Title IX Claim For Damages Against School District For Teacher's Misconduct Requires Proof of Actual Notice of and Deliberate Indifference to Misconduct
HANSEN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES (December 23, 2008)
Hamilton Southeastern High School (“HSHS”) hired Dmitri Alano as a teacher and assistant band director in 1988. Prior to his hiring, the Hamilton Southeastern School Corporation (“HSSC”) conducted its normal pre-hire process, which included an application and questionnaire, interviews, reference checks, and license and background checks. Alano began a sexual relationship with a student in 2000. The student concealed the relationship from her family and friends. A couple of years after the relationship ended, the student revealed the relationship to her therapist. Her parents and the police were informed. HSHS suspended Alano; he ultimately resigned. The student’s parents (the Hansens) brought federal claims under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims against Alano and HSSC. The court granted summary judgment on two of the seven counts with respect to Alano. The court granted summary judgment on all seven counts with respect to HSSC and entered a Rule 54 (b) final judgment. The Hansens appeal the dismissal of the Title IX claim and the state law claims.
In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the Title IX claim. In order for the Hansens to establish a Title IX claim against HSSC for Alano’s conduct, it must prove that an official with authority to adopt corrective measures either had actual knowledge of the teacher’s misconduct or was deliberately indifferent. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish that any HSSC official had such knowledge. The Court next rejected the Hansens’ claim that the district court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims once it had dismissed the federal claims. The Court found that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction in the first place – the claims are all based on a common set of facts. The court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) was never triggered since it maintained jurisdiction over the federal claim against Alano. Even if it had, the lower court considered a balance of the proper factors (judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity).
The Court considered the state law claims in two categories: direct claims against HSSC for its own negligence and respondeat superior claims under which HSSC could be responsible for Alano’s conduct. On the former, the Court noted that Indiana does recognize a cause of action for the negligent hiring, supervision or retention of an employee. Although the Court noted the confusion over whether Indiana applies an “actual knowledge” or a “knew or should have known” standard, it did not matter. Hansen failed to satisfy even the lesser standard. On the respondeat superior claims, the Court stated that HSSC would be responsible for the tortious acts of Alano if they were committed within the scope of his employment. Indiana courts have held that an employee’s sexual misconduct is within the scope of his employment only when the employment itself involves extensive physical contact. Alano’s duties did not involve any physical contact. The respondeat superior claims must fail as well. Finally, the Court held that Indiana does not recognize a non-delegable duty for the safekeeping of its students.
