Plaintiff A.E. Radford sued defendant Potosi R-III School District in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, alleging discrimination based on sex. Defendant Potosi R-III School District moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
A.E. Radford, a recent graduate of Potosi High School and part of the defendant school district, alleges discrimination based on her sex, specifically citing non-conformity to stereotypical notions of being female and being romantically attracted to women. She claims to have been singled out for discipline, forbidden from engaging in certain conduct, subjected to demeaning comments, and that the school allowed other students to harass her for being LGBTQ+. Radford filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and, after receiving a Notice of Right to Sue, filed her complaint in federal court. Her complaint includes counts of sex discrimination, harassment based on sex, retaliation, associational discrimination, and aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, coercing discrimination and harassment under Missouri law.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness and Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: The court partially granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss based on timeliness. It concluded that some of Radford’s claims were time-barred but allowed those within the permissible timeframe to proceed, recognizing a series of interrelated events that could constitute a continuing violation.
Counts 1 and 2: Sex Discrimination: The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss Radford’s sex discrimination and harassment claims. It found Radford had adequately alleged that her sex was a motivating factor in the discrimination she faced, including discrimination for non-conformity to sexual stereotypes. The court differentiated Radford’s claims from previous cases that denied protection based on sexual orientation, focusing instead on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.
Count 4: Associational Discrimination: The motion to dismiss Radford’s claim of associational discrimination was denied. Radford alleges discrimination for associating with individuals protected by the MHRA because of their sex. The court found this sufficient at this stage of the proceedings, seriously questioning defendant’s argument that LGBTQ+ individuals are not protected under the MHRA for associational discrimination purposes.
Count 5: Aiding and Abetting Discrimination: The court granted the motion to dismiss the aiding and abetting discrimination claim. It agreed with the defendant that the complaint lacked allegations of affirmative action by the defendant to aid or abet discrimination by others.
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the time-barred allegations and the aiding and abetting claim but allowed the sex discrimination, harassment, and associational discrimination claims to proceed.
Schrag on Law 