Piecemeal Action ≠ Reasonable Action: The Fourth Circuit’s Expansion of “Deliberate Indifference” under Title IX in Sage Blair v. Appomattox County School Board

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Sage Blair v. Appomattox County School Board, No. 24-1682 (Aug. 7 2025) adds a new contour to the “deliberate indifference” doctrine under Title IX. At the heart of the dispute is S.B., a 14-year-old student experiencing gender dysphoria who was subjected to escalating harassment and sexual threats after a school counselor unilaterally advised her to use the boys’ restroom. Her adoptive mother, Sage Lily Blair (“Blair”), sued the School Board, its superintendent, and two counselors for Title IX violations, Monell liability, and several substantive due-process claims. The district court dismissed all claims; the Fourth Circuit affirmed most dismissals but revived the Title IX deliberate-indifference claim, holding that merely providing a single-student restroom while ignoring a wider pattern of peer threats could plausibly be “clearly unreasonable.”

Summary of the Judgment

Deliberate Indifference Claim (Title IX): Reversal of dismissal. The panel (Judge Gregory writing; Judge Benjamin joining) held that Blair plausibly alleged the School Board’s response was not “reasonably calculated” to end harassment, therefore a jury could find deliberate indifference.
Monell Claim: Affirmed dismissal. Allegations of a “protocol” suppressing parental notification were deemed conclusory.
Substantive Due-Process Claims: Affirmed dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds; the asserted parental-notification right was not clearly established.
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Separate Opinion: Judge Wilkinson concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the School Board’s response was not “clearly unreasonable.”

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) – The seminal peer-harassment case: liability attaches only where the response is “clearly unreasonable.” The majority quotes Davis extensively but stresses that Davis does not allow schools to silo incidents while systemic threats persist.
Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2018) – The Fourth Circuit previously faulted a university for “listening circles” that failed to stop threats. Blair extends Hurley to K-12 settings, holding that restroom reassignment alone is akin to Hurley’s “listening circles.”
Ricketts v. Wake County Public School System, 125 F.4th 507 (4th Cir. 2025) – (decided earlier that Term). Ricketts emphasized that responses must be globally adequate, not piecemeal; Blair relies on Ricketts to reject the Board’s argument that reassignment to the nurse’s restroom sufficed.
S.B. ex rel. A.L. v. Board of Educ. of Hartford County, 819 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 2016) – Cited by Judge Wilkinson’s dissent to underscore the “high bar” of deliberate indifference; the majority distinguishes it as involving isolated incidents without the sustained malicious threats faced by S.B.
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) – Guides the municipal-liability portion. The majority reaffirms the need for well-pled factual support for an official policy or custom.
Qualified-immunity trilogy: Yates v. Terry (2016), Estate of Armstrong (2016), and Putman v. Harris (2023) – Provide the two-step inquiry the court used to uphold immunity on the due-process claims.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. “Overall Scenario” vs. “Incident-by-Incident” Analysis The panel emphasizes that courts must assess the school’s response in context — citing Laurent-Workman v. Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201 (4th Cir. 2022) and DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015) to deplore “piecemeal” reviews. By focusing only on restroom logistics, the Board ignored threats on buses, halls, and social media.

b. Reasonably Calculated Efforts The court lists what the Board did not do: interview perpetrators, impose discipline, notify Title IX officials, or inform parents timely. Contrasting with those omissions, the minimal step of assigning a nurse’s restroom wasn’t “calculated to end” hostility.

c. Deliberate Indifference Pleading Standard On a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs need only plausibly allege unreasonableness. The panel interprets “clearly unreasonable” as a factual question inappropriate for Rule 12 dismissal where multiple ignored warning signs are pled.

d. Monell & Due-Process Holdings The court dismisses the Monell claim, ruling Blair alleged a “protocol” but no facts. On parental-rights theories, the panel sides with precedent finding no clearly established right to parental notification of a student’s asserted gender identity, granting qualified immunity.

3. Potential Impact of the Judgment

Title IX Compliance: K-12 districts within the Fourth Circuit must treat peer harassment holistically