Ana Poloceno v. Dallas Independent School Dist ( 2020 )

Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 10, 2020
No. 20-10098
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ana Poloceno, individually and as next friend of minor, A.I.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Dallas Independent School District,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:18-CV-1284
Before King, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ana Poloceno filed this Title IX suit against Dallas Independent
School District, alleging that DISD intentionally discriminated against her
daughter, A.I., based on her sex. The district court dismissed Poloceno’s
second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and we
affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
I
In 2016, A.I. was an eleven-year-old student at Edward H. Cary
Middle School, part of DISD, and a student in Keenan Washington’s
physical education class. If students did not wear proper gym clothes to class,
Washington required the students to do “ceiling jumps” as punishment;
both male and female students were required to perform the exact same
exercises as punishment. 1 At the start of the school year, Washington
required a student to complete 30 ceiling jumps if he or she failed to wear
proper gym clothes; Washington incrementally increased the number of
ceiling jumps over the course of the school year. Benjamin Dickerson, the
school principal, allegedly observed male and female students performing
ceiling jumps in Washington’s gym class. During the school year, five female
students allegedly visited the school nurse with complaints of pain from
performing ceiling jumps.
In April 2016, A.I. failed to wear proper gym clothes to Washington’s
class. By this point in the school year, Washington’s punishment had
increased to 260 ceiling jumps for failure to dress properly. Washington
allegedly required A.I. to complete 260 ceiling jumps, after which she
became ill and was subsequently hospitalized and diagnosed with
rhabdomyolysis, the breakdown of muscle tissue. After this incident, DISD
investigated Washington’s treatment of A.I. and concluded that
Washington had violated DISD’s policies regarding student discipline,
prohibiting corporal punishment, and promoting student welfare and
wellness.
1
A “ceiling jump” involves squatting down, with both hands and hips toward the
floor, then jumping up with hands toward the ceiling.
2
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
In April 2018, A.I.’s mother, Ana Poloceno, filed suit against DISD
alleging these events violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972. DISD filed a motion to dismiss Poloceno’s complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). While the motion was
pending, Poloceno filed an amended complaint. DISD filed a motion to
dismiss Poloceno’s first amended complaint, which the district court granted
without prejudice to afford Poloceno a third opportunity to plead her Title
IX sex discrimination claim. Poloceno filed a second amended complaint
(Complaint), the subject of this appeal, and DISD again moved to dismiss.
The district court granted DISD’s motion and dismissed Poloceno’s second
amended complaint with prejudice. Poloceno appealed, and, for the reasons
discussed below, we affirm.
II
We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Cicalese v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 924 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2019). To
survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead facts that “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. We accept all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Walker v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 938 F.3d 724, 735 (5th Cir. 2019). But a
plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993).
3
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
III
“Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal
education funding.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173
(2005). Its text provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the
basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
A plaintiff may enforce Title IX through a private right of action for
damages. Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 639 (1999). There
are two avenues for stating a Title IX claim. First, a plaintiff can show that
the institution has an official policy of sex discrimination. Gebser v. Lago Vista
Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998). 2 Or, second, a plaintiff can show
a Title IX violation where an “appropriate person” had “actual knowledge
of the discrimination” and responded with “deliberate indifference.” Gebser,
524 U.S. at 290. Poloceno chose the second avenue.
Because DISD receives federal financial assistance, it is subject to
Title IX. Under Title IX, “schools are liable only for intentional sex
discrimination.” Doe v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 351, 358 (5th Cir.
2020) (citing Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290). And it is not easy to prove intentional
violations: on top of showing intentional discrimination, Poloceno must show
(1) actual knowledge of the intentional discrimination by an “appropriate
person” and (2) “an opportunity for voluntary compliance.” Gebser, 524
U.S. at 289–90.
2
Poloceno has failed to show that DISD had an official policy of sex
discrimination. To the extent that Poloceno alleges DISD failed to have a policy in place,
that allegation “does not constitute ‘discrimination’ under Title IX.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at
292. In fact, Poloceno’s admits that DISD’s failure to have an effective policy in place
does not, by itself, violate Title IX.
4
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
Poloceno’s Complaint fails to allege facts that would show intentional
discrimination. Poloceno asserts that DISD violated A.I.’s rights under
Title IX by having “a physical exercise program that did not consider the
physical and metabolic differences between boys and girls.” But Poloceno’s
Complaint fails to allege facts to support a claim that DISD intentionally
discriminated against A.I. Specifically, Poloceno pleads no facts that would
show DISD singled out females for disparate treatment or that A.I. received
treatment different from that received by similarly situated male students in
Washington’s gym class. In fact, Poloceno’s Complaint even states that
“A.I. and a number of female students were treated the same as male
students in [Washington’s] gym class” and that “Washington gave the boys
and girls the exact same exercises and punishments.” Poloceno also fails to
plead any facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that Washington or any
other DISD employee acted—or failed to act—because of a discriminatory
motive.
