Reid Lininger v St. Marys City School District: Gender Discrimination Case Analysis Essay

Introduction

Lininger alleges that Frye harassed him sexually by regularly insulting him. He claims that the coach called him "pretty boy," "pussy," and other insulting names that targeted his masculinity (Casetext, 2019). He further claims that the Board hired Frye irregularly, ignoring internal allegations leveled against him by his father and other complainants. The plaintiff claims he was discriminated by the Board for participating in an activity protected by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Casetext, 2019). He also alleges that all the respondents - Frye, Brown, James Hollman, and the Board denied him his rights to substantive due process and equal protection as enshrined in the constitution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In addition to these allegations, Lininger brings state law claims against all the defendants for bad faith, gross negligence, and intentional, wanton, and reckless conduct (Casetext, 2019). He also alleges that each individual defendant intentionally and negligently inflicted him with emotional distress. Lastly, he claims that the Board acted with negligence in hiring Frye for the second time.

Frye made a motion for summary judgment and Brown, Hollman, and the Board also made another motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper in this scenario under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 56 (Legal Information Institute, 2019). Lininger, who is opposed to the motion for summary judgment, has failed to prove to the court that there is an essential element to the case. On the contrary, the movants have satisfied the court that the plaintiff's case does not have any genuine issue of material fact that merits trial. This decision followed the Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986) jurisprudence (FindLaw, 2019). Therefore, the court granted both motions, causing Lininger to lose the case. However, the judge accepts his evidence to be true and interprets all of them his favor.

Facts of the Case

Title IX

Lininger levels two allegations against the Board under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Casetext, 2019). He claims that he was subjected to sexual harassment on the basis of gender stereotypes and retaliation for exercising his rights to take part in Title IX-protected activity. Title IX prohibits discrimination, denial of benefits, or exclusion of persons from participation in an education program or any activity financed by the Federal government.

The court holds that Lininger's Title IX sexual harassment allegation fails because he has failed to show that Frye harassed him on the basis of his sex. Circuit 6 Court ruling on Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., (1998) explained that harassment on the basis of gender must be proven in two steps. The first step is to prove that the harassment is on the basis of the complainant's sex. Secondly, the victim must prove that the severity, pervasiveness, objective offensiveness of the harassment reached the level of effectively barring him or her from accessing an educational benefit or opportunity (Lussier, 1997). Lininger did not satisfy any of these requirements.

Besides, based on the reasoning in a Circuit 6 Court decision on Vickers v. Fairfield Med. (2006), the court found that Lininger's harassment did not have any observable conformity to traditional gender stereotypes, and it was not based on these characteristics (Hollis, & Robinson, 2016). Frye's use of terms like "pretty boy," "pretty boy," and "pussy" did not deliberately target the plaintiff's "stereotypically feminine characteristics" like he claimed because there was no evidence that he exhibited characteristics that do not conform to the male gender. Although the offensive sexual connotations made the victim's colleagues perceive him to prefer "traditionally less masculine or traditionally female relationship roles, they did not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. Notably, even females can exhibit the qualities that Frye and the Board were promoting - team loyalty and toughness. Lastly, the coach insulted everybody and did not single out on the plaintiff's unique and observable characteristics that did not conform to his gender.

Retaliation

Regarding Lininger's claim of retaliation by the Board, the court found that he failed to prove that his 2015 complaints to the Board against Frye were Title IX protected activity (Casetext, 2019). Brown's father, through his attorney, wrote a letter that complained to Brown and Hollman about the harassment of Lininger. In response to the complaint, the Board conducted an investigation using questionnaires in which Lininger's colleagues complained of bullying and being called names, including the derogatory terms that Lininger mentioned. In both the letter and the questionnaire, there was no mention of sex or the students' Title IX rights.

Constitutional Claims

Moreover, Lininger claimed that all Frye, Brown, and Hollman violated his right to equal protection and substantive due process. He also wanted the court to hold the Board responsible for the actions of the three defendants under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, (1978). At the same time, he claims that Hollman and Brown being Frye's supervisors, should be liable for his conduct. Again, the court found that Lininger did not prove the existence of a genuine issue that could give merit to his constitutional claims. Using the Doe v. Claiborne Cty., Tenn. ex rel. Claiborne Cty. Bd. of Educ.(1996) jurisprudence, the judge decided not to determine Brown and Hollman's supervisory liability or Board's Monell liability (Hollis, & Robinson, 2016). The equal protection claim was not successful because the defendants did not discriminate on Lininger on the basis of his sex. His claim on substantive due process failed because he did not prove that the Board's decision to rehire Frye shocks the conscience. He did not identify any physical injury inflicted on him by the defendants.

State Law Claims

The common law claim for wanton, reckless, and intentional conduct, bad faith, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) also failed. The judge granted summary judgment on the claim for three reasons. First, the plaintiff did not provide facts to rule out Hollman and Brown's statutory immunity. Secondly, under Ohio Law, claims of Reckless Wanton, and Intentional Conduct, bad faith, and gross negligence cannot distinctively cause action. Lastly, Lininger failed to demonstrate that Frye's actions met all the conditions constituting IIED and NIED in Ohio law.

References

Casetext. (2019). Lininger v. St. Marys City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ, Case No. 3:16CV2853. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/lininger-v-st-marys-city-sch-dist-bd-of-educ

FindLaw. (2019). FindLaw's the United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/477/242.html

Hollis, L. P., & Robinson, S. (2016). Insult to injury: The extent of bullying for gender and sexual minorities in community colleges. The coercive community college: bullying and its costly impact on the mission to serve underrepresented populations (pp. 113-123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Legal Information Institute. (2019). Rule 56. Summary of Judgment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Lussier, D. (1997). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc. and the Future of Title VII Sexual Harassment Jurisprudence. BCL, Rev., 39, 937.