Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

06-019 - L et al v. GREATER JOHNSTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
06-019 - L et al v. GREATER JOHNSTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT
March 31, 2008
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 27, is GRANTED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' Title IX claim with respect to actions occurring during the 2005 basketball practices and functions and as to any action of A.M. that occurred in public outside of the Defendant's "disciplinary authority," as to the Plaintiffs' First Amendment/Section 1983 claim set forth in Count II of the Amended Complaint, as to any retaliation claim set forth by N.L. within the Amended Complaint and as to the claim for punitive damages against the Defendant; DENIED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' remaining Title IX claims set forth in Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 3/31/2008. (dlg)
July 2, 2008
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion in Limine for the foregoing reasons: 1) With regard to Plaintiffs' sexual harassment claim, evidence of conduct before January 14, 2005 is admissible to provide background and context for the relationship between M.L. and A.M. It is also admissible for the purpose of establishing a pre-harassment baseline for M.L.'s general behavior and academic achievement. The contents of reports made to Principal Buchko or other appropriate persons employed by Defendant, made on or after January 14, 2005, are admissible for the purpose of establishing Defendant's actual knowledge of the harassment even if they refer to conduct that occurred before January of 2005. 2) With regard to Plaintiffs' sexual harassment claim, evidence of conduct after April 14, 2008 is not admissible to show sexual harassment after that date. However, evidence of conduct after April 14, 2008 is admissible for the purpose of establishing damages resulting from the period of harassment that extended from January 14, 2008 until April 14, 2008. 3) With regard to Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, only evidence of retaliation for actions by Dawn and Michael L. which were protected under Title IX is admissible. 4) With regard to Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, evidence of the relationship between the entire L. family and Defendant is, pending the Court's decision on Plaintiffs' claim for constructive expulsion, admissible from the time of the family's initial involvement with the District until the first day of the 2006-2007 school year, regardless of any particular family member's status as a party to the instant action. Evidence of the relationship between Dawn and Michael L. and Defendant is admissible in any case from the time of their initial involvement with the District until the first day of the 2006-2007 school year. 5) With regard to Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, evidence that only supports a claim of retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of their rights under the First Amendment or for Dawn and Michael L.'s decision to transfer their children to another school is not admissible, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 7/2/2008. (dlg)