Wolfe v. Fayetteville, AR Sch. Dist., No. 10-2570 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant filed suit against the Fayetteville, Arkansas School District (District) alleging he was a victim of sexual harassment in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681. At issue was whether the district court erroneously instructed the jury and further erred in empaneling a twelve-member jury as oppose to a six-member jury. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the instruction provided by the district court accurately portrayed the law underlying appellant's Title IX claim where the "harasser must be motivated by [appellant's] gender or his failure to conform to stereotypical male characteristics" and because appellant was not entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case since it did not comport with the law where mere name-calling and rumors with sexual connotations were insufficient to provide relief under Title IX. The court also held that appellant's argument regarding the district court's error in empaneling a twelve-member jury had no merit where the district court had discretion to select "at least 6 and no more than 12 members" for a jury. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Civil case - Title IX. Proof of sex-based motivation is required for a Title IX deliberate indifference claim and the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that the harasser must be motivated by plaintiff's gender or his failure to conform to stereotypical male characteristics in order for there to be finding of liability; district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff's proposed jury instruction which told the jury mere name-calling or rumor-spreading were sufficient to establish liability under Title IX; challenge to the district court's decision to impanel a twelve-person jury rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.