Utterback v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a single instance of “keying” a sex-based slur on plaintiffs car bumper is not “severe and pervasive sexual harassment, as required for a Title IX claim”
• holding that where there was no evidence that the school had caused plaintiff to suffer harassment, defendants were not the “original cause” of plaintiff’s situation and so were not negligent
• stating that, “[i]n the context of a Title IX sexual-harassment claim, ‘the plaintiff must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but in fact constituted discrimination 'because . . . of sex’”
• finding no due process violation despite the fact that school administrators’ inquiry into the plaintiff’s allegations of harassment “may well have been unreasonable and ineffective in some respects”
• no affirmative act when “the conduct at issue [was] Defendants’ inaction, including failure to effectively investigate, intervene, and prevent harm to Plaintiff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).