A female student in state university’s off-site executive Master of Business Administration (MBA) program brought action against university, its board of regents, and its dean, alleging that a male student sexually harassed plaintiff, and asserting Title IX claim for gender-based discrimination arising from deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff appealed. Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded.
In this 3rd Circuit decision, the court concludes that an employee may litigate a Title IX discrimination claim independent of or concurrent with a Title VII claim.
Plaintiff interning with Rockland hospital as a student a Maymount College could not succeed under Title VII claim nor a Title IX claim because she was not considered an “employee” and because Rockland was not considered an “education institution.”
In this 7th Circuit decision, the court found that the student plaintiff “must prove actual knowledge of misconduct, not just actual knowledge of the risk of misconduct, and must also prove that the officials having that knowledge decided not to act on it.”
Ruling that “to constitute sexual harassment, the behavior in question must be unwelcome.”
Rejecting the OCR guidance as unworkable.
Holding that for Title Vii cases, the age of consent should determine whether a minor has to show unwelcomeness to prove sexual harassment.
At issue in this case are the two elements of the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense that Susquehanna County raised. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, holding that the elements of this defense had been proven as a matter of law. The Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court, holding that the elements of the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense should be decided by a jury.
The First Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals discusses the affirmative defense available to employers when the harassment is by the plaintiff’s supervisor.