On November 1, 2024, the Second Circuit published an opinion that powerfully vindicates the rights of male respondents in school Title IX proceedings. Reversing the district court’s order granting a school district’s motion to dismiss, the Court held that the plaintiff’s allegations “indicate that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the truth or falsity of the accusations against [plaintiff] because its investigation was so deficient as to constitute a sham, which rendered its decision inexplicable,” and that “the school district affirmatively discriminated on the basis of sex because the Title IX coordinator exhibited sex-based bias against [plaintiff].” Among other things, the Court reaffirmed its prior rulings that false accusations of sexual harassment qualify as sex discrimination. It also rejected a justification schools frequently offer, and courts all too frequently accept – that a school was simply biased in favor of purported victims, not biased based on sex. According to the Court, this argument is effectively an admission that the school is not impartial and does not honor the required presumption of innocence. “Even assuming that an ‘anti-respondent bias’ can be distinguished from an ‘anti-male bias’ here [an assumption which the judge writing the opinion has refuted], the presence of such a bias would represent a serious procedural irregularity—and it would suggest that the recipient was deliberately indifferent to the truth or falsity of the accusation it was purportedly investigating.” Schiebel v. Schoharie Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 23-1080, 2024 WL 4644958 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2024).
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.