By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 10, 2012//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 10, 2012//
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Civil
Civil Rights — public schools — sexual harassment
Where neither the school principal nor the superintendent knew about a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student, the school district is not liable.
“What the principal and the superintendent knew was that Sweet’s colleagues, in particular Gridley, suspected an improper relationship between Sweet and the plaintiff. But to know that someone suspects something is not to know the something and does not mean the something is obvious. The plaintiff unwittingly concedes this in his reply brief when he states that ‘Gridley’s and the other Teachers’ reports of an inappropriate romantic relationship between Sweet and NR Doe, including Sweet’s reciprocation of NR Doe’s crush, and of their concern for NR Doe, was sufficient to put the School District on notice of misconduct suggesting sexual harassment.’ The term we’ve italicized denotes merely knowledge that would cause a reasonable person to investigate further. It is what in securities law is called ‘inquiry notice.’ Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 130 S. Ct. 1784, 1797-98 (2010); McCann v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 663 F.3d 926, 929-30 (7th Cir. 2011); City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. MBIA, Inc., 637 F.3d 169, 173-74 (2d Cir. 2011). It falls well short of recklessness in either the civil-law or the criminal-law sense.”
Affirmed.
12-1039 Doe v. St. Francis School District
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Posner, J.