Plaintiffs Amber and Jonathon Stepp, individually and as parents of J.S., sued Talihina Public School District and eleven individual defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma raising claims under Title IX, Section 1983, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and Oklahoma state law. Ten defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), qualified immunity, and the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
Factual Overview
J.S. was an eleven-year-old fifth-grade student at Talihina Elementary School during the 2022-2023 school year. Beginning in August 2022, at the direction of Superintendent Jason Lockhart and Principal Kathy Anderson, fifth-grade students were segregated into separate classes based solely on gender, with boys taught by Kevin McClain and girls taught by a female teacher. This policy left students with no option but to attend gender-segregated classes.
During the first weeks of school, McClain frequently yelled at students and began targeting J.S. specifically, berating him until he cried and prohibiting him from leaving the classroom when he felt unwell. McClain used derogatory language, called J.S. “queer,” instructed students to yell “f*g alert” upon unwanted contact from classmates, and engaged in inappropriate discussions about male genitalia and kissing girls. When confronted, McClain admitted his conduct was inappropriate and acknowledged he would not have used such language if girls had been present in the classroom.
After Mr. Stepp reported concerns to Superintendent Lockhart on August 25, 2022, the school placed a hall monitor outside McClain’s classroom, but the inappropriate behavior continued. The Stepps filed a formal Title IX complaint on August 29, 2022. In response, the school removed J.S. from McClain’s classroom but refused to remove McClain. J.S. was placed on a modified schedule where he attended only one Language Arts class and spent the remainder of each day alone in the library, receiving little to no instruction and losing access to his special education services under his Individual Education Plan.
The school’s Title IX investigation was problematic from the start. Title IX officer Rebecca McLemore was prohibited from speaking during meetings and later resigned, stating she was unqualified and faced ethical liability. New Title IX officers Bill Blair and Tracy Bryant conducted a cursory investigation without interviewing the plaintiffs, J.S., or other affected students. The investigation was closed on September 17, 2022, with no information provided to the family.
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma State Department of Education issued a letter on September 29, 2022, directing the school to integrate fifth-grade classes by October 10, 2022, finding that the segregation policy violated federal civil rights laws. When J.S. returned to integrated classes on October 12, 2022, Blair forced him to sit alone on the classroom floor despite available desks. During a subsequent basketball game, Blair engaged in a profanity-laced public tirade against the Stepp family and threatened physical violence. The family ultimately withdrew all their children from the school and began homeschooling.
The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on April 23, 2024, which they amended twice, with the second amended complaint filed on December 5, 2024. During a March 4, 2025 hearing, plaintiffs voluntarily abandoned their EEOA claim and their defamation claim against the school district.
Legal Analysis
Title IX Claims: The court found that plaintiffs adequately stated claims under Title IX for gender segregation, sexual harassment, and retaliation against the school district. For the segregation claim, the court determined that segregating classes explicitly on the basis of sex directly violated Title IX. Regarding sexual harassment, the court found sufficient allegations that the school had actual knowledge of McClain’s harassment and was deliberately indifferent in its response, conducting an inadequate investigation without proper policies or procedures. The retaliation claim survived because plaintiffs alleged materially adverse actions taken in response to their Title IX complaint, including removing J.S. from class, disclosing their identities as complainants, and subjecting them to defamatory statements and physical threats.
Section 1983 Claims: The court analyzed multiple Section 1983 claims with mixed results. For municipal liability against the school district, the court found an adequate equal protection claim based on the direct causal link between the sex-segregation policy and McClain’s harassment, but dismissed the procedural and substantive due process claims for failure to establish sufficient connections to the policy.
Regarding supervisory liability claims against individual defendants, the court found adequate equal protection and procedural due process claims against Principal Anderson, Superintendent Lockhart, and Board Members, determining they personally participated in implementing and enforcing the discriminatory segregation policy. However, substantive due process claims were dismissed for failure to meet the high “shocks the conscience” standard.
The conspiracy claims under Section 1983 survived against most defendants based on allegations of coordinated efforts to handle the Title IX complaint improperly, but were dismissed against Blair and Bryant for failure to allege constitutional violations by these defendants specifically.
Retaliation claims under Section 1983 survived against multiple defendants, with the court finding that the alleged conduct would chill a reasonable person from filing Title IX complaints.
Qualified Immunity: The court denied qualified immunity to individual defendants on the surviving constitutional claims, finding that the rights to be free from gender discrimination and retaliation were clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.
State Law Claims: Most state law claims survived dismissal motions. Negligence claims against the school district and Board Members were allowed to proceed, with the court finding that implementation of policies (as opposed to policy-making decisions) could give rise to liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
However, defamation and assault claims were dismissed as time-barred under Oklahoma’s one-year statute of limitations, as the alleged conduct occurred in 2022 but the lawsuit was not filed until April 2024. The court also dismissed the claim under Oklahoma House Bill 1775, finding no implied private right of action in the statute and noting that the implementing regulations were not in effect when the alleged violations occurred.
The civil conspiracy claim under Oklahoma law survived, with the court finding adequate allegations of agreements to pursue unlawful purposes that could give rise to tort liability.
Damages: The court struck plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages against the school district, as such damages are not available under Title IX, Section 1983, or the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act against governmental entities, but allowed punitive damage claims to proceed against individual defendants.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, allowing Title IX claims against the school district to proceed, permitting most Section 1983 claims against individual defendants to continue, dismissing time-barred state law claims for defamation and assault, and dismissing the HB 1775 claim while allowing other state law claims to proceed.
Schrag on Law 