Illinois [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

​

“Bullying” includes “cyber-bullying” and means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically, directed toward a student or students that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following:

(1) placing the student or students in reasonable fear of harm to the student's or students' person or property;
(2) causing a substantially detrimental effect on the student's or students' physical or mental health;
(3) substantially interfering with the student's or students' academic performance; or
(4) substantially interfering with the student's or students' ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.

Bullying, as defined in this subsection (b), may take various forms, including without limitation one or more of the following: harassment, threats, intimidation, stalking, physical violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence, theft, public humiliation, destruction of property, or retaliation for asserting or alleging an act of bullying. This list is meant to be illustrative and non-exhaustive.

​

“Cyber-bullying” means bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication, including without limitation any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic system, photoelectronic system, or photooptical system, including without limitation electronic mail, Internet communications, instant messages, or facsimile communications. “Cyber-bullying” includes the creation of a webpage or weblog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person or the knowing impersonation of another person as the author of posted content or messages if the creation or impersonation creates any of the effects enumerated in the definition of bullying in this Section. “Cyber-bullying” also includes the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons if the distribution or posting creates any of the effects enumerated in the definition of bullying in this Section.

​

105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=010500050K27-23.7)

​

Related Statutory References

​

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-23.7 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=010500050K27-23.7)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/27-13.3 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=010500050K27-13.3)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/10-22.24b (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1005&ChapterID=17&SeqStart=80000000&SeqEnd=81000000)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/22-12 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K22-12.htm)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/14-1.09.2 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=010500050K14-1.09.2)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/10-22.6 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K10-22.6.htm)

• 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/10-20.14 (https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K10-20.14.htm)

​

Related Cases

Eilenfeldt v. United C.U.S.D. #304 Bd. of Educ.

Harassment of student was unrelated to his gender or any failure to conform to gender norms, precluding Title IX peer harassment claim.

This case arises from Plaintiff Pamela Eilenfeldt's claims that the Defendants enabled severe bullying of Eilenfeldt's minor child J.M. at Union Junior High School. At issue is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' Motion is granted, with leave for Eilenfeldt to amend her Complaint consistent with this Order.

​

Eilenfeldt v. United C.U.S.D. #304 Bd. of Educ., No. 412CV04029SLDJAG, 2013 WL 12248080, at *7 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2013)

Malinksi v. Grayslake Cmty. High Sch. Dist. 127

Because defendant's actions regarding plaintiff's complaints of bullying by other students were discretionary in nature, defendant was entitled to immunity under section 2–201 of the Tort Immunity Act. Thus, we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to section 2–619(a)(9) of the Code.

​

Malinksi v. Grayslake Cmty. High Sch. Dist. 127, 2014 IL App (2d) 130685-U

​

Black as next friend of J. D. v. Littlejohn

School should be a safe space for children that is free from bullying and physical abuse. That is what Teirra Black, a parent and next friend of J.D. and J.A.D., believed when she sent her children to two public grammar schools in Chicago. However, once Black’s son almost succeeded in attempting to take his own life after multiple episodes of bullying and violence at the hands of teachers, staff, and students that went unaddressed, she filed this suit against Defendants Tamara Littlejohn, Renee Ryan, Lorie Green, Ms. Whitehead, Ms. Williamson1, an unknown Principal at Medgar Evers Elementary School (“Principal at Evers”), and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (“the Board”), alleging they failed to protect her children from bullying and abuse.

Black as next friend of J. D. v. Littlejohn, No. 19 C 2585, 2020 WL 469303, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2020)

​

Indiana [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

​

“bullying” means overt, unwanted, repeated acts or gestures, including verbal or written communications or images transmitted in any manner (including digitally or electronically), physical acts committed, aggression, or any other behaviors, that are committed by a student or group of students against another student with the intent to harass, ridicule, humiliate, intimidate, or harm the targeted student and create for the targeted student an objectively hostile school environment that:

(1) places the targeted student in reasonable fear of harm to the targeted student's person or property;
(2) has a substantially detrimental effect on the targeted student's physical or mental health;
(3) has the effect of substantially interfering with the targeted student's academic performance; or
(4) has the effect of substantially interfering with the targeted student's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, and privileges provided by the school.

