Talk:Henkle v. Gregory

McQuaid ruling
Didn't McQuaid dismiss the Title IX claims but allow Henkle's suit to proceed based on his First Amendment claims, specifically the suppression of his free speech rights? Merjian, p. 58 and note 129. That is Lambda Legal's summary as well: "The settlement agreement reached in this case broke new ground by recognizing that lesbian and gay youth have a First Amendment right to be out at school." Nothing about Equal Protection and Title IX.

On JSTOR, see Perry A. Zirkel, "Gay Days," in The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 84, No. 5, Jan., 2003, 412-3, which has the clearest summary I've seen. I can post it here if that helps. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a PR statement to drum up more support for Lambda legal. Sheesh, people, you don't understand civil suit settlements, do you? McQuaid was most likely not involved at all in the mediation hearing or settlement conference. A separate judge handles the settlement phase. This isn't any "landmark" and was notable only because of the amount of the settlement, NOT because of the "truth" of the claim made by the plaintiff's lawyers.--SN 14 June 2013


 * Well, I'm probably confused, that's generally the case. You're certainly 100% right about the first amendment issues.  And some of the Title IX stuff was shot down, I think?  "Given our holding that § 1983 actions based on Title IX are subsumed by Title IX, it would be inconsistent and contrary to the above authority to allow Plaintiff to pursue constitutional claims through § 1983 based on the identical facts as the Title IX claims. To hold otherwise would be to create an exception to the Sea Clammers' doctrine that does not exist, Bruneau, supra, 757, 758, and would allow Plaintiff to do indirectly what he cannot do directly."  But then, just before the conclusion, we have in the section on punitive damages: "Given the requirement of actual knowledge and deliberate indifference to establish liability under Title IX, we believe, depending on the facts of a particular case, a punitive damages instruction may be warranted for violation of Title IX, and, therefore, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages in his Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief should be dismissed."   So, presumably it's a matter of some of the IX claims being potentially valid.  Please go ahead with any changes you feel appropriate.  --j⚛e deckertalk 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: Sadly, I'm not JSTOR'd, I'll see if I can find another accessible copy of that.  --j⚛e deckertalk 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I can get to it via Highbeam. link at highbeam --j⚛e deckertalk 21:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Complex, of course. Reads like most of his Title IX claims were dismissed but not the part that asked for punitive damages under Title IX. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. I wish I had the original claims to look at too, even though I'm clearly out of my depth in reading some  of this.  I took a terrible stab at trying to summarize, want to take a look and see if you think it's a step in the right direction, or can be worked into something that's a step in the right direction?


 * McQuaid dismissed Section 1983 claims under Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment, but refused to dismiss Section 1983 claims under the First Amendment, or to dismiss claims for punitive damages under Title IX.


 * --j⚛e deckertalk 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good at least to have the 1st amendment included. I think we need a lawyer. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Want me to drop a note on WP Law?  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note dropped. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I primarily work in WP Law & WP SCOTUS.  While I do primarily articles on SCOTUS cases, I am not an attorney.  I took a look at both the HighBeam article and the case, at Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2001).  First the probably unwanted facts.  This case is not precedent.  McQuaid is a Magistrate Judge, not a U.S. District Judge.  It is not binding authority on any other court, and indeed, has no following cites in Westlaw and one cite that did not follow the decision.  The case and opinion really do nothing for (or against) gay rights, speech rights, etc.


 * Second, the decision was on a motion to dismiss by the defendants. McQuaid dismissed several of Hinkle's claims: 1) Hinkle had no basis for suing under Sec. 1983 for Title IX sexual orientation issued (the claims were subsumed by the Title IX claims); and 2) same with Equal Protection clause under Sec. 1983 for sexual orientation claim.  Hinkle could pursue a claim under Sec. 1983 on the Freedom of Speech issue, but the ruling held that the school could show that their actions were justified to deal with disruption in the school.  In addition, it was ruled that the Title IX claim (by itself, not under Sec. 1983) could proceed against the officials in their individual capacity, but not in their official capacity.  Punitive damages could be sought under Title IX.


 * It appears that the complaint listed some of the claims as straight Title IX actions, and separately as Title IX actions brought under Sec. 1983. What the court did is to dismiss all of the Title IX based 1983 claims and allow the some to go forward on their own.


 * The case was then settled, with no admission of wrong-doing by the school. This is the normal point for settlements - the next step is going to trial, and it would likely be more expensive to fight the case than to settle it for under $500K.  I would note that at the time, this was still the largest settlement for a gay rights issue.

--Dead right. The insurance company, NOT the district, called the shots. This article should be deleted because it is just a civil suit settlement that never went through the appeals process. It's not worth an article.--SN 14 June 2013


 * You may want to look at the following sources:
 * Armen H. Merjian, Henkle v. Gregory: A Landmark Struggle Against Student Gay Bashing 16 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 41 (2009).
 * Lynn Mostoller, Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Student-On-Student Sexual Harassment in Public Schools: The Nexus Between Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education 33 N.M. L. Rev. 533 (2003).
 * Sarah E. Valentine, Traditional Advocacy For Nontraditional Youth: Rethinking Best Interest For The Queer Child 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1053 (2008).

--The sources are meaningless. I couldn't care less. It's not a landmark case, an insurance payout is NOT an admission of guilt or culpability, and those cites are simply propaganda disguised as scholarship.--SN 14 June 2013


 * I hope this helps.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we realize it's no precedent. I don't like the use of the word landmark, in that it implies legal landmark. What it was was a shot heard round the world of education warning them of the liability of failing to deal with harassment. The dollar figure got the attention of school administrators nationwide. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to insult anyone's intlligence, it's just that landmark is overused and many take that to mean pecedent. Money is the only thing that gets their attention... :).  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's NOT a landmark. That term was ripped off from the Lambda website, which of course engaged in a little bit of disinformation about just WHY WCSD settled in order to toot its own horn. Those Lambda lawyers know, like all lawyers, an insurance payout is not a "victory" or a "defeat" for either side. It never went to trial, and the reason it didn't was because of the cost. It isn't hard to understand why WCSD's insurance carrier forced a settlement--it was money.--14 June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.52.251 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed it, I'd borrowed it from the Merjian paper, but I'm not in any way stuck on it's inclusion. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pic, later suit
No objections to whatever folks want to do with the B O'R photo, I figured I'd give illustrating the article a shot--but it's tough, the main subjects of the article don't have easily available images.

Also, in aftermath, I suppose this might be worth a mention in the aftermath, dunno. One source thought Henkle's case related. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent bit for the aftermath section. I may add a section on harassment to the school district's entry too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is LGBT propaganda and should be deleted
The ONLY reason this particular suit was settled, as almost all civil lawsuits against school districts are invariably settled out of court, is because the major insurance carrier for WCSD went bankrupt, and the supplemental insurance company refused to pay any attorney fees for trials and appeals, which would have cost somewhere in the range of 2-3 MILLION dollars. The insurance companies always call the shots in civil cases, and the refusal to pay attorney fees doesn't mean the school district was one bit guilty of what the plaintiff claimed happened. Giving the guy close to a half mil is a lot cheaper than shelling out millions of dollars in lawyer fees.

THAT information came out in the press conference following the settlement and was publicized, but the author of this propaganda entry refuses to note that simple truth.

The ONLY thing notable about this case was the amount of the settlement, not about the "truth" of the claims made by the plaintiff's attorneys. We will NEVER know the "truth" because the case never went to trial and all parties in this case were bound by a confidentiality agreement or "gag order."

Furthermore, what the author of this "article" claims are "facts" of the case in fact are merely claims made in a civil suit, which is routine. Anybody can make any claim in a civil suit, but that doesn't mean any of it ever happened. There is no evidence other than what Henkle and his attorneys claimed happened. The author is engaging in deceit by not putting in the qualifiers such as "claimed" or "according to the suit." The lawsuit claims are treated as fact and are extremely misleading to the reader.

Please don't use a civil case as some kind of political crusade when in fact settlements are the rule in civil lawsuits. The article reeks of dishonesty. It is a LIE to call an insurance settlement claim a "victory" for a plaintiff when settlements are the rule in civil cases and pretrial settlement conferences are mandatory.--SN 14 June 2013


 * Welcome!  If you'd like to have the article deleted, the appropriate process to start a discussion is listed at WP:AFD, although there navigating that can be a little complicated.  You'll want to read through our deletion policy first.   Your concerns seem to be that the article does not adopt a neutral point of view towards the material as required by our policies.  The best way to show that is to find reliable, secondary sources -- generally articles in mainstream newspapers, magazines, books or scholarly journals that discuss the topic.  Best of luck,  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)