082700P.pdf   05/12/2009  Brittany Plamp  v.  Mitchell School Dist. No. 17-2
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-2700
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Judge Melloy, Author, with Judges Murphy and
   Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - civil rights. In a claim under Title IX of the Education
   Amendments of 1972, for purposes of determining the school district's
   liability for failure to act, liability cannot be imposed unless an
   appropriate person has actual knowledge of the discrimination and fails to
   act; while the court does not hold that guidance counselors and teachers
   are never appropriate persons for the purpose of finding a school district
   liable, the record here does not establish that either the counselor or the
   teachers were vested with sufficient authority to address the alleged
   discrimination and take corrective action; as a result, their knowledge of
   other incidents regarding the teacher in question could not be the basis for
   liability, and the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter
   of law for the district on plaintiff's Title IX claims; the school's in-house
   officials were not the appropriate policymaking body for Section 1983
   purposes, and the relevant entity, the School Board or Superintendent, did
   not have knowledge of a continuing, widespread, persistent patter of
   unconstitutional misconduct at the school; plaintiff's claim that the
   District failed to train specifically for the detection of teacher-on-student
   sexual abuse or harassment was properly rejected by the district court, as
   the evidence showed the school had sexual-harassment policies and
   reporting procedures in place, and plaintiff failed to produce any evidence
   that the relevant policymaking body was aware that training procedures
   were inadequate; there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
   conclude that the school district was not vicariously liable for the
   teachers's battery because the actions were outside the scope of his
   employment; district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff's request for
   an instruction on the source of any damage payment the district might
   have to make.