David Long v. Murray County School District , 522 F. App'x 576 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13248 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13248
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cv-00015-HLM
DAVID LONG,
TINA LONG,
individually and as natural parents of
Tyler Lee Long, Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MURRAY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
GINA LINDER,
in her individual and official capacity as Principal
of Murray County High School,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 18, 2013)
Case: 12-13248 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Before HULL, ANDERSON and FARRIS, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a sad, indeed a tragic, case. In recognition of the intense and
understandable interest in this case on the part of both parties, and in recognition of
the important public interest, we have given this case the highest priority, and our
study has been correspondingly careful. We have carefully studied the briefs, the
district court’s opinion, and the record. It is obvious that the district court’s
attention to this case was similarly comprehensive. Our careful review of the
record gives us confidence that the district court’s statement of the facts properly
takes all factual inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, as the well-
established summary judgment standard requires. Because of the district court’s
comprehensive statement of the facts, they need not be repeated here.
On the basis of our careful review of the record and consideration of the
arguments of the parties (both written and oral), we are also confident that the
district court has properly applied the relevant law to the facts in this record. 1 We
*
Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
1
Because both parties effectively agree that the deliberate indifference standard set
forth in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 633, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 1666
(1999), should apply to the § 504 and ADA claims, we find that the district court was correct in
requiring Plaintiffs to show
(1) the plaintiff is an individual with a disability, (2) he or she was harassed based
on that disability, (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it
altered the condition of his or her education and created an abusive educational
2
Case: 12-13248 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 Page: 3 of 4
agree with the reasoning and with the conclusions of law as comprehensively set
out in the district court’s Order.
More particularly, we agree with the district court that on hindsight the
“Defendants should have done more to address disability harassment, [but that]
Plaintiffs [have] fail[ed] to meet the high bar of deliberate indifference and [have
failed to] demonstrate that Defendants’ response was clearly unreasonable.” D.C.
at 161. We agree with the district court that the evidence shows a pattern on the
part of Defendants of responding promptly to reported incidents, and we agree that
Plaintiffs have failed to adduce evidence that would permit a jury to reasonably
find “that Defendants’ disciplinary responses to the reported harassment incidents
were clearly unreasonabl[e].” Id. at 168. As the district court said, based on their
communications with Ms. Long and the absence of reported incidents in the second
semester of the tenth grade and the fall semester of the eleventh grade,
“Defendants could have reasonably believed that their efforts to combat
harassment were succeeding.” Id. at 176. We agree with the district court that
Plaintiffs have failed to adduce evidence on the basis of which a jury could
reasonably find that “Defendants knew that their remedial action was ineffective.”
Id. at 174.
environment, (4) the defendant knew about the harassment, and (5) the defendant
was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.
D.C. at 124 (quoting S.S. v. Eastern Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir. 2008)).
3
Case: 12-13248 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 Page: 4 of 4
“Deliberate indifference is an exacting standard; school administrators will
only be deemed deliberately indifferent if their ‘response to the harassment or lack
thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.’ ” Doe v. Sch.
Bd. of Broward Cnty., Fla., 604 F.3d 1248, 1259 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Davis v.
Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 648, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 1674 (1999)). For
the foregoing reasons, and the reasons comprehensively set out by the district
court, we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to adduce evidence from which a jury
could reasonably find that the exacting standard of deliberate indifference has been
satisfied. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed as to
Plaintiffs’ federal claims. 2
AFFIRMED.
2
Plaintiffs have not appealed their state law claim.
4