​

Ind. Code Ann. § 20-33-8-0.2 (https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-20-education/in-code-sect-20-33-8-0-2.html)

​

Related Statutory References

• Ind. Code Ann. § 20-30-5-5.5

• Ind. Code Ann. § 20-26-5-34.2

• Ind. Code Ann. § 20-26-5-32

• Ind. Code Ann. § 5-2-10.1-11 

• Ind. Code Ann. § 5-2-10.1-2

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Ind. Code Ann. § 20-34-6-2 (http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2018/ic/titles/020#20-26-5-34.2)

• Ind. Code Ann. § 20-34-6-1 (https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-20-education/in-code-sect-20-34-6-1.html)

• Ind. Code Ann. § 20-33-8-13.5 (http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2018/ic/titles/020#20-33-8-13.5)

• Ind. Code Ann. § 5-2-10.1-12 (http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2018/ic/titles/005#5-2-10.1-12)
   

Related Cases

Seiwert v. Spencer-Owen Cmty. Sch. Corp.

Alleged harassment suffered by male student, if proven, was objectively offensive, as required for recover under Title IX.

Holdings: The District Court, William G. Hussmann, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, held that:
1 alleged harassment suffered by male eighth-grade student, if proven, amounted to severe and pervasive conduct that was objectively offensive, as required to prove liability under Title IX;
2 parents' alleged acts, if proven, gave school system actual knowledge of harassment, as required for liability under Title IX;
3 school system owed at least some minimal duty to eighth-grade student and his sister, for purposes of third-party beneficiary contract claim;
4 school system was not liable for negligent entrustment;
5 if school bus driver was independent contractor, such status did not preclude school system from being liable for negligent supervision; and
6 school system's alleged failure to prevent bullying did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Seiwert v. Spencer-Owen Cmty. Sch. Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Ind. 2007)

​

Iowa [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

​

Harassment and bullying shall be construed to mean any electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or conduct toward a student which is based on the student's actual or perceived age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status, and which creates an objectively hostile school environment that meets one or more of the following conditions:

(1) Places the student in reasonable fear of harm to the student's person or property.
(2) Has a substantially detrimental effect on the student's physical or mental health.
(3) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's academic performance.
(4) Has the effect of substantially interfering with the student's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 281-12.3(256) (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/rule/08-29-2018.281.12.3.pdf)

​

A person commits an act of hazing when the person intentionally or recklessly engages in any act or acts involving forced activity which endanger the physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, any organization operating in connection with a school, college, or university. Prohibited acts include, but are not limited to, any brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, forced confinement, or any other forced activity which endangers the physical health or safety of the student.
b. For purposes of this section, “forced activity” means any activity which is a condition of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, an organization, regardless of a student's willingness to participate in the activity.

​

Iowa Code Ann. § 708.10 (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/2018/708.10.pdf)

​

Related Statutory References

​

• Iowa Admin. Code r. 282-24.3(272)

• Iowa Admin. Code r. 281-12.8(256)

• Iowa Code Ann. § 282.18 

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Iowa Code Ann. § 280.12 (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/2018/280.12.pdf)
   

Related Cases

McGlothlin v. State

“bullying behavior can seriously disrupt the ability of school employees to maintain a safe and civil environment, and the ability of students to learn and succeed” and defines bullying as behavior that may have “a substantially detrimental effect” on mental health. Id. § 280.28(1), (2)(b)(2). However, it does not create a new defense in criminal prosecutions and is largely inapplicable to criminal prosecution.2 To make an exception to the statute of limitations, a change in the law must affect the validity of the conviction. State v. Edman, 444 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa Ct.App.1989). Because section 280.28 is inapplicable to McGlothlin, the statute cannot provide an exception to his untimely PCR application.

