Doe

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

Good Law
830 F. Supp. 1560·1993 WL 359872·64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,082·1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12769
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1993C-93-0123 EFLCalifornia12,119 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lynch, J.

ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jane Doe has filed suit concerning defendants’ alleged failure to put an end to sexual harassment inflicted on her by her peers while she was a student at Kenilworth Junior High School. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is before the court. For the reasons stated below, the court holds:

(1) The motion to dismiss because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations is DENIED.

(2) The motion to dismiss the Title IX claim is GRANTED (with leave to amend). The court finds that hostile environment sexual harassment claims may be brought under Title IX. To obtain damages, however, the plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination on the basis of sex on the part of an employee of the educational institution, not just that an employee or employees of the institution knew or should have known of the hostile environment and failed to take appropriate action to end it.

(3) The motion to dismiss the Title IX claim against the individual defendants (Homrighouse and Cleclak) is GRANTED (with prejudice) because Title IX makes institutions, not individuals, liable.

(4) The motion to dismiss the section 1983 claim against…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.