In Harris v. General Brown Central School District, (ND NY, Nov. 19, 2926), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims under 42 USC §1983 brought against a school district by parents as guardians of their son, a junior-high-school student, who suffered extensive antisemitic bullying and harassment by fellow classmates. Plaintiffs claim that school administrators took no steps to prevent the bullying. The court said in part:
Plaintiffs allege that C.H. suffered a physical assault by a student who called him a “fucking Jew,” stated “he wanted to put C.H. in an oven,” and proceeded to send him images of Hitler, Nazi flags, and the Star of David.... Students later told C.H. that “being Jewish is a disgrace to society,”...; that “Hitler should have been successful,” ...; and used antisemitic slurs in reference to C.H. ... The comments directed at C.H. frequently referenced violence and included “deplorable insults about the Holocaust, one of the worst tragedies in history and an understandable area of sensitivity for the Jewish community in particular.”...
Plaintiffs also assert that supervisory personnel such as Principal Ramie and Assistant Principal Folino “were aware of the ongoing harassment but continually failed to take appropriate action to stop it.” ... Assistant Principal Folino referred to a student’s statement that “Hitler should have been successful” as mere “rude comments,” and administrators did not take any steps to enforce their antidiscrimination policies following the incident.
Defendants argue the incidents alleged by Plaintiffs are too “sporadic[]” to support a widespread and persistent practice theory. ... However, ... the allegations plausibly show a pattern of persistent failures by school officials to respond to antisemitic harassment... Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants failed to discipline students involved in antisemitic incidents despite the Harrises’ repeated complaints is sufficient to allege a widespread practice from which officials’ constructive acquiescence to the conduct can be inferred....
... [T]he Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for municipal liability under the third Monell theory....
The court however dismissed Title VI claims by the parents on their own behalf because they had alleged only violations of their son's rights and not violations of their own rights.