McGlothlin v. State, 863 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

Kansas [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

Important State Definitions

“Bullying” means:

(A) Any intentional gesture or any intentional written, verbal, electronic or physical act or threat either by any student, staff member or parent towards a student or by any student, staff member or parent towards a staff member that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that such gesture, act or threat creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, knows or should know will have the effect of:

(i) Harming a student or staff member, whether physically or mentally;
(ii) damaging a student's or staff member's property;
(iii) placing a student or staff member in reasonable fear of harm to the student or staff member; or
(iv) placing a student or staff member in reasonable fear of damage to the student's or staff member's property;

(B) cyberbullying; or
(C) any other form of intimidation or harassment prohibited by the board of education of the school district in policies concerning bullying adopted pursuant to this section or subsection (e) of K.S.A. 72-1138, and amendments thereto.

​

“Cyberbullying” means bullying by use of any electronic communication device through means including, but not limited to, e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, blogs, mobile phones, pagers, online games and websites.

​

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-6147 (http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2018/b2017_18/statute/072_000_0000_chapter/072_061_0000_article/072_061_0047_section/072_061_0047_k/)

​

Related Statutory References

​

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-3237 (http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2018/b2017_18/statute/072_000_0000_chapter/072_032_0000_article/072_032_0037_section/072_032_0037_k/)
   

Related Cases

​

S.E.S. as next friend of J.M.S. v. Galena Unified Sch. Dist. No. 499

​

Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether school district was deliberately indifferent in its response to the alleged sex-based harassment.

Background: Mother of student brought action, on behalf of student as next friend, against school district, alleging violations of Title IX for discrimination against student due to student not conforming to stereotypical expectations of masculinity. School district moved to strike certain declarations and for summary judgment.

Motions denied. 

​

S.E.S. as next friend of J.M.S. v. Galena Unified Sch. Dist. No. 499, 446 F. Supp. 3d 743 (D. Kan. 2020)

​

Kentucky [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

(a) As used in this section, ‘‘bullying’’ means any unwanted verbal, physical, or social behavior among students that involves a real or perceived power imbalance and is repeated or has the potential to be repeated:

1. That occurs on school premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event; or
2. That disrupts the education process.

(b) This definition shall not be interpreted to prohibit civil exchange of opinions or debate or cultural practices protected under the state or federal Constitution where the opinion expressed does not otherwise materially or substantially disrupt the education process.

​

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 158.148 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=45145)

​

A person is guilty of harassing communications when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written communication in a manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication;
(b) Makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
(c) Communicates, while enrolled as a student in a local school district, with or about another school student, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, the Internet, telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written communication in a manner which a reasonable person under the circumstances should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment and which serves no purpose of legitimate communication.

​

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.080 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=45228)

​

A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to intimidate, harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects him to physical contact;
(b) Attempts or threatens to strike, shove, kick, or otherwise subject the person to physical contact;
(c) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present;
(d) Follows a person in or about a public place or places;
(e) Engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose; or
(f) Being enrolled as a student in a local school district, and while on school premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event:

1. Damages or commits a theft of the property of another student;
2. Substantially disrupts the operation of the school; or
3. Creates a hostile environment by means of any gestures, written communications, oral statements, or physical acts that a reasonable person under the circumstances should know would cause another student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.070 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19926)

​

Related Statutory References

• SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS—OFFENSES—STUDENT SAFETY AND DISCIPLINE, 2008 Kentucky Laws Ch. 125 (HB 91)

• Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 158.441 

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 158.444 (https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=3519)

• Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 158.440 (https://law.justia.com/codes/kentucky/2015/chapter-158/section-158.440/)

• Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2.227 (https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-compendium/choose-type/Kentucky/Bullying%2C%20harassment%2C%20or%20hazing)

Related Cases

McGlothlin v. State

Student failed to identify steps Board failed to take creating further risk of severe peer harassment following uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault.

Background: Parents of middle school student with intellectual disabilities brought action against county board of education, alleging deliberate indifference to disability-driven peer bullying of student in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to § 1983, section of Rehabilitation Act barring disability discrimination by recipients of federal funding, and Kentucky law, and alleging that school officials negligently failed to protect student from harm. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
Holdings: The District Court, Robert E. Wier, J., held that:
1 futility exception to IDEA's exhaustion requirement applied;
2 there was no evidence that any middle school official with authority to address alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on board's behalf had knowledge of elementary school bullying to impute knowledge to any middle school personnel;
3 student failed to identify any steps that board failed to take that placed student at further risk for severe peer harassment following uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault in middle school bathroom;
4 student's failure to identify a felony subject to reporting requirement under Kentucky law precluded school officials' liability for failure to report incident;
5 student was not denied procedural due process;
6 superintendent and principal were entitled to qualified immunity in negligence action;
7 elementary school teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity on student's negligence claim; but
8 teacher did not breach duty to prevent foreseeable harm, and thus was not liable for negligence under Kentucky law.
Motion granted.

​

E.M.J. by & through M.J. v. Garrard Cty. Bd. of Educ., 413 F. Supp. 3d 598 (E.D. Ky. 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-6101, 2019 WL 8327893 (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)

​

Patton v. Bickford

Synopsis
Background: Estate of middle school student who committed suicide due to alleged bullying brought negligence action against school teachers and administrators. The Circuit Court, Floyd County, 2012 WL 928374, David Caudill, J., granted summary judgment in favor of teachers and administrators. Estate appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Estate appealed.
Holdings: On reconsideration, the Supreme Court, Venters, J., held that:
1 administrators had qualified immunity against claim that anti-bullying policies were inadequate;
2 administrators had qualified immunity against claim of negligent implementation of policies;
3 teachers were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to supervision;
4 as matter of first impression, bullying may qualify as an exception to general rule of suicide as a superseding intervening event; but
5 evidence did not establish that bullying caused the suicide.
Affirmed.

Patton v. Bickford, 529 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2016)

​

Louisiana [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

Important State Definitions

“Bullying” means:

(1) A pattern of any one or more of the following:

(a) Gestures, including but not limited to obscene gestures and making faces.
(b) Written, electronic, or verbal communications, including but not limited to calling names, threatening harm, taunting, malicious teasing, or spreading untrue rumors. Electronic communication includes but is not limited to a communication or image transmitted by email, instant message, text message, blog, or social networking website through the use of a telephone, mobile phone, pager, computer, or other electronic device.
(c) Physical acts, including but not limited to hitting, kicking, pushing, tripping, choking, damaging personal property, or unauthorized use of personal property.
(d) Repeatedly and purposefully shunning or excluding from activities.

​

La. Stat. Ann. § 17:416.13 (http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=81029)

​

(1) As used in this Section, “hazing” means any knowing behavior, whether by commission or omission, of any student to encourage, direct, order, or participate in any activity which subjects another student to potential physical, mental, or psychological harm for the purpose of initiation or admission into, affiliation with, continued membership in, or acceptance by existing members of any organization or extracurricular activity at a public elementary or secondary school, whether such behavior is planned or occurs on or off school property, including any school bus and school bus stop.
(2) Hazing does not mean any adult-directed and school-sanctioned athletic program practice or event or military training program.
C. Hazing is prohibited in public elementary and secondary schools.

​

La. Stat. Ann. § 17:183 (http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=285636)

​

Cyberbullying is the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication with the malicious and willful intent to coerce, abuse, torment, or intimidate a person under the age of eighteen.

​

La. Stat. Ann. § 14:40.7 (http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=725180)

​

Related Statutory References

• La. Stat. Ann. § 17:416.20

• La. Stat. Ann. § 17:415

• La. Stat. Ann. § 17:280

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: La. Stat. Ann. § 17:416.13 (http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=81029)

• La. Stat. Ann. § 17:416 (http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=81024)

• La. Stat. Ann. § 17:53 (http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=81140)

​

Related Cases

State In Interest of T.R.

T.R., born August 13, 1997, was arrested for cyberbullying, in violation of La. R.S. 14:40.7, on June 23, 2014. It was alleged in two separate complaints that on June 18, 2014, T.R. posted graphic photographs of female genitalia on Instagram and subtitled the photographs to suggest that they were images of two juvenile females whom he knew. The juvenile females and their parents suspected that T.R. could have been responsible for posting the photographs. The true identities of the females in the photographs could never be verified since no faces were shown.

State In Interest of T.R., 2015-0902 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/6/15), writ denied sub nom. State Interest of T.R., 2015-2232 (La. 5/2/16), 206 So. 3d 878

​

Maine [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

“Bullying” includes, but is not limited to, a written, oral or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof directed at a student or students that:

(1) Has, or a reasonable person would expect it to have, the effect of:

(a) Physically harming a student or damaging a student's property; or
(b) Placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm or damage to the student's property;

(2) Interferes with the rights of a student by:

(a) Creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment for the student; or
(b) Interfering with the student's academic performance or ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a school; or

(3) Is based on a student's actual or perceived characteristics identified in Title 5, section 4602 or 4684-A, or is based on a student's association with a person with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics or any other distinguishing characteristics and that has the effect described in subparagraph (1) or (2)

​

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 6554 (http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/20-A/title20-Asec6554.html)

​

“Bullying” includes cyberbullying.

“Cyberbullying” means bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication, including, but not limited to, a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted by the use of any electronic device, including, but not limited to, a computer, telephone, cellular telephone, text messaging device and personal digital assistant.

​

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 6554 (http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/20-A/title20-Asec6554.html)

“Injurious hazing” means any action or situation, including harassing behavior, that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health of any school personnel or a student enrolled in school or any activity expected of a student as a condition of joining or maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses or endangers the student, regardless of the student's willingness to participate in the activity.

​

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 6553 (http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/20-A/title20-Asec6553.html)

​

Related Statutory References

• Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 1001

• Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 254

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A, § 6554 (http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/20-A/title20-Asec6554.html)

Related Cases

​

Reg'l Sch. Unit 51 v. Doe

The District argues that the bullying and hazing of SM was sufficiently severe, and had a sufficiently strong impact on him, to render the Eagle Hill placement inappropriate. See District's Brief at 33; see also, e.g., T.K. ex rel. L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 779 F.Supp.2d 289, 318 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (“Where bullying reaches a level where a student is substantially restricted in learning opportunities she has been deprived of a FAPE.”). It adds that, in view of the fact that Maine students have a right not to experience this type of behavior at school, it seems remarkable to conclude that a private school is appropriate for a student who is so harassed that he is physically sickened and emotionally unable to attend school for a period of time. See  *214 District's Reply at 14–15 (citing 20–A M.R.S.A. §§ 6553–54). Nonetheless, Maine public schools are not required to eradicate bullying, a seemingly impossible task. Rather, they are expected to adopt policies and procedures designed to deal effectively with it. See, e.g., 20–A M.R.S.A. § 6554(5)(F) & (I) (Maine public schools must adopt, inter alia, “[a] procedure for promptly investigating and responding to incidents of bullying” and “[a] procedure to remediate any substantiated incident of bullying to counter the negative impact of the bullying and reduce the risk of future bullying incidents”). That is what Eagle Hill did in this case. With the benefit of Eagle Hill's swift and effective response, SM was able to return to school, resume his studies, resolve the conflicts that led to the bullying, and finish the year with a strong academic performance. The bullying, thus, did not rise to a level sufficient to substantially restrict SM's learning opportunities at Eagle Hill or otherwise render the placement inappropriate.

Reg'l Sch. Unit 51 v. Doe, 920 F. Supp. 2d 168, 213–14 (D. Me. 2013)

McCann on behalf of J.M. v. York Sch. Dep't

Male high school student stated a peer-on-peer sexual harassment Title IX claim by alleging that he was called female gender-specific derogatory names.

McCann on behalf of J.M. v. York Sch. Dep't, 365 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D. Me. 2019)

​

Maryland [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

“Bullying, harassment, or intimidation” means intentional conduct, including verbal, physical, or written conduct, or an intentional electronic communication, that:

(i) Creates a hostile educational environment by substantially interfering with a student's educational benefits, opportunities, or performance, or with a student's physical or psychological well-being and is:

1. Motivated by an actual or a perceived personal characteristic including race, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, ancestry, physical attributes, socioeconomic status, familial status, or physical or mental ability or disability;
2. Sexual in nature, including descriptions or depictions of a student with the student's intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual contact; or
3. Threatening or seriously intimidating; and

(ii) 1. Occurs on school property, at a school activity or event, or on a school bus; or 2. Substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a school.

Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 7-424 (https://codes.findlaw.com/md/education/md-code-educ-sect-7-424.html)

​

A person may not recklessly or intentionally do an act or create a situation that subjects a student to the risk of serious bodily injury for the purpose of an initiation into a student organization of a school, college, or university.

​

Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-607 (https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N749208A09CDB11DB9BCF9DAC28345A2A?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default))

​

Related Statutory References

• Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-805

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 7-424.3 (https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2018/education/division-ii/title-7/subtitle-4/section-7-424.3/)

• Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 7-424.1 (https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N3810369084AF11E8BDB393B3CCCAE216?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default))

​

Massachusetts [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

​

“Bullying”, the repeated use by one or more students or by a member of a school staff including, but not limited to, an educator, administrator, school nurse, cafeteria worker, custodian, bus driver, athletic coach, advisor to an extracurricular activity or paraprofessional of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim that: (i) causes physical or emotional harm to the victim or damage to the victim’s property; (ii) places the victim in reasonable fear of harm to himself or of damage to his property; (iii) creates a hostile environment at school for the victim; (iv) infringes on the rights of the victim at school; or (v) materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school. For the purposes of this section, bullying shall include cyber-bullying.

​

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37O (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section37O)

​

“Cyber-bullying”, bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication, which shall include, but shall not be limited to, any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications. Cyber-bullying shall also include (i) the creation of a web page or blog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person or (ii) the knowing impersonation of another person as the author of posted content or messages, if the creation or impersonation creates any of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, of the definition of bullying. Cyber-bullying shall also include the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons, if the distribution or posting creates any of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), inclusive, of the definition of bullying.

​

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37O (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section37O)

​

The term “hazing” as used in this section and in sections eighteen and nineteen, shall mean any conduct or method of initiation into any student organization, whether on public or private property, which wilfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person. Such conduct shall include whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical health or safety of any such student or other person, or which subjects such student or other person to extreme mental stress, including extended deprivation of sleep or rest or extended isolation.

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 269, § 17 (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section17)

Related Statutory References

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 269, § 19

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 269, § 18

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 269, § 14A 

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 43A 

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 43 

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 69, § 1F

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 93 (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section93)

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37O (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section37O)

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37H (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71/Section37H)

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 69, § 1D (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter69/Section1D)

​

Related Cases

Cormier v. City of Lynn

Background: Parents of student who was permanently injured when he was pushed down stairs by another student brought action against school district and district employees. The Superior Court Department, Essex County, Robert N. Tochka, J., dismissed all claims. Parents appealed. The Appeals Court, 91 Mass.App.Ct. 110, 175 N.E.3d 1148, affirmed. Parents sought further appellate review. 
Holding: The Supreme Judicial Court, Budd, J., held that injuries to student originated from failure of school district and its employees to act, rather than from affirmative act.
Affirmed.
Conclusion: In this case it appears, based upon the allegations of the complaint, that those working at the elementary school could have and should have done more to protect Matthew. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Legislature has imposed restrictions on the act that exempt school districts from liability. See Whitney, 373 Mass. at 210, 366 N.E.2d 1210 (“on the subject of sovereign immunity ... barring any possible constitutional infirmities, the Legislature will have the final word”).
The order of the Superior Court judge allowing the motion to dismiss is affirmed.

Cormier v. City of Lynn, 479 Mass. 35, 43, 91 N.E.3d 662, 668 (2018)

Thomas v. Town of Chelmsford

Background: Student and parents brought action against town, school committee, school administrators, and teachers for federal and state civil rights violations, defamation, and other torts. All of the defendants filed motions to dismiss.
Holdings: The District Court, Patti B. Saris, Chief Judge, held that:
1 sexual assault of student by teammates at a school-sponsored overnight football camp did not violate the student's substantive due process right to bodily integrity;
2 alleged statements and actions by public school teachers were sufficiently derogatory to constitute a plausible claim of First Amendment retaliation;
3 school administrators were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to teachers' First Amendment retaliation;
4 municipal liability could be imposed against town;
5 allegations were sufficient to support claim of gender discrimination in violation of Title IX based on sexual harassment;
6 student's allegations were adequate to state a claim for deprivation of constitutional rights by moral coercion under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act;
7 allegations that teachers ridiculed student in front of his classmates were sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Massachusetts law;
8 town could be held liable under limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act; and
9 student's parents could not recover consortium damages from town or school council.

Thomas v. Town of Chelmsford, 267 F. Supp. 3d 279 (D. Mass. 2017)

​

Harrington v. City of Attleboro

Background: Student who received psychotherapeutic care and withdrew from school as result of bullying by fellow students in public middle school and high schools, and her mother, brought action in state court against city and school administrators, alleging peer-on-peer sexual harassment under Title IX, and asserting equal protection claim under § 1983, as well as claims under state law for negligence and loss of consortium. Defendants removed action to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state claim.
Holdings: The District Court, Casper, J., held that:
1 plaintiffs stated claim for peer-on-peer sexual harassment under Title IX;
2 plaintiffs failed to state equal protection claim;
3 plaintiffs failed to state that city was “original cause” of injury, as would render sovereign immunity waived under Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA);
4 leave would be granted to allow plaintiffs to amend complaint to add Massachusetts Declaration of Rights claim;
5 plaintiffs were required to seek administrative remedies prior to pursuing claim under Massachusetts statute prohibiting unlawful exclusion from public school; and
6 plaintiffs failed to state claim under Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (MERA).
Motion allowed in part and denied in part.

Harrington v. City of Attleboro, 172 F. Supp. 3d 337 (D. Mass. 2016)

Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle

Background: Female high school student brought action against town, town school district, and certain school district officials, alleging, inter alia, that officials' failure to respond to bullying violated her rights under Title IX and Due Process Clause. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
Holdings: The District Court, Indira Talwani, J., held that:
1 harasser's act of keying derogatory word into student's car bumper on one occasion did not constitute severe and pervasive sexual harassment;
2 alleged acts of bullying were not based on student's gender;
3 officials did not engage in any affirmative act that created or enhanced danger posed to student from her student-harassers;
4 officials' alleged failure to adequately investigate and respond to bullying of student did not shock the conscience;
5 officials' alleged failure to adequately respond to bullying was not so extreme and outrageous as to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
6 officials' allegedly negligent conduct occurred within scope of their employment.
Motion granted.

​

Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle, 136 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D. Mass. 2015)

​

Michigan [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

“Bullying” means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, including, but not limited to, cyberbullying, that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:

(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.
(ii) Adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm or by causing substantial emotional distress.
(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health.
(iv) Causing substantial disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school.

“Cyberbullying” means any electronic communication that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:

(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.
(ii) Adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm or by causing substantial emotional distress.
(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health.
(iv) Causing substantial disruption in, or substantial interference with, the orderly operation of the school.

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 380.1310b (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2rt1vz32nwjo4czvddrvqygp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-380-1310b)

​

“Hazing” means an intentional, knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or acting with others that is directed against an individual and that the person knew or should have known endangers the physical health or safety of the individual, and that is done for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization. Subject to subsection (5), hazing includes any of the following that is done for such a purpose:

(i) Physical brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, branding, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or similar activity.
(ii) Physical activity, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, or calisthenics, that subjects the other person to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the physical health or safety of the individual.
(iii) Activity involving consumption of a food, liquid, alcoholic beverage, liquor, drug, or other substance that subjects the individual to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the physical health or safety of the individual.
(iv) Activity that induces, causes, or requires an individual to perform a duty or task that involves the commission of a crime or an act of hazing.

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.411t (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0b30zxjdvhmehwuslwpxunhd))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-411t)

​

Related Statutory References

​

• Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 380.1310c 

• Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 380.1300a 

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: 

• Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 380.1310b (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(z5wgmjpzrwvvjqhsucyaoi2o))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-380-1310b)
   

Related Cases

Hoffman v. Saginaw Pub. Sch.

In this student-on-student harassment case, the defendant's motion to dismiss raises a dispositive question that the complaint does not answer: Why did one young man allegedly bully the plaintiff's son? Was it based on the victim's disability? Was it based on the victim's sex? Or was it based on some other reason, such as personal animus?
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hoffman v. Saginaw Pub. Sch., No. 12-10354, 2012 WL 2450805, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2012)

​

Minnesota [return to top] 

(updated: 8/1/2020)

​

Important State Definitions

“Bullying” means intimidating, threatening, abusive, or harming conduct that is objectively offensive and:

(1) there is an actual or perceived imbalance of power between the student engaging in prohibited conduct and the target of the behavior and the conduct is repeated or forms a pattern; or
(2) materially and substantially interferes with a student's educational opportunities or performance or ability to participate in school functions or activities or receive school benefits, services, or privileges.

​

“Cyberbullying” means bullying using technology or other electronic communication, including but not limited to a transfer of a sign, signal, writing, image, sound, or data, including a post on a social network Internet website or forum, transmitted through a computer, cell phone, or other electronic device.

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.031 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.031)

​

“Hazing” means committing an act against a student, or coercing a student into committing an act, that creates a substantial risk of harm to a person in order for the student to be initiated into or affiliated with a student organization.

​

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.69 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.69)

​

Related Statutory References

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 125B.15 

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 122A.60

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 120B.22 

• Safe Schools Initiatives Acts: Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.0311 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.0311)

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.03 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.03)

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 127A.052 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/127A.052)

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 127A.051 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/127A.051)

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 124D.231 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/124D.231)

• Minn. Stat. Ann. § 121A.031 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121A.031)

​

Related Cases

Sagehorn v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728

Background: High school honor student who was suspended and allegedly forced to withdraw from school district as result of website post, intended to be humorous, in which he admitted to having “made out” with named high school teacher sued school district, its superintendent and assistant superintendent, high school principal, police chief, and police officer, bringing claim for violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by all defendants, Monell claim against school district, and defamation claim against police chief for comments made during his investigation into student's conduct. School defendants and police defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The School Defendants point out, for example, that the Minnesota legislature actually requires schools to discipline students for “cyberbullying,” even when it occurs off-campus, leading to confusion over the scope of off-campus conduct schools may regulate. Minn.Stat. § 121A.031, subd. 1(a)(3). Accordingly, the School Defendants insist that Sagehorn did not have a clearly established right that the officials' actions violated, and they are thus protected by qualified immunity.

​

Sagehorn v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 122 F. Supp. 3d 842, 862 (D. Minn. 2015)