United States Eighth Circuit

In a battery and discrimination action brought by a student, district court's judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in ruling for defendant on plaintiff's claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as the record does not establish that the counselor or the teachers were vested with the authority to address the alleged discrimination and take corrective action; 2) the in-house school administration was not the final policymaking body under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, and the school board or superintendent did not have knowledge of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct at the school; 3) plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact as to whether the school district failed to train its employees to prevent or report sexual harassment; and 4) there was sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant was not vicariously liable for the teachers's battery as the actions were outside the scope of his employment.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/12/2009
• Published 05/12/2009

Judges

• MELLOY, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard D. Casey, argued, Sioux Falls, SD (Ryland Deinert and Dana Van Beek Palmer, on the brief), for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Naomi R. Cromwell, argued, Pierre, SD (Michael F. Tobin, Paul W. Tschetter, on the brief, Sioux Falls, SD, Naomi R. Cromwell, on the brief, Pierre, SD), for Appellee.