Santiago v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that private company transporting mentally disabled students to and from school was not performing exclusive government function
• stating that awareness of sexual harassment \demands that a funding recipient be shown to have had actual knowledge of the harassment.\
• stating that “Section 1983’s ‘under color of state law’ requirement is the functional equivalent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘state action’ requirement,” and therefore, “if [Defendants’] conduct cannot be classified as state action, the claim against them must fail”
• finding that the bus company was not a state actor when it allegedly failed to properly screen and train its employee because there was “no showing that the [governmental entity] exercised coercive power over or significantly encouraged” the bus company’s alleged failures
• guoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)
• \Title IX does not sweep so broadly as to permit a suit for harm-inducing conduct that was not brought to the attention of someone with authority to stop it.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).