What’s at Stake
Protections for students abused by school employees — and accountability when those protections fail.
Summary
“Jane Doe 1” and “Jane Doe 2” were students at Beaumont Independent School District in Texas. Both were sexually abused by a teacher and brought legal claims against the school district. After a trial, a jury found that the school district’s policies and practices had increased the risk that the students would be abused. The jury awarded significant money damages to the students, but the district court reduced those damages to a mere fraction of that award.
Both sides of the case appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The school district argued it should not have been held liable, and the students argued that the district court should not have reduced the damages awarded by the jury.
In September 2026, Public Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the students.
Core Legal Questions
Public Justice’s amicus brief addressed two legal issues in the case.
First, Public Justice argued that schools may be liable under Title IX through an “official policy” theory of liability, which differs from the liability standard designed by the Supreme Court in Gebser and Davis. In this case, the jury found the school district liable under the “official policy” theory, but the school district argued that this theory of liability is only available for claims relating to peer harassment; Public Justice explained in its amicus brief that it is available for claims concerning staff-on-student harassment as well.
Second, Public Justice argued that the district court erred by dramatically reducing the jury award. After the 2022 Supreme Court case Cummings, Title IX plaintiffs have been unable to recover damages for emotional distress. They can, however, still receive damages for physical injuries. And a jury could find that post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder — which result from physical changes to the brain — are physical injuries that are still compensable post-Cummings. So, the district court erred in reducing the jury’s damages award because it ignored Jane Doe 2’s past and future medical expenses, and other damages, related to her post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.