A school board was independently liable, under the doctrine of respondent superior, for a fifth-grade student's sexual assault of a third-grade student that occurred on a school bus. In this case, the bus driver, a school board employee, acknowledged that she violated the rules established by her supervisors when she got off the bus at a transfer point, which was when the assault occurred, and further acknowledged that she could have prevented the assault if she had been on the bus as required. In addition, evidence in the record indicated that there had been numerous assaults at the transfer point in the five years immediately preceding the incident.

A learning-disabled student's statement to a school counselor that boys were bothering her did not provide a school district with actual knowledge that the student was being sexually harassed, and, thus, the district was not liable under Title IX. This was true despite the student's statement that at the time she did not know how to use the word "assault," and notwithstanding her parent's pleas to the counselor to find out what was bothering the student.

A chain link fence on school property, separating the school grounds from adjacent residences, was not a "dangerous condition" that could subject the school district to liability for the injuries sustained by a nine-year-old child when he propped his bicycle against the fence, stood on top of the bicycle in an attempt to grab oranges from the neighbor's tree, and then slipped and fell, cutting his arm badly on the metal prongs on top of the fence. The child's use of his bicycle as a substitute ladder to reach over the fence was not a reasonably foreseeable use of the bicycle. Furthermore, the risk of falling and being seriously injured should have been obvious to the child.

Distinguishing the present case from two prior decisions, a Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a corrective action imposed on a school district by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) was not related to the district's violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and was therefore inappropriate. The corrective action required the district to partially reimburse a special-education student's father for the cost of hiring a private tutor. The district's IDEA violations, however, were primarily related to its failure to adequately address the student's ongoing aggressive/assaultive behaviors in his individualized education plans (IEPs). With respect to academics, the record plainly demonstrated, and MDE itself concluded, that the student had made adequate progress.