— In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court ruled that a student alleging “repeated verbal harassment and physical assaults” by other students “during his time as a student” could “file an amended complaint” to proceed with his lawsuit. The court dismissed the lawsuit “with leave to amend,” after recommending to the student how best to revise his complaint. The recommendations pertained to the “Title IX deliberate indifference, Section 504, Section 1983 failure to protect, and Monell claims against the School District.” The student argued that he “repeatedly reported his concerns to school personnel but alleges that (school officials) failed to take effective correction action to protect him from continued harm.” The court provided a blueprint for filing a successful claim. As to Title IX deliberate indifference, the court states that “for a school district to be held liable for a claim of student-on-student sexual harassment under Title IX, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant receives federal funds; (2) sexual harassment occurred; (3) the harassment occurred under circumstances wherein the recipient exercised substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurred, (4) the funding recipient had ‘actual knowledge’ of the harassment; (5) the funding recipient was ‘deliberately indifferent’ to the harassment; and (6) the harassment was ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to have deprived the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” Going further with its Title IX advice to the student, the court noted that because “Title IX applies to institutions and programs that receive federal funds, it does not authorize suits against school officials, teachers, and other individuals.” As to Section 504, the court stated that after the student establishes that he had a disability, that he then “must also show intentional discrimination under a deliberate indifference standard if he seeks compensatory damages (in one of two ways) … First, by alleging facts suggesting that the existing policies caused a failure to adequately respond to a pattern of past occurrences of injuries like the plaintiffs, or, Second, by alleging facts indicating that she could prove that the risk of cognizable harm was so great and so obvious that the risk and the failure to respond will alone support finding deliberate indifference.” As to the Section 1983 Failure to Protect Claim, the court advised the student that he must allege “affirmative acts by the Defendants or school administrators (that) created a danger to him or rendered him more vulnerable to danger than if they had not acted at all.” As to the Monell claim, the court explained that the student “must allege that the defendant’s policies or customs caused the alleged constitutional violation (of his rights).” The student must specify the constitutional right and “specify what exactly that custom or policy was” to satisfy the pleading standard.” Therefore, the court agreed to “permit (the student) to file an amended complaint.” Harshaw v. School District of Philadelphia
— In Texas, officials in the Willis, Texas ISD are increasing campus security by installing “metal detectors, after multiple firearm-related incidents in the past year.”
— In Pennsylvania, “the Harrisburg School Board is asking administrators to provide an overall security plan for the district,” before agreeing to give “authority to arrest and detain students for criminal misconduct in school buildings…to the district’s current director of safety and security, a district police officer.”
— Nationally, “U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Chris Murphy have re-introduced the Protecting Our Students in Schools Act to ban corporal punishment in federally funded schools and provide grants for safer learning environments.”