Under title ix schools are obligated and required to respond to all forms of sexual harassment, both verbal and nonverbal.
"If a school knows about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, title ix requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects" pg. 4
Although multiple members of Columbia University's Staff, including.... Knew about Sulkowicz's protest and the harassment it caused, no one took action to prevent or stop it.
In fact university's staff took reverse action by allowing The protest to continue and rewarding Sulkowicz with class credit.
According to The office for civil rights' 2001 guidance and explanation for title ix, "when a student sexually harasses another student, the harassing conduct creates a hostile environment" (pg. 3) Although Nungesser was not physically sexually harassed, he was harassed by both the alleged rape victim, Sulkowicz and his fellow peers. These acts of gender-based harassment created the same hostile environment that would have been established through sexual harassment, and therefore should be treated as such.
Although...."there is no dispute that title ix applies to Columbia"
Although judge Woods dismissed Nungesser's argument on the basis of logical fallacy, Nungesser's claims should have withstood because they were not just assumptions but could have been proven as facts and acts of "sex-based" discrimination. Based merely on the difference of treatment between Nungesser and Sulkowicz at the university, even after he was found not responsible proves that there was a gender discrimination.
Nungesser's claims were not just based on the act of sex, but showed a derivative of gender based discrimination as well, which is the meaning of "sex-based" that is protected until title ix
"In order to be considered gender-based harassment, the harassment conduct must "'support an inference of discrimination on the basis of sex.'" (Pg 10)
Nungesser's claims should also be protected under title VII for his subjection to a hostile environment.
"In evaluating whether actions against a particular plaintiff where discriminatory, 'courts have consistently emphasized that the ultimate issue is the reasons for the individual plaintiff's treatment'" (pg10) this determining factor defines the treatment against Nungesser as discriminatory because his alleged actions of sexual harassment we're never proven and therefore cannot be the reason for his mistreatment.
The intimidation ridicule and mistreatment that Nungesser experienced must have derived from a bias and discriminatory basis because they were not based on fact or actions, because he was found not responsible by the university in all previous sexual harassment cases
Although the courts claim he was only subject to intimidation, ridicule, and mistreatment. "Mistreatment" is vague term to describe the conduct and treatment Nungesser experienced from Columbia, and include the discriminatory actions that the courts fail to acknowledge. (BRING IN SIMILAR HE CASE)
The universities actions were directly suggestive of gender bias.
In conclusion Nungesser's complaints and cited evidence were not consistent with title ix claims and provisions of protection. Although his evidence was not strong/durable enough to withstand the request to dismiss
However that does not and should not deter from that possibility/fact that he did experience sex-based discrimination from the university, which subsequently created a hostile environment.
Support and uphold the judge wood'a decision to dismiss not argue for the supreme court to overrule (should be similar to an argument piece)
***Thesis: the Supreme Court should uphold Judge Wood's decision and rule in favor of the University to dismiss the claim because Nungesser's claim is not based on gender or sex discrimination and therefore not covered/protected by the provisions of title ix.
Support thesis with:
-support and the provision/definitions from the dear colleague letter
-the case study/proceedings (Nungesser v. Columbia)
-claim from previous/similar cases
***Be sure to mention
-the meaning and definition of gender-motivated or gender-based discrimination as it applies to title ix
-the difference between "sex" and "gender" (sex v. gender)=the sexual act versus the fact of being and difference in sex, female/male)
-"gender" is what title ix means by "sex" within the provision of sex-based discrimination in title ix NOT sex acts
-also mention that Nungesser has not claim to hostile environment claims of title vii because his grade and mental stable were not effected
By the end of the paper the following questions should be answered:
-Is this an issue of law? (yes; such as state laws for deformation/tort but NOT title ix or title vii)
-What is the duty of the university in this case? (can be briefly discussed in the conclusion para.)
-should there be a legal response for the harassment Nungesser endured or is that something the university and law cannot control/cover?
These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 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).
Title IX body of case law as well as its reach and scope has grown over the years with the Supreme Court recognizing that there exists an implied private right of action under Title IX and money damages are available under the Act where recipients of federal funding had adequate notice that they could be liable for the conduct at issue . In Davis , the court held that money damages action may lie against a school board for its own misconduct in cases of student-on-student harassment which rises to a level of discrimination, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school....
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files: