Case Document 209 Filed 07/01/10 Page 20 of 31

social status or structure in schools. For good or bad, in the Hudson Area Schools, like many
schools, that means the successful athletes (jocks) are at the top level of social status structure and
the scholars are at a lower social status level. Title IX does not, however, protect students against
being teased or harassed because of their social status; it only protects against harassment or
discrimination on the basis of sex.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the harassment to which Plaintiff
was subjected in sixth, seventh and ninth grade constituted bullying, not sexual harassment. As Title
IX protects only harassment or discrimination based on sex, the Court ?nds that Plaintiff?s cause of
action must be dismissed as a matter of law.11
B. No Deliberate Indifference

Assuming, for purposes of this section of this Opinion and Order only, the other elements
of Plaintiff? 5 Title IX claim have been satis?ed, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, Defendant
was not deliberately indifferent.

A federal assistance ?recipient is liable for damages only where the recipient itself
intentionally acted in clear violation of Title IX by remaining deliberately indifferent to known acts
of harassment.? Vance, 231 F.3d at 259-60 (citing Davis, 526 U.S. at 642). More speci?cally, ?the
Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff may demonstrate defendant?s deliberate indifference ?only
where the recipient?s response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of
the known circumstances.? Vance, 231 F.3d at 260 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648). The Vance

court continued:

 

11The Court also concludes that, to the extent that there was any actionable Title IX harassment, such
harassment was not ?so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to deprive [Plaintiff] of
access to the educational opportunities or bene?ts provided by [Defendant].?

20