Darsean Johnson
CAPS 408-Legal Aspects of Education
April 30, 2002

Lori Good brought a civil action on behalf of her son, Robert Warren, seeking damages under Title IX for sexual abuse he received at the hands of his fourth grade teacher in a school that is part of the Reading School District. She also sought damages against the principal, Dr. Geraldina Sepulveda, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury returned a verdict against the Reading School District under Title IX but found that Dr. Sepulveda was not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court refused to grant a defense motion for judgment as a matter or law or grant a new trial. The Reading School District appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded for a new trial on Warren's Title IX claims against Sepulveda.

Facts:

In April 1995, Robert Warren transferred to Tenth and Green Street Elementary School in the Reading School District. Soon after coming to the school, Warren was asked by his teacher, Harold Brown, to stay after school. Brown locked the classroom door and introduced Warren to a game called "shoulders" in which the back of Warren's head and neck rubbed against Brown's genitals. Brown rewarded Warren with money and candy. Brown continued to play shoulders with Warren at least twice a week for the remainder of the school year. He once picked Warren up from home and took him to a secluded spot in the woods to play this game.

In November 1995, Warren's mother, Lori Good, read an entry from her son's diary in which he described playing "shoulders" with Brown. Good reported Brown to the Berks County Children and Youth Services. This agency reported Brown to the school district. Brown was immediately suspended and ultimately resigned. Criminal action was also taken against Brown.

Carlos Mercado, the father of a former student of Brown's, testified that he tried to talk to Dr. Sepulveda about Brown engaging in inappropriate activities with his son. The principal did not talk to Mercado but referred him to Mr. Vecchio who is a guidance counselor. Mr. Vecchio stated that he would get back to Mercado but never did. This occurred in either 1992 or 1993.

Issues:

Title IX states:

No person. . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that liability in damages could not attach under Title IX unless an "appropriate person" had actual notice of the conduct that the liability was premised upon. An "appropriate person" is defined as an official of the recipient entity with authority to take corrective action to end discrimination. The plaintiff must then prove that the "appropriate person" acted with deliberate indifference.

The defendant claims that the district court erred in not instructing the jury that Vecchio could not be considered an "appropriate person" under Title IX. The court of Appeals decided that Vecchio could not by law be considered an appropriate person. The jury was instructed to decide whether an "appropriate person" acted with "deliberate indifference." In the original trial, the defense made a motion that the jury be instructed not to consider Mr. Vecchio an "appropriate person" as a matter of law. The judge denied this motion and ruled that it was up to the jury to decide whether Mr. Vecchio was an "appropriate person. The court of appeals ruled that Mr. Vecchio could not lawfully be considered an appropriate person. As a guidance counselor he had no authority to act in this situation. The fact that Dr. Sepulveda referred the problem to him did not make him an appropriate person. The court agreed that the actions of Dr. Sepulveda alone were grounds for damages under Title IX. However the case was remanded back to the district court to be tried again because it was unclear whether the jury's decision was based on the actions of Dr. Sepulveda or those of Mr. Vecchio. This time around the only person who can be considered an "appropriate person" is Dr. Sepulveda. The jury must then decide if she acted with "deliberate indifference."