Category: Chapters

Posted on

Foster v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan, No. 19-1314 (6th Cir. 2020)

Foster v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan

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.

Posted on

Legal Limbo of The Student Intern: The Responsibility of Colleges and Universities to Protect Student Interns Against Sexual Harassment

Cynthia Grant Bowman & MaryBeth Lipp, Legal Limbo of The Student Intern: The Responsibility of Colleges and Universities to Protect Student Interns Against Sexual Harassment, 23 Harv. Women’s L.J. 95 (2000).

“Professors Cynthia Grant Bowman and MaryBeth Lipp explore how some student interns may fall through the gaps between Title VII and Title IX. They demonstrate that under current law, no one may be held liable for the sexual harassment of unpaid student interns. They emphasize, however, that Title IX should address this problem.”

Posted on

Nan Stein, Sexual Harassment Left Behind: What the Bullying Framework Is Doing to Civil Rights Laws and Framework (Audiocast)

Nan Stein, Sexual Harassment Left Behind: What the Bullying Framework, Wellesley Centers for Women lunchtime Seminar Series, Nov. 4, 2010.

“In this presentation, Senior Research Scientist Nan Stein, Ed.D., will discuss three main points related to the use of the label “bullying” in schools: the term “bullying” is imprecise and vague, and used as a default, a crutch, and a place holder; there is no agreement on the definition of “bullying,” and neither state laws nor researchers can agree on a common definition; and claims of effectiveness of classroom interventions/curriculum on bullying reduction are often inflated, exaggerated, and self-serving, and should be met with skepticism.”

Posted on

Deborah L. Brake, School Liability for Peer Harassment After Davis: Shifting From Intent to Causation in Discrimination Law

Deborah L. Brake, School Liability for Peer Harassment After Davis: Shifting From Intent to Causation in Discrimination Law, 12 Hastings Women’s L.J. 5 (2001). 

“This essay seeks to explain the Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education case as an interpretation of discrimination that notably and correctly focuses on how institutions cause sex-based harm, rather than on whether officials within chose institutions act with a discriminatory intent. In the process, I discuss what appears to be the implicit theory of discrimination underlying the Davis decision: that schools cause the discrimination by exacerbating the harm that results from sexual harassment by students. I then explore the significance of the deliberate indifference requirement in this context, concluding that the standard, for all its flaws, is distinct from and superior to a search for discriminatory intent. The final section offers a brief analysis of what Davis could mean for discrimination law more broadly if courts seriously applied the insights embedded in the Davis case.”