- or viewpoint-based regulation) under the First Amendment.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged interference with expressive association under the First Amendment.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged intentional discrimination, including differential protection from harassment, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Whether peer harassment tied to sex stereotypes and sexualized abuse, coupled with alleged deliberate indifference, stated a Title IX claim.
5. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.
6. Whether the allegations plausibly supported municipal liability against the school district based on an official policy, practice, or custom.

## Decision

- The court largely denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, allowing the principal federal claims to proceed.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged First Amendment violations based on content- and viewpoint-based restrictions and retaliation related to Henkle’s speech about being gay.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment expressive-association claim based on alleged discouragement or interference with association related to sexual-orientation issues.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged Equal Protection violations based on alleged intentional discriminatory treatment and deliberate failure to provide protection from known harassment.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged a Title IX claim based on alleged sex-based harassment (including gender nonconformity) and deliberate indifference after actual notice.
- The court declined to grant qualified immunity to the individual defendants at the motion-to-dismiss stage on the main federal claims.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability against the school district based on an alleged pattern or custom of inaction and victim-removal in response to anti-gay harassment.
- The court dismissed certain narrower and ancillary claims (including some state-law theories) not essential to the core federal causes of action.

## Legal Principles

- Public school students retain First Amendment rights at school; restrictions targeting speech because officials disagree with its message constitute viewpoint discrimination and are presumptively unconstitutional absent adequate justification.
- Government actors may not retaliate against protected speech by imposing adverse actions because of the speaker’s viewpoint.
- The First Amendment protects expressive association, including association to discuss or support positions on matters of public concern; unreasonable burdens on such association can state a claim.
- The Equal Protection Clause prohibits intentional discrimination; a plausible claim may be stated where officials allegedly provide inferior protection or treatment to a student because of a disfavored classification.
- Title IX can reach peer harassment that is sex-based, including harassment rooted in gender stereotyping or sexualized conduct, where the recipient has actual knowledge and responds with deliberate indifference that denies educational access.
- Qualified immunity is not resolved in defendants’ favor at the pleading stage where the complaint plausibly alleges violation of clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.
- A school district may face municipal liability where allegations plausibly indicate an official policy, longstanding practice, or custom that caused the asserted constitutional violations.

## Conclusion

The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that school officials and the district responded to known, severe anti-gay harassment by restricting the student’s speech and association, failing to protect him on equal terms, and acting with deliberate indifference under Title IX; most federal claims survived dismissal, and qualified immunity was denied at the pleadings stage.


Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2001)