## Facts

- Jesse Montgomery attended schools in Independent School District No. 709 from kindergarten through tenth grade.
- He alleged frequent, near-daily peer harassment over roughly eleven years tied to his gender expression and perceived sexual orientation.
- Classmates used repeated gendered and anti-gay slurs (e.g., “girl,” “princess,” “femme boy,” and similar epithets).
- Montgomery and his parents repeatedly reported the harassment to teachers and administrators.
- He alleged the district’s responses were sporadic or ineffective and the harassment continued.

## Issues

1. Whether student-on-student harassment aimed at a male student’s perceived effeminacy and related epithets can constitute discrimination “because of sex” under Title IX.
2. Whether the same conduct can constitute a hostile educational environment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (including its protection against sexual-orientation discrimination).
3. Whether the district’s alleged failures amounted to deliberate indifference to known harassment for purposes of institutional liability.
4. Whether the district’s alleged inaction violated equal protection, and what showing of discriminatory intent was required.
5. Whether due process imposed an affirmative constitutional duty on a public school district to protect a student from peer harassment.

## Decision

- The court granted the district judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment as to Montgomery’s federal and state due process claims, concluding there was no general constitutional duty to protect him from private misconduct.
- The court denied dispositive relief that would eliminate the Title IX claim in full, allowing it to proceed insofar as the evidence could support that the harassment was based on sex (including sex stereotyping).
- The court allowed the MHRA claim to proceed, recognizing MHRA coverage of both sex and sexual orientation discrimination, while limiting discrete portions that were time-barred or inadequately supported.
- The court limited the equal protection theories to those supported by a plausible showing of intentional discrimination (not merely negligent or ineffective responses).
- The court denied Montgomery’s request for summary judgment on liability, leaving material factual disputes for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX can permit damages for student-on-student harassment when the harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; school officials have actual knowledge; and the school’s response is clearly unreasonable (deliberate indifference).
- Harassment of a male student for failing to conform to male gender stereotypes can qualify as sex-based harassment under Title IX, even if intertwined with perceptions about sexual orientation.
- The MHRA prohibits discrimination in education based on sex and explicitly on sexual orientation, supporting hostile-environment claims on either or both grounds.
- Equal protection claims based on alleged nonresponse to harassment require evidence supporting discriminatory intent; ineffective action alone does not establish a constitutional violation.
- Due process generally does not impose an affirmative duty on public schools to protect students from harm by private actors absent a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Montgomery to proceed to trial on state-law and Title IX hostile-environment theories based on severe peer harassment and potential deliberate indifference, but rejected due process claims and narrowed equal protection claims to those requiring proof of intentional discrimination.


Montgomery v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minn. 2000)