Since the Davis ruling in 1999, the federal circuit courts have reviewed multiple peer sexual harassment cases. While not exactly the amount of litigation the dissent in Davis warned, there are enough cases to determine that the federal circuit courts of appeal are not entirely comfortable with the Davis standard. Although the federal circuit courts understand the general test set forth in Davis, they are struggling to define the vague terms within the Davis test. Accordingly, the courts have narrowly interpreted the Davis standard, aware of the unanswered questions. This conservative approach has resulted in very few winning student Title IX claims for student-on-student sexual harassment.
The federal circuit courts, while understanding the general Davis standard, still vary in their presentation of the essential elements of Davis liability. While some circuits focus primarily on the specifically numbered Davis elements--that Title IX liability requires that 1) the sexual harassment be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to deprive the plaintiff of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school; 2) the funding recipient had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment; and 3) the funding recipient was deliberately indifferent to the harassment n125--other circuits also include an element that the school district must have the power to exercise substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs. n126
However, how the federal circuits have defined each of these elements varies widely, with several circuits commenting on the lack of guidance in O'Connor's Davis opinion. n127 Consequently, the courts have been left to search in the...
... middle of paper ...
...rvised. n197 Although the victim's mother was assured care would be taken, "no steps were actually taken to minimize or stop the harassment. The specific request that Renee not be alone in the presence of Boy A was ignored. Arguably, these actions amounted to deliberate indifference to the concerns about harassment brought to Renee's teachers by her mother." n198
The two-step process used in Murrell and Vance is superior for defining the Davis deliberate indifference standard. Courts must ask whether any response was made following the initial complaint of sexual harassment, and whether that response was effective in deterring continued sexual harassment. Otherwise, useless remedial efforts, or efforts that come too late to protect a student from seriously debilitating acts of sexual harassment, become a loophole through which schools may escape Title IX liability.
Duke University, a female place kicker alleged sexual discrimination when she was not selected for Duke Universities football team, one of the contact sports in the Title IX regulations. Although no woman had ever participated on the team Duke University did not specifically say that football at the university was not a coed team (Stevens, 2004). North Carolina district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the “regulation did not contain an exception for any particular position that may not require physical contact” (Stevens, 2004). On Appeal, the fourth circuit court reviewed the “separate teams” subsection of Title IX and noted that Duke University had allowed this woman to tryout for coed sports team deeming her qualified to be a member of the team (Stevens, 2004). The verdict in this case is the first documented case awarding punitive damages in a Title IX athletics related case. Title IX’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against women in educational forums, but by institutions diminishing Title IX’s mandate, the commission is allowing and justifying the rationalization of on going discrimination against
Have you ever wondered what protects our right to an education free of sexual harassment and equal opportunity in school activities? Title IX does that.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Moran, 2014, p. 164). This helps ensure fair treatment to all workers. To ensure the safety of all workers, Title VII also protects against harassment, which includes quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment harassment, religious harassment, and racial harassment.
“Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding” (“History”, Part. 2). Title IX covers 10 different aspects of gender equality (“History” Par. 3 ). The different aspects are: Access to Higher Education, Career Education, Education for Pregnant and Parenting Students, Employment, Learning Environment, Math and Science, Standardized Testing and Technology, Sexual Harassment. One of the hardest areas to regulate is sexual harassment and assault because once it occurs there isn’t a lot you can do for the victim.
Juliano’s evaluation that equality has still not been achieved. The displaying of the effectiveness of Title IX in harassment cases also provided another avenue for Title IX analysis. Juliano’s law review provides a different and yet valid insight into the history of Title IX and its effect on the landscape of education, especially the sporting world. The major differences between these law reviews are explicitly why I chose them. Going forward, it is important to understand that there are large amounts of varying opinions on this issue and these are two excellent examples. My choice of these two law reviews displays the broad range of opinions on this topic and how much relevance it still carries in today’s athletic landscape.
This issue of Title IX affects our education system today because its rules are controversial as to what is really “equal.” For instance, if one particular sport at a university is extremely successful and is capable of supporting many other sports within the system, then, is it fair that that successful sports team should be penalized by limiting their funds? Should they have to support a team who has been added to the university to abide by Title IX rules, but are not making a profit? In the end, the ...
In this research paper, we will evaluate how sexual assault is handled on a college campus. What system is used and how does it
Laws have been created to help with sexual assault victims for example, Title IX however laws like these are not good enough to keep students protected; schools need additional policies put in place to help keep their students safe. In 1972 Title IX was passed which was a law that “requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding” (History). The law has ten areas in which it protects students and their access to higher education, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing and technology (History). When dealing with sexual harassment Title IX requires that schools immediately take action to eliminate sexual assault threats as soon as an incident is reported (studentaffaris). The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, or for short Clery Act is another law that is put in place to protect sexually assaulted victims. ...
When it comes to sexual assault on college campuses there is also the question of what can colleges do to decrease the amount of sexual assaults. Bradford Richardson and Jon A Shields wondered the same thing, so they conducted an ...
Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance. – From the preamble to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The actual Title IX document was based on 10 key areas: (1) access to higher education (2) employment, (3) athletics, (4) career education; (5) education for pregnant and parenting students, (6) employment learning environment, (7) math and science, (8) sexual harassment, (9) standardized testing and (10) technology (titleixinfo.com.2011). Title IX legislation has been subject to over 20 additional reviews and proposed amendment revisions due to the different interpretations and lifestyle changes that present themselves in their various court cases.
Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination that disregards Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Generally, "sexual harassment" depicts unwelcome sexual gestures, demands for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature. Title VII is an elected law that precludes discrimination in occupations on the premise of sex, race, color, national orgin, and religion, and it applies to businesses with 15 or more workers, including elected, state, and nearby governments.
I can’t imagine another act than Title VII that had such wide sweeping effects on how assessments are administered. Originally passed in 1964 after the horrors in Birmingham, AL, the statute was amended after the 1971 court case, Griggs v. Duke Power Company, and determined that African Americans were disproportionately discriminated against by requiring high school diplomas and passing grades on standardized tests for promotion. Rightly so, the Supreme Court sided with Griggs. The Act was again amended in 1978 and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and 1991 when it was amended to include jury trials for plaintiffs who sue over Title VII and, if successful, recover funds from the defendants (EEOC, 1999). Unfortunately, this will not stop all forms of discrimination, however, it does allow for employees to fight discrimination without
"Title IX and Sex Discrimination." U.S. Department of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Schoettle, F. P. (1971). The equal protection clause in public education. Columbia Law Review, 71(8), 1355-1419.
ANDERSON, MICHELLE J. "Campus Sexual Assault Adjudication and Resistance to Reform." Yale Law Journal 125.7 (2016):