.
The claim of peer-to-peer sexual harassment brought by Margie's mother against the school district means that three issues or elements are at stake in this scenario. The three elements or issues that the victim must successfully demonstrate to show that the school board is liable for peer-to-peer sexual harassment damages in this scenario are enumerated in the following list:
1. The sexual harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived Margie of access to the educational opportunities and benefits offered by the school;
2. The school had actual knowledge of the repeated and ongoing sexual harassment that Margie was enduring; and
3. The school demonstrated deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment endured by Margie, taking no discipline to involve the male students involved in the harassment.
In its Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education decision, a sharply divided Supreme Court settled the dispute between circuit courts over the liability of public school districts for money damages under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. With respect to the issue here, Title IX (1972) provides: "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 educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (20 U.S.C. 1681(a)).
Since the ruling in Davis v. Monroe, School boards can now be held liable when school officials show "deliberate indifference" to student-to-student sexual harassment in school (Davis, 1999). Other courts have gone so far as to rule that a "single occurrence" of student-to-student harassment may give rise to the finding of a "hostile environment" under Title IX (Vance, 2000; Doe, 1999). In Gebser v. Lago Vista Ind. School District (1998), the Supreme Court ruled: "Wh...