The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling of summary judgment for a school district, which was sued by a cheerleader, who alleged that the school district was indifferent to the sexual harassment that was inflicted upon her.
For a number of reasons, most notably because the alleged harassment was “not severe, pervasive, or objectively unreasonable” the panel of judges ruled for the defendants.
Samantha Sanches was a student and cheerleader at Creekview High School in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District from 2005 to 2009. She alleged that during the spring of her junior year in 2008, she was sexually harassed by J.H., who was a Creekview senior and female cheerleader.
The friction between the two began in March 2008, when J.H. was suspended from cheerleading for one week for posting inappropriate Facebook photos. J.H. believed that Sanches’s mother, Liz Laningham, had turned over the photos to Creekview administrators, so J.H. threatened to get back at Sanches. On March 12, Laningham advised Cyndi Boyd, Creekview’s principal, about J.H.’s comments. Boyd directed Lisa Leadabrand, an assistant principal, to set up a conference with J.H. and her mother to discuss J.H.’s actions.
The same day that Laningham emailed Boyd and Leadabrand about J.H.’s threats. Laningham sent three additional emails—two of which are germane — describing what she characterized as violations of Sanches’s rights. The first email accused another senior cheerleader, K.O., of hazing because K.O. had read a letter to the cheer class that discussed her frustration with the team and some of the cheerleaders’ parents. Laningham thought the letter was directed at her as well as her daughter. The second email accused three senior cheerleaders—K.O., M.W., and J.H.—of hazing because they announced that they would make the 2008-09 cheerleader tryouts “as hard as possible so the juniors won’t make it.”
On March 26, J.H. saw Sanches walking down the hall with J.H.’s ex-boyfriend, C.P., and discovered that Sanches had been dating C.P. since spring break. J.H. was upset, and as she walked into the sixth period class she said loudly to her friends that Sanches was a “ho” and that she “would beat her ass if it weren’t for cheerleading,” according to the court. Sanches knew that J.H. was referring to her, and Sanches left sixth period class to call her mother. Laningham immediately contacted the administration, and within two hours Leadabrand assured Laningham that she was investigating the incident. Leadabrand interviewed and took statements from J.H., Sanches, two students who overheard the comments, and the sixth-period teacher. They gave conflicting accounts about what was said, but all agreed that there was visible tension between J.H. and Sanches. Leadabrand switched J.H. to a different sixth period class within five days.
Laningham was worried that the senior girls would try to sabotage her daughter’s bid in the upcoming cheerleader tryouts and she was upset at what she believed to be the administration’s alleged preferential treatment of the senior cheerleaders over Sanches. As a result, Laningham’s lawyer wrote a six-page letter to the superintendent, Annette Griffin, complaining of a range of activity.
Laningham asked for the following relief: (1) that the current junior cheerleaders, including Sanches, be permitted to skip tryouts and automatically be placed on the varsity squad; (2) that Boyd, Leadabrand, and McAtee “be held accountable for their actions and inaction;” and (3) legal costs. Laningham did not ask for any remedy for harassment, nor did she describe the “ho” incident as sexual harassment, noted the court.
While taking the “allegations seriously,” the district notified Laningham that the tryouts would proceed as scheduled. Nevertheless, the overall situation continued to deteriorate. Ultimately, nine of the ten varsity cheerleaders quit the team, and Sanches did not make the squad. Those who quit held Sanches and Laningham responsible for instigating the actions of the school, its administrators and the district that led to their decision to leave the squad. Thus, they verbally abused her.
Meanwhile, Laningham appealed the decision of her daughter not being selected for the squad. The district denied Laningham’s appeal, so Laningham appealed that the denial on July 4 to the district’s board of trustees.
“In her final grievance filing, Laningham made a larger issue of the alleged harassment than in her past filings,” wrote the court. “In the last paragraph, she asserted that the district had been indifferent to the ‘emotional distress and mental anguish our daughter continues to suffer’ and reasserted her concern that Sanches was not ‘provided a fair and equitable tryout.’ The Board denied Laningham’s final appeal.”
Sanches sued the district in September 2008, claiming it the district had violated Title IX “because it had been deliberately indifferent to her alleged harassment. She also claimed, under § 1983, that the district had violated the Equal Protection Clause by engaging in a policy or practice that caused others to harass her sexually. Finally, she claimed that the district retaliated against her in violation of Title IX and § 1983 for complaining about the harassment.”
The district court, in effect, granted the district summary judgment on only the harassment claims under Title IX and § 1983, but issued an amended opinion and order that also granted the district summary judgment on both retaliation claims. Sanches appealed the ruling.
The appellate court found that “the student’s claim under Title IX that the district was deliberately indifferent to her alleged harassment failed because (1) the supposed harassment was not based on sex, (2) the alleged harassment was not severe, pervasive, or objectively unreasonable, and (3) the district was not deliberately indifferent to the alleged harassment since the school’s investigations of the incidents led to conflicting statements from the girls, and administrators took precisely the action that the district’s harassment policy required.” Lashonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 143 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1999)
Samantha Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District; 5th Cir.; No. 10-10325, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14313; 7/13/2011
