Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Students who allege to be victims of peer-inflicted sexual harassment have increasingly relied on the “special relationship” doctrine to attempt to hold school officials individually liable under federal constitutional law for failing to protect students from peer harassment. Applied to schools, student plaintiffs generally argue that compulsory attendance laws create a “special relationship” between students and school officials, thereby placing on school officials an affirmative duty to protect students from harassment as a violation of students’ due process rights under the federal constitution.

Primarily through the review of case law, this doctrine is examined as it applies to school officials’ duty to protect students from peer sexual harassment. This examination determined that the special relationship claim has been and will likely continue to be an ineffective avenue for students to redress peer sexual harassment claims; however, due to other legal developments briefly mentioned, school officials are advised not to disregard peer harassment claims.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

, and Alexander

M. D.

1992. American Public School Law 3rd Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Anderson v. Creighton, 107 S.Ct. 3034 (1987).

Aurelia D. v. Monroe Count Board of Education, 862 F. Supp. 363 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. §1983 (West 1981).

Curcio

J. L.

1995. “If Money Talks, Will School Officials Listen?: Exploring the Potential Costs of Sexual Harassment Violations for Noncompliance.” Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Williamsburg, VA.

Davis v. Monroe Count Board of Education, 74 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1996).

D. R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational School District, 972 F.2d 1364 (3rd Cir. 1992) cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1045 (1993).

DeShane v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989).

Discrimination Based on Sex or Blindness, 20 U.S.C.A. §1681(a) (1988).

10.

Doe v. Petaluma City School District (I), 830 F. Supp. 1560 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

11.

Doe v. Petaluma City School District a (II), 54 F. 3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1995).

12.

Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 649 F. 2d 134 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 195 (1983).

13.

Doe v. Taylor ISD, 15 F. 3d 442 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, Lankford v. Doe, 115 S. Ct. 70 (1994).

14.

Dorothy J. v. Little Rock School District, 7 F. 3d 729 (8th Cir. 1993).

15.

Esmeralda v. Partin, 864 F. Supp. 626 (S.D. Tex. 1994).

16.

Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976).

17.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 112 S. Ct. 10287 (1992).

18.

Graham v. Independent School District No I-89, 22 F. 3d 991 (10th Cir. 1994).

19.

Griffith v. Johnston, 899 F.2d 1427 (5th Cir. 1990).

20.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982).

21.

J.O. v. Alton Community Unit School District, 909 F. 2d 267 (7th Cir. 1990).

22.

Johnson v. Dallas Independent School District, 38 F. 3d 198 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1361 (1995).

23.

Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F. 3d 521 (5th Cir. 1994).

24.

Leon

S. H.

, and Mendez

1994. Investigating and Resolving Sexual Abuse and Harassment Claims in Schools. Paper presented at The Meeting of The Educational Law Association of St. Mary's University School of Law Issues in Education IV, San Antonio, TX, November.

25.

Maldonado v. Josey, 975 F. 2d 727 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1266 (1993).

26.

Mennone v. Gordon, 88 F. Supp. 53 (D. Conn. 1995).

27.

Nolan

J. R.

, and Nolan-Haley

J. M.

1990. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

28.

Pagano v. Massapegua Public Schools, 714 F. Supp. 641 (E.D.N.Y. 1989).

29.

Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 106 S. Ct. 1292 (1986).

30.

Prosser

W. L.

, and Keeton

W. P.

1984. Handbook of the Law of Torts 5th Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

31.

Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, Dkt. No. H–93-3578 (S.D. Tex. 1994). (unpublished decision).

32.

Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School District, 1996 WL 153985 (5th Cir. Tex.).

33.

Russell by Russell v. Fannin County School District, 784 F. Supp. 1576 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

34.

Schulze

E. W.

1994. “The Scope of a School Administrator's Personal Liability When a Student is Sexually Abused by a Subordinate Employee,” Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest, 10: 1–7, 21.

35.

Sorenson

1994. “Peer Sexual Harassment: Remedies and Guidelines Under Federal Law,” Education Law Reporter, 92 Ed. Law. Rep. 1, September 8.

36.

Spivey v. Elliot (I), 29 F. 3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1994).

37.

Spivey v. Elliot (II), 41 F. 3d 1497 (11th Cir. 1995).

38.

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District, 882 F. 2d 1989 (3rd Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 840 (1990).

39.

Taylor by and through Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F. 2d 791 (11th Cir. 1987).

40.

Thompson

D. P.

1995. “Effectively Addressing Student Peer Sexual Harassment,” American Secondary Education, 23(4).

41.

U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 8.

42.

U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 14.

43.

Walton v. Alexander (I), 20 F.3d 1350 (5th Cir. 1994).

44.

Walton v. Alexander (II), 44 F 3d 1297 (5th Cir. 1995).

45.

Young v. Austin Independent School District, 885 F. Supp. 972 (W.D. Tex. 1995).

46.

Youngberg v. Romeo, 102 S. Ct. 2452 (1982).

The “Special Relationship” Doctrine and School Officials’ Duty to Protect Students from Peer Sexual Harassment

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References