T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School District

58 F. Supp. 3d 332 (2014)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School District

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
58 F. Supp. 3d 332 (2014)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

Five Jewish students, including T.E., D.C., and O.C. (the students) (plaintiffs) brought Title VI, equal- protection, and state-law civil-rights claims against the Pine Bush Central School District (school district) and various administrators (collectively, PBCSD) (defendants), alleging anti-Semitic harassment. D.C. was enrolled in the school district from sixth through twelfth grade. D.C. alleged that he was physically and verbally threatened by other students, including being told he would be “burned in an oven”; saw swastikas everywhere and reported them to teachers; heard students singing a derogatory “white power song” in the cafeteria and on the school bus; was called names such as “dirty Jew” and “Jew faggot;” was told he was “just ashes”; saw students perform “Hitler salutes”; and saw and reported swastikas in textbooks. D.C.’s father allegedly reported to the middle-school principal that a girl yelled “f’ing Jew” on the bus, D.C. was being harassed and hearing Jewish jokes on the bus, and the problem was “systemic.” The complaint alleged that the principal did not follow up to address anti-Semitism in the school, the harassment led D.C. to contemplate suicide, D.C. believed that the school district was apathetic and he was fighting a losing battle, and T.E. and O.C. experienced similar harassment. PBCSD moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that (1) the students could not bring a Title VI claim on grounds of deliberate indifference to anti-Semitic harassment because no caselaw held that discrimination claims based on a plaintiff’s identification as Jewish came within Title VI’s protection and (2) a reasonable jury could not find that the school officials responded with the deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment required to establish a violation of the right to equal protection.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Karas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership