Last week, lawyers for Davis and the school board argued their case before the Supreme Court. The board has said that Davis’s complaints were addressed, though they admit they do not have a ““paper trail’’ on disciplinary action against G.F. But their main defense was to assert that the sexual-harassment liability laws which govern the workplace do not extend to schools. Though the Supreme Court last year ruled that schools could be sued under Title IX if administrators failed to act when a teacher sexually harassed a student, defense attorneys insisted that schools, not the courts, should decide the appropriate way to handle harassment between students. The decision, expected in late June, could have profound implications for both students and schools, bringing the complexities of federal sexual-harassment law onto the playground.
That possibility clearly worried some of the justices. Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out that ““Little boys tease little girls, it happens in every school nationwide. Is every one of these incidents going to lead to a lawsuit?’’ But Aurelia Davis never wanted every schoolyard taunt to turn into a tort. As she told The Atlanta Constitution, ““This is about what the school did for my child, and that was nothing.’’ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for one, seemed to understand–saying that while she understood it was difficult to discern between teasing and harassment, judging whether a school’s response demonstrated ““deliberate indifference’’ was easier. Verna Williams, of the National Women’s Law Center, told the court that dismissing the lawsuit would mean that families would have no recourse when schools failed them, ““no matter how severe or pervasive the misconduct, no matter how cognizant the schools were of the harassment.’’ Whether the Davises win or lose, the days of boys-will-be-boys are clearly over.