Instead, Poloceno’s Complaint attempts to allege disparate impact:
that Washington’s punishment of his students was facially neutral but had a
disparate impact on female students in his gym class. But only intentional
discrimination, not disparate impact, is actionable under Title IX. On appeal,
Poloceno argues that the district court erred in dismissing her Complaint
because it found that her disparate-impact claim was not actionable under
Title IX. The district court based its dismissal on the Supreme Court’s
decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, which held there is no private right of
action to enforce disparate-impact claims under Title VII, on which Title IX
is patterned. 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001). Poloceno argues that Sandoval
only applies when a plaintiff bases her Title IX disparate-impact claim upon
Title IX regulations. Because her disparate-impact claim is not based on Title
IX regulations, Poloceno argues that Sandoval does not control.
5
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
But Sandoval stands for a broader proposition: A plaintiff’s Title IX
claim must be based on intentional discrimination, not disparate impact. 3
And the Supreme Court’s Title IX cases have emphasized that Title IX
prohibits intentional discrimination, not disparate impact. Gebser, 524 U.S. at
290; see also Chance v. Rice Univ., 984 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1993)
(concluding that a showing of intentional discrimination is required for
recovery under Title IX). 4 Because Poloceno pleads no facts that DISD or
its employees intentionally discriminated against A.I., the district court
properly dismissed her Title IX claim.
Poloceno next argues that she has an actionable Title IX claim under
a “heightened risk” analysis and that the district court erred by
recharacterizing her “heightened risk” analysis as a disparate-impact claim.
Essentially, Poloceno claims that DISD must protect students from a
heightened risk of being “disproportionately injured.” We have never
recognized or adopted a Title IX theory of liability based on a general
“heightened risk” of sex discrimination, and we decline to do so. Moreover,
the cases from our sister circuits that recognize the “heightened risk”
analysis limit this theory of liability to contexts in which students committed
sexual assault on other students, circumstances not present here. 5 Even if we
3
See, e.g., Manley v. Tex. Southern Univ., 107 F. Supp. 3d 712, 726 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
(discussing cases that have interpreted Sandoval as “(1) requiring intentional
discrimination for a claim under Title IX” and “(2) precluding a private right of action
based on regulations” under Title IX).
4
Although we have not squarely considered a disparate-impact claim under Title
IX since Sandoval, our prior holdings are consistent with Sandoval. See Manley, 107 F.
Supp. 3d at 726.
5
See Simpson v. Univ. of Colo. at Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying
this liability theory in a student-on-student sexual harassment case); Karasek v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., 956 F.3d 1093, 1112 (9th Cir. 2020) (articulating a four-element test for a
plaintiff’s heightened risk theory in cases of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment).
6
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
were to apply a “heightened risk” analysis to this case, Poloceno’s
“heightened risk” claim merely repackages her disparate-impact claim.
Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing her claim.
Even assuming Poloceno’s claim was actionable under Title IX,
Poloceno fails to plead facts satisfying the Gebser framework to show that
DISD intentionally violated Title IX. First, Poloceno failed to show that an
“appropriate person” had actual knowledge of the alleged discrimination.
Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290. The “appropriate person” here is Principal
Dickerson, the DISD official “with authority to take corrective action to end
the discrimination.” Id. To show Dickerson had actual knowledge that
Washington was discriminating against female students, Poloceno alleges
Dickerson saw students in Washington’s class doing ceiling jumps, knew of
the ceiling-jump practice and its effects, and knew of the injuries of the five
female students who went to the school nurse. But these conclusory
allegations do not plausibly show that Dickerson had actual knowledge that
Washington was engaging in any intentional discrimination toward female
students, nor do they support a reasonable inference of actual knowledge.
Second, even if Poloceno had alleged facts showing Dickerson had
actual knowledge, she fails to show that DISD acted with deliberate
indifference. Deliberate indifference is a challenging standard that requires a
showing that DISD’s “response to the [discrimination] or lack thereof is
clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Davis, 526 U.S.
at 648. But Poloceno alleges no facts showing or supporting a reasonable
inference that DISD responded unreasonably: She alleges that DISD
conducted an investigation and found that Washington violated DISD
7
Case: 20-10098 Document: 00515559383 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 20-10098
policies. Thus, Poloceno has failed to show that DISD was deliberately
indifferent. Poloceno’s Title IX claim fails. 6
For all these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.
6
On appeal, Poloceno for the first time asserts that “[a]side from the
investigation,” DISD “did nothing” and claims that DISD failed to have in place training
programs for gym teachers like Washington. But this failure-to-train allegation does not
support the element of deliberate indifference.
8