Patricia H. v. Berkeley Unified School District

Good Law
830 F. Supp. 1288·93 Daily Journal DAR 11727·1993 WL 313566·64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,061·1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12143
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 21, 1993C-92-2237 WHOCalifornia8,361 words

Opinion

Opinion

Orrick, J.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance____

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (a).

The major question raised by the cross-motions for summary judgment now before the Court is whether the mandate above quoted proscribes the maintenance of a sexually hostile educational environment in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. For the reasons herein stated, the Court holds that it does.

Plaintiffs also move for summary adjudication on the question of whether the administrative proceeding involving Charles Hamilton collaterally estops him from litigating in this forum his alleged molestation of Jackie H. For the reasons herein stated, the Court holds that it does.

I.

A

The Supreme Court has directed federal courts to interpret Title IX to give it “a sweep as broad as its language.” North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521 , 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1918 , 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982) (quoting United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787,…

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.