Federal court upholds $1 million race discrimination award |
On Board Online • December 17, 2012
By Pilar Sokol
Deputy General Counsel
A federal appellate court with jurisdiction over New York has upheld a $1 million award against a school district after determining that a jury reasonably found the district did not sufficiently address racial harassment targeted against a high school student by other students.
Anthony Zeno, who is of mixed racial background, was subjected to numerous incidents of verbal and physical harassment based on his race during a period of three and a half years. In Zeno v. Pine Plains CSD, he sued the district under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act claiming that the district discriminated against him by being deliberately indifferent to the harassment.
NYSSBA submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit not to expand the scope of school liability beyond the parameters of current U.S. Supreme Court standards. Although ruling against the district, the Second Circuit relied on that precedent, further explaining what kinds of acts and omissions can trigger liability.
Title VI prohibits intentional acts of discrimination that are based on race, color or national origin. New York school districts may be held liable for such discrimination if they are deliberately indifferent to the unlawful harassment of students by other students.
A finding of deliberate indifference generally depends on:
- whether a district has substantial control over the harasser and the context in which the harassment occurs,
- the severity, pervasiveness, objective offensiveness of the harassment and its discriminatory effect,
- whether the district had actual knowledge of the harassment, and
- the adequacy of its response to the harassment in light of the known circumstances.
As reported in the decision, the harassment activities at issue in Zeno took place on school grounds during school hours and the district had disciplinary oversight of the harassers. In addition, Zeno was “taunted, harassed, menaced, and physically assaulted” by other students during a prolonged period of time. Staff (including the school superintendent, school principal, teachers, and the director of special education who was also the school officer charged with investigating Title VI complaints) were aware of the ongoing harassment. In addition, the district had been contacted regarding the situation not only by Zeno’s attorney, but by the county Human Rights Commission (HRC), and the NAACP. According to the decision, during his senior year, Zeno elected to accept an individualized education program (IEP) diploma to avoid further harassment, rather than stay in school and work towards completing the requirements for a Regents diploma.
Prompt disciplinary responses generally preclude a finding of deliberate indifference, and in Zeno, the district promptly disciplined individual harassers as incidents occurred. In addition, the district also undertook non-disciplinary efforts such as training for students and staff. However, the district’s actions were insufficient to stem the harassment. Moreover, according to the Second Circuit, the district “ignored the many signals that greater, more directed action was needed.” For example:
- The discipline of individual harassers did not stop others from engaging in similar activities.
- The harassment grew increasingly severe over the years.
- The county HRC and the NAACP offered to provide a free shadow for Zeno during the school day and a free racial sensitivity training series. (Zeno’s own attorney had made a similar recommendation.)
Furthermore, the district knew the harassment was targeted at race and color. Nonetheless, it did not offer its first bias-specific training until almost 21 months after the start of the harassment, and attendance was optional.
In its decision, the Second Circuit acknowledged that courts must “accord sufficient deference to the decisions of school disciplinarians” and that “victims do not have a right to specific remedial measures.” However, the sufficiency of a school district’s response to student on student harassment “must be considered ‘in light of the known circumstances,’…and as the ‘known circumstances’ change, the sufficiency of a response may also have to evolve.”
The Second Circuit explained that the adequacy of a school district’s response does not depend on the actual elimination of harassment. To be deemed adequate, a district’s response must be “reasonably calculated” to end the harassment. In the Zeno case, the court determined that the district’s actions “could not have plausibly changed” the school’s culture of bias nor stopped the harassment.
Finally, the Second Circuit explained that discrimination in an educational setting under Title VI includes not only “being excluded from, or denied the benefits of, a particular school program” but also restrictions “in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service…or other [school] benefit,” including an “academic environment free from racial hostility.” Given the facts in the case, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that Zeno was deprived of a supportive school environment free of racism and harassment, and the ability to complete his education.
Regarding the award of $1 million in damages against the district, the Second Circuit rejected the argument that it exceeded other awards and shocks the conscience. According to the court, the award was within the range of permissible decisions.