Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
324 F.3d 1130 (2003)
A group of students (plaintiffs) who were, or were perceived to be, lesbian, gay, or bisexual attended the Morgan Hill Unified School District (the district) (defendant) between 1991 and 1998. Two of the plaintiffs were assaulted by a group of students while the attacking students shouted anti-gay slurs. The incident was reported to Assistant Principal Maxine Bartschi (defendant), who only told the plaintiffs to report the incident to a campus police officer. Two of the plaintiffs were handed a pornographic image by a student and reported the incident to Principal Bob Davis (defendant). Davis only disciplined one student, even though several students were involved. The disciplined student bragged that his punishment was light, and the harassment continued. Davis did not take any further action. Two of the plaintiffs were harassed by a group of students and a campus monitor. The incident was reported to Assistant Principal Rick Gaston. Gaston did not take any steps to investigate or stop the harassment. One of the plaintiffs was beaten by six students, which caused the plaintiff to be hospitalized. The incident was reported to Principal Don Schaefer (defendant) and Assistant Principal Frank Nucci (defendant). Only one of the six students was disciplined. One of the plaintiffs found pornographic images and threatening notes in her locker. These messages were reported to Assistant Principal Delia Schizzano, who failed to take action other than telling the plaintiff not to bring her any other pornographic images. The district had a policy that prohibited harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. The training provided by the district on the policy was limited and did not cover harassment based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs sued the district, school board members, Bartschi, Davis, Gaston, Schaefer, Nucci, and Schizzano under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Schroeder, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.