Doe v. Hutchinson

11 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Oologah-Talala Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4 of Rogers Cnty.

    21-cv-240-JDR-SH (N.D. Okla. Aug. 28, 2024)

    “ [S]exual harassment by a state actor can constitute a violation of the equal protection clause.” See, e.g., Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, 186 F.3d 1238, 1249 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed.Appx. 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2018). To constitute a violation, the harassment must be so severe and pervasive as to deprive the student of an educational benefit or opportunity.

  2. Doe No. 2 v. Oologah-Talala Indep. Sch. Dist.

    No. 21-CV-240-JDR-SH (N.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2024)

    ‘disregard con-clusory statements and look only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.'” Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed.Appx. 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012)).

  3. Doe v. Oologah-Talala Indep. Sch. Dist.

    No. 21-CV-240-JDR-SH (N.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2024)

    ‘disregard con-clusory statements and look only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.'” Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed.Appx. 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012)).

  4. Overfield v. State

    660 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (D. Kan. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff may rely on evidence that Judge Johnson "directed gender-based comments to other [employees] to help establish a general atmosphere of harassment provided she was aware of such conduct." Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 F. App'x 829, 832-33 (10th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff's conclusory statements that these women were harassed and abused is insufficient to support sex discrimination.

  5. Ballage v. Hope & Home

    Civil Action 21-cv-01320-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Specifically, Plaintiff alleges multiple incidents of gender-specific, sexually charged conduct involving the same male supervisor, which made Plaintiff uncomfortable, and of which Defendant's “upper management” was “thoroughly aware.” See Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed.Appx. 829, 833-34 (10th Cir. 2018) (finding allegations plausibly suggested a pervasively hostile work environment, where the complaint alleged multiple instances of sexually explicit, gender-based comments made by a male teacher to the plaintiff and to other female students); c.f. Earles v. Cleveland, 418 F.Supp.3d 879, 900 (W.D. Okla. 2019) (finding allegations-that a male supervisor forced the female plaintiff to carry her own luggage from her room to the hotel lobby, told the plaintiff that she “was incompetent and worthless” and lacked good work ethic, and wrongfully blamed her for his own mistake-insufficient to state a plausible claim for sexual harassment). Plaintiff has alleged plausible facts that indicate the allegedly inappropriate conduct occurred over a period of time, as opposed to a single discrete instance.

  6. Lameda v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland Cnty.

    No. CIV-21-119-D (W.D. Okla. Sep. 21, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has rejected Defendants' position with regard to equal protection claims based on sexual harassment of students, cautioning that “the concept of clearly established law should not be applied too literally” and courts should “merely require the parties to make a reasonable application of existing law to their own circumstances.” See id. (quoting Johnson v. Martin, 195 F.3d 1208, 1216 (10th Cir. 1999)); see also Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed.Appx. 829, 835 (10th Cir. 2018) (“the question is not whether the facts of Sh.A. were sufficiently similar to those alleged in Doe's complaint, but whether our case law would make it clear to reasonable officials that Hutchinson's alleged conduct” violated the equal protection right at issue). Given clear authority that school officials may not act with deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment, a § 1983 claim that satisfies the deliberate indifference standard should not be dismissed at the pleading stage based on an asserted defense of qualified immunity.

  7. Doe v. Roaring Fork Sch. Dist.

    510 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Colo. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Despite this difference, when addressing the clearly established prong it defined the right at a similar level of generality as in Murrell . It stated "[w]e have previously held ‘the law holding that sexual harassment is actionable as an equal protection violation has long been clearly established.’ " Doe v. Hutchinson , 728 F. App'x 829, 834 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (quoting Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun. Sch. , 321 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2003) ). The court explained that Sh.A. made clear

  8. Sturdivant v. Blue Valley Unified Sch. Dist.

    469 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (D. Kan. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing an equal protection claim based on race

    In the context of an equal protection claim alleging sexual harassment in an educational setting, the Circuit has applied Title VII standards. See, e.g.,Doe v. Hutchinson , 728 Fed. Appx. 829 (10th Cir. 2018). Other courts in analogous contexts have applied the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis and, consistent with that approach, have required a showing of an adverse action.

  9. Doe v. USD No. 237, Smith Ctr. Sch. Dist.

    Case No. 16-2801-JWL (D. Kan. Oct. 29, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that a jury could reasonably find “crude comments of a sexual nature” by a teacher in a position of authority to be extreme and outrageous

    Two such considerations are the ages of the harasser and the victim.See Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 F. App'x 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2018) (citations, internal quotations, and footnote omitted). The Tenth Circuit further discussed certain principles concerning the type of conduct that could contribute to the totality of the circumstances on which liability may be based, as follows:

  10. Doe v. USD No. 237

    Case No. 16-2801-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2019)

    The relationship is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims that Hutchinson had a history of inappropriate sexual conduct with minor female students, about which the school district knew but failed to address. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery regarding the relationship between Doe Witness and Hutchinson. Doe v. Hutchinson, 728 Fed. Appx. 829, 835 (10th Cir. 2018). Further, the Court finds it significant that Defendants subpoenaed Doe Witness to take her deposition, not Plaintiffs. Having opened the door to her relationship with Hutchinson in an effort to establish that it was consensual, Defendants may not now cut off further discovery into that relationship on the basis of privacy concerns.