Alpena Public Schools logo

ALPENA — An Alpena court case will help Michigan courts decide schools’ legal responsibility when one student accuses another of sexual harassment.

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld an Alpena court’s decision in a lawsuit accusing Alpena Public Schools of not protecting a child from harassment by another student.

The suit was dismissed in 2021, when an Alpena judge said the district could not be held responsible for that alleged harassment under the terms of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in Michigan.

Not so, the appellate court said on Thursday.

In their role as surrogate parent during a school day, schools do have some control over student behavior and the environment created by those students, the appellate court said.

All the same, the Court of Appeals did not overturn the local decision because, it said, the person filing the lawsuit did not provide enough proof APS’s response to the alleged harassment was inadequate.

The local judge’s reasoning was incorrect, but, the Court of Appeals said, “We will not reverse where the right result is reached for the wrong reason.”

The appellate court released its decision as a published opinion, which means it may be cited or relied upon by other courts. Michigan higher courts had never, before the Alpena case, considered a school’s legal responsibility in the event of sexual harassment between students.

Neither an attorney representing Alpena Public Schools nor APS officials could be reached for comment.

In the Alpena lawsuit, a parent claimed a boy with a serious speech and language disorder made sexual motions toward her daughter and touched the girl inappropriately when the two were in fourth grade at Besser Elementary School in 2017.

Administrators imposed several-day suspensions on the boy following each of two incidents, and the children were placed in separate classrooms. The Alpena County Prosecutor filed a delinquency petition against the boy. That petition was later dropped because the court found the boy not competent to participate in court actions.

The children attended separate schools until junior high school, where the girl reported that the boy again behaved in a sexual manner around her. Thunder Bay Junior High School administrators said they would keep the boy away from the girl, but the children ended up on a bus and in hallways at the same time, the lawsuit said.

The mother faulted APS for failing to protect her daughter from a hostile environment created by the boy’s alleged sexual harassment, saying that failure violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

That act specifically prohibits gender-based discrimination in schools, including sexual harassment as a form of discrimination.

Conduct constitutes harassment if it creates an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive” environment, including at a school, the act says.

Many hostile-environment claims stem from the workplace. Courts often hold employers liable for the acts of their employees, the appeals court said.

In the APS lawsuit, the appellate court had to decide whether that reasoning carried over to schools, making administrators liable for student conduct.

While children “regularly interact in a manner that would be unacceptable among adults,” Michigan courts still expect schools to maintain control of students, similar to that of a parent, the appellate court said.

Yes, the court agreed, schools can be held responsible for the environment created by the actions of the students within their walls.

Because the Michigan higher courts had never considered the issue, the appellate court had to look to its handling of workplace sexual harassment claims as a guide to decide whether the APS lawsuit should go forward.

In the work world, an employer may have responded properly to a harassment claim if it “adequately investigated and took prompt and appropriate remedial action” when alerted to the hostile work environment.

APS said in its response to the lawsuit that it took appropriate measures to prevent future incidents. The district’s actions protected both students’ rights to an education, taking the boy’s protections as a special education student into account, it said.

The girl’s mother disagreed, saying the district knew the boy had exhibited sexual behavior in the past but failed to keep him away from the girl.

The Court of Appeals did not rule on whether APS had acted appropriately but said the mother had not provided specific evidence they had not done so.

The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act protects the opportunity to obtain employment, housing, and access to public services regardless of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, family makeup, or marital status.

The act is designed to “eliminate the effects of offensive or demeaning stereotypes, prejudices, and biases,” according to the appellate court decision.