Court Rules Schools Must Fight Gay-Bashing

Public school administrators who fail to take effective steps to counter anti-gay harassment may violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Merely having an anti-discrimination policy is insufficient if the policy is not enforced, according to the 3-0 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling covers school districts in California and eight other Western states.

The case arose in the Northern California town of Morgan Hill, where six students -- a male and five females -- alleged that they were severely harassed from 1991 to 1998, and that school officials failed to take corrective measures.

One student, Alana Flores, found pornography and notes to the effect of “Die, dyke bitch” inside her locker, Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in her opinion for the court. When the student complained to an assistant principal, he told her, “You need to go back to class. Don’t bring me this trash any more.”

Another student alleged that he had been beaten by six other students who yelled disparaging epithets. The boy was hospitalized and treated for severely bruised ribs.

School officials punished only one of the six culprits and the victim transferred to another school.

The other students were derided for their sexual orientation, according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the students in San Jose federal court in 1998.

The students contended that the Morgan Hill Unified School District and several officials of schools there violated both state and federal laws in failing to adequately respond to the complaints.

The California School Boards Assn. currently advises its 1,000 districts to immediately intervene in situations in which a student is being harassed or discriminated against, said James Morante, a representative of the organization.

But not all districts follow such guidelines, Morante said. Tuesday’s ruling is important, Morante said, because “one of the primary responsibilities of a school district is to ensure the safety of its students, as well as provide a good learning environment” free from discrimination.

Attorneys representing the defendants in the case had argued that having an anti-discrimination policy in effect should protect the defendants against a lawsuit.

The defendants also argued that the students had failed to show that administrators had acted out of an “improper motive” and that the law at the time of the alleged incidents had not clearly required the district to protect students against harassment by their peers.

Schroeder, joined by judges Richard A. Paez and Richard C. Tallman, rejected those arguments.

Although the district had anti-discrimination policies, evidence indicated they were not enforced effectively, the judges noted.

The evidence suggested the school “failed to adequately train teachers, students, and campus monitors about the district’s policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” they wrote.

There was no immediate comment from the school district.

Unless the decision is overturned, the students will go to trial in federal court in San Jose seeking damages and other relief that could lead to changes in school district policies.

*

Times staff writer Erika Hayasaki contributed to this report.