## Facts

- P.K., a high-performing student, attended Caesar Rodney High School and dated fellow student G.R. during the 2009–2010 school year.
- P.K. alleged that G.R. engaged in ongoing physical and emotional abuse, including incidents where he threatened, slapped, or pushed her and confronted her on school property and at school-related events.
- P.K.’s mother, Judy Hassinger, reported to school staff that P.K.’s grades were declining and attributed the decline to G.R.’s conduct.
- P.K. and Hassinger notified school officials about multiple physical incidents involving G.R. and asked the school to keep P.K. safe at school.
- P.K. also experienced verbal mistreatment from G.R.’s friends in the school hallways, but those verbal incidents were not consistently reported to school officials.
- School personnel took several steps aimed at separating P.K. and G.R., including administrative interventions intended to reduce contact.
- After a particularly serious incident, the school involved law enforcement; G.R. was arrested, briefly suspended, and removed from the school’s baseball team.
- Plaintiffs contended that some school responses were delayed, grudging, or insensitive and that the measures did not fully stop the harassment.
- P.K. (through Hassinger) and Hassinger (individually) sued the high school, the school district, and the board of education, asserting Title IX and related Delaware-law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the school entities could be liable for damages under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment based on actual notice to an appropriate school official and a response amounting to deliberate indifference.
2. Whether Delaware’s school bullying statute, 14 Del. C. § 4112D, creates an express or implied private right of action for damages against school entities.
3. Whether 14 Del. C. § 4112(b)(3) (teen dating violence reporting within the school) creates a privately enforceable damages claim.
4. Whether the defendants’ conduct could support a claim for gross or wanton negligence under Delaware law.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- On Title IX, the court held that no reasonable jury could find the defendants’ responses to the reported harassment “clearly unreasonable” under the deliberate-indifference standard.
- The court held that 14 Del. C. § 4112D did not provide a private right of action for damages (and, in any event, the summary-judgment record did not support liability on the theory advanced).
- The court held that 14 Del. C. § 4112(b)(3) likewise did not create a private damages remedy and did not support plaintiffs’ claim on the evidence presented.
- The court rejected the gross or wanton negligence claim because defendants’ repeated interventions and escalating measures were inconsistent with the extreme misconduct required by Delaware law.

## Legal Principles

- A Title IX damages claim for peer harassment requires proof that (1) the harassment was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, (2) an “appropriate person” with authority to take corrective action had actual knowledge, and (3) the institution responded with deliberate indifference that effectively subjected the student to discrimination (Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ.).
- Deliberate indifference is a high bar: a school is liable only if its response to known harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances; Title IX does not require a particular remedy or a guaranteed harassment-free environment.
- A state education statute generally does not create a private damages action absent clear legislative intent; Delaware’s school bullying statute, 14 Del. C. § 4112D, was treated as a policy/administrative framework rather than a standalone civil damages vehicle.
- Delaware’s teen dating violence reporting requirement in 14 Del. C. § 4112(b)(3) was treated as an internal reporting directive and not as a source of private tort-style damages liability.
- Under Delaware law, gross negligence and wantonness require markedly more than poor judgment or ordinary negligence; documented, repeated responsive steps by school officials commonly defeat an inference of conscious disregard.

## Conclusion

The District of Delaware entered summary judgment for the high school, district, and board because, even viewing the record in plaintiffs’ favor, the school’s actions after receiving reports of G.R.’s conduct—separation efforts, discipline, and law-enforcement involvement—could not be found clearly unreasonable under Title IX, and Delaware’s bullying and teen dating violence provisions did not supply a private damages cause of action; the remaining state tort claim failed because the defendants’ conduct did not rise to gross or wanton negligence.


PK ex rel. Hassinger v. Caesar Rodney High School, 2012 WL 253439 (2012)