Sixteen plaintiffs, including former students and parents of students at Mount Saint Mary High School in Oklahoma, alleged that they experienced sexual harassment or assault at the School, either by fellow students or staff, and that administrators ignored or mishandled reports of abuse. The alleged misconduct occurred between 2005 and 2022, with some plaintiffs only realizing the extent of the School’s inaction after a 2021 media investigation exposed a systemic pattern of abuse.
The lawsuit detailed multiple instances where School officials, including the former principal, allegedly downplayed or dismissed complaints of sexual misconduct. Plaintiffs cited instances where administrators accused victims of lying, pressured them into silence, or retaliated against those who reported assaults. Among the claims, Jane Doe 1 alleged that after reporting a sexual assault by a fellow student in 2020, School officials misled her guardian, minimized the incident as mere “flirtation,” and suggested she use a different stairwell to avoid her assailant. Another plaintiff, Jane Doe 3, claimed she was assaulted on a school bus after an athletic event, but when she reported the incident, the School principal allegedly forced her to apologize to her attacker and warned that pursuing the complaint would jeopardize her future. Other plaintiffs described School officials protecting male students and teachers accused of harassment, enforcing sexist policies, and failing to investigate reports of sexual abuse.
Some victims claimed they did not report their assaults at the time because the School created a culture of victim-blaming and intimidation. Plaintiffs also alleged that School officials actively concealed reports of sexual misconduct, preventing them from understanding the scope of abuse at the School and delaying their ability to file lawsuits.
The plaintiffs brought several legal claims against the School, the Archdiocese, and the Sisters of Mercy, including Title IX violations, negligence, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and vicarious liability. The defendants moved to dismiss the case.
Title IX Claims
Mount Saint Mary argued that, as a private religious school, it was not subject to Title IX. However, plaintiffs countered that the School receives federal funding, making it subject to Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination.
To establish liability under Title IX, plaintiffs must show that the school (1) had actual knowledge of the harassment; and (2) was deliberately indifferent to it, meaning the School’s response (or lack thereof) was “clearly unreasonable” and denied victims equal access to education.
The Court found that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a pattern of sexual misconduct that School officials knew about but failed to address. The Court also determined that administrators’ responses—such as forcing students to apologize to their assailants and threatening academic consequences for reporting abuse—met the standard for deliberate indifference, allowing the Title IX claims to proceed.
However, the Court dismissed certain Title IX claims as time-barred, applying Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Some plaintiffs’ post-assault claims were dismissed because they had been aware of their injuries and the School’s inaction well before filing suit. However, pre-assault claims—alleging that the School’s failure to investigate past misconduct created a heightened risk of future harassment—were allowed to proceed, as plaintiffs argued that School officials actively concealed the extent of the problem, justifying tolling of the statute of limitations.
Negligence Claims
The School asserted that it had no legal duty to protect students from sexual misconduct by third parties. However, the Court ruled that under Oklahoma law, schools have a special duty of care toward students, particularly when they exercise control over student safety and discipline. Schools may be liable for negligence if they knew or should have known about prior misconduct and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
The Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the School had failed to address known risks, such as allowing students and staff accused of assault to remain at the School. Some plaintiffs claimed that they or others had reported misconduct before their own assaults occurred, but School officials failed to act, which was enough for the negligence claims to proceed.
Breach of Contract Claims
Plaintiffs argued that the School’s student handbook, tuition agreements, and policies constituted a binding contract, which promised a safe educational environment. Oklahoma courts have previously ruled that private schools’ written policies can be enforceable contracts, particularly when they contain specific promises regarding student safety and discipline.
The Court found that plaintiffs adequately alleged a breach of contract, as they claimed the School failed to enforce its policies on sexual misconduct and failed to protect students from known risks. However, the Court dismissed breach of contract claims against the Archdiocese and the Sisters of Mercy, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show that these entities had directly entered into contracts with students.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
Oklahoma law requires that IIED claims involve conduct that is extreme and outrageous, and so severe that no reasonable person could endure it. The Court found that some plaintiffs alleged sufficiently extreme conduct, such as School officials forcing victims to apologize to their attackers, threatening students with academic punishment for reporting assaults, and allowing known abusers to remain at the School despite multiple complaints. These claims were allowed to proceed.
However, the Court dismissed certain IIED claims, ruling that feelings of shame, embarrassment, or discomfort—without evidence of severe, lasting psychological harm—were not enough to meet the high legal standard required under Oklahoma law.
Vicarious Liability of the Archdiocese and Sisters of Mercy
Plaintiffs argued that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas exercised control over Mount Saint Mary, making them vicariously liable for its failures. The Court allowed these claims to proceed, finding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that these entities played a role in shaping the School’s policies, training, and response to reports of misconduct.
However, the Court dismissed direct liability claims against the Archdiocese and Sisters of Mercy, ruling that plaintiffs failed to present specific allegations that these entities directly engaged in wrongdoing.
Doe v. Mount Saint Mary High Sch. Corp. of Okla. (W.D.Okla. Feb. 13, 2025) 2025 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 26166.
Note: This case underscores the potential liability for sexual harassment complaints, which can arise both from the facts giving rise to the complaints and also from how a school responds to such complaints. The California Education Code requires that all schools in the state, including private schools, have a written policy on sexual harassment.