It is difficult to imagine how any school administrator could think he would not be liable for allowing unregulated religious and gender-based persecution that spanned a four-year period.The majority also held that defendants were not entitled to immunity on plaintiffs' state law claim that defendants were liable for negligence for making the deliberate decision not to enforce anti-bullying policies even though they knew of the bullying of their daughter, including a report that her name was on a "kill list."
All three judges agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs' substantive due process claim. saying that " it was not clearly established that school officials violate due process by failing to address student-on-student harassment."