On May 2, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a pivotal decision in Doe v. Nash County Board of Education, providing critical clarification on the scope of institutional liability under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The ruling addresses the standards of actual notice and deliberate indifference for claims involving teacher-on-student sexual misconduct, along with related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the North Carolina Constitution. The decision represents a significant development in the evolving jurisprudence of sexual harassment in educational settings, emphasizing the responsibilities of school officials and the procedural hurdles plaintiffs must overcome to state viable federal and state claims.
John Doe, a minor student, alleged he was sexually harassed by his teacher, Mr. Johnson, during the 2022–2023 academic year. According to the complaint, Doe’s mother raised early concerns about Johnson’s inappropriate behavior to numerous school staff and boar members, including then-current Principal Daniel Colvin. These issues included sexually explicit messages that Johnson sent Doe over text and social media as well as at least one instance where Johnson offered Doe money for oral sex and touched Doe in numerous places. She later escalated her concerns to Board Superintendent Steven Ellis. Despite these warnings, the school failed to investigate adequately or restrict Johnson’s access to Doe.
Rather than removing Johnson or initiating a formal investigation, the school district transferred Doe to another school where he was taught by Johnson’s wife. This transfer occurred without any protective measures or transparency. The Board did not suspend Johnson until the Spring of 2023 after law enforcement became involved. Doe alleges that this inaction allowed the harassment to continue and constituted a failure to uphold the school’s duty to protect its students under Title IX and other legal frameworks. The suit brought multiple claims: Title IX sex discrimination and retaliation against the Board, supervisory liability under §1983 against Colvin and Ellis, and a state constitutional claim for violation of Doe’s right to education.
Title IX Framework and the Court’s Ruling
Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Courts have recognized that sexual harassment, including teacher-on-student misconduct, can constitute such discrimination. However, under Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., a school district is only liable if a school official with authority to address the discrimination has actual knowledge of the harassment and responds with deliberate indifference.
Here, the court determined that Doe sufficiently alleged that both Colvin and Ellis were “appropriate persons” under Gebser. They were both officials with the authority to take corrective action. The complaint recited specific instances where Doe’s mother alerted Colvin and Ellis about the conduct, including emails and in-person meetings. These allegations, if true, met the threshold for actual knowledge.
Moreover, the court found that the district’s response, or lack thereof, could plausibly amount to deliberate indifference. Despite having notice, the school permitted Johnson to continue interacting with Doe, failed to conduct a timely investigation, and ultimately transferred Doe without addressing the underlying allegations. The court concluded that these allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff at the motion-to-dismiss stage, stated a viable Title IX sex discrimination claim.
Doe also asserted a Title IX retaliation claim, alleging that the school retaliated against him by ostracizing him, limiting academic support, and isolating him from peers after his mother reported the misconduct. Retaliation claims under Title IX require the plaintiff to show: (1) engagement in protected activity, (2) adverse action, and (3) a causal link between the two.
The court dismissed the claim, primarily on standing grounds. It held that Doe himself had not engaged in a protected activity, his mother did. The court reaffirmed the principle that third-party retaliation claims under Title IX are generally disallowed unless the individual asserting the claim personally engaged in protected conduct. The court also noted that the complaint failed to identify a materially adverse action taken by the school in response to the report, as opposed to general social or academic consequences not directly traceable to school policy or conduct.
This dismissal aligns with other federal court decisions narrowly construing Title IX’s retaliation protections and highlights a limitation for minor students who rely on parental advocacy.
Section 1983 Claims and Supervisory Liability
Doe’s claims under §1983 alleged that Colvin and Ellis, in their supervisory roles, were deliberately indifferent to constitutional violations arising from Johnson’s conduct. Specifically, Doe contended that the administrators had a duty to prevent the teacher’s misconduct and failed to intervene, thereby violating his right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court applied the supervisory liability standard articulated in Shaw v. Stroud, which requires (1) actual or constructive knowledge that subordinates were engaged in pervasive misconduct, (2) a response amounting to deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, and (3) an affirmative causal link between the supervisor’s inaction and the constitutional injury.
The court held that the allegations were insufficient to establish supervisory liability. It found no factual basis to infer a pattern of prior misconduct by Johnson that would have alerted Colvin or Ellis to a pervasive risk. Absent such a pattern or history, the isolated incident, even if egregious, was not enough to satisfy the Shaw standard.
This aspect of the decision reinforces the difficulty plaintiffs face in asserting § 1983 supervisory claims absent a documented history of complaints or misconduct that supervisors ignored.
State Constitutional Claim: A Limited Path Forward
Finally, Doe asserted a claim under Article I, Section 15 of the North Carolina Constitution, which guarantees the right to a public education. The court permitted this claim to proceed against the Board of Education, recognizing that direct state constitutional claims may lie when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court cited Corum v. University of North Carolina, in support of this exception to sovereign immunity.
Since Doe had no available state law tort claim due to governmental immunity and no statutory remedy for violation of the constitutional right to education, the court allowed the constitutional claim to move forward. However, claims against Johnson in his individual capacity were dismissed, as the North Carolina Constitution does not authorize personal liability for such violations.
This holding underscores a narrow but important avenue for students in North Carolina to seek redress for constitutional harms when traditional tort claims are procedurally barred.
The Doe decision serves as a compelling reminder of the obligations school districts face under federal and state law when addressing allegations of sexual harassment. While Title IX does not impose strict liability for the misconduct of employees, once officials with authority are put on notice, they are constitutionally and statutorily bound to act. The court’s refusal to dismiss the Title IX discrimination claim signals a growing judicial awareness of institutional failures in responding to student safety concerns.
The decision also illuminates legal gaps in protecting minor students from retaliation and in holding individual administrators accountable under §1983. Although the court emphasized procedural and doctrinal barriers, the underlying facts, if substantiated, paint a picture of systemic neglect. The continued viability of the state constitutional claim may provide some measure of accountability and potentially catalyze broader reform.
For school districts, this case is a cautionary tale: institutional complacency in the face of sexual misconduct allegations may not only expose the district to litigation but also perpetuate harm. Effective Title IX compliance demands proactive investigation, clear documentation, and a willingness to remove potentially dangerous individuals from student-facing roles pending inquiry.
The court’s decision in Doe v. Nash County Board of Education adds a significant chapter to the legal landscape of student protections under Title IX. It delineates the standards for institutional liability with precision, while simultaneously identifying the structural limitations of federal claims for retaliation and supervisory neglect. By preserving the plaintiff’s core claim and constitutional cause of action, the court has opened the door for further factual development and underscored the enduring need for vigilance in safeguarding students from abuse.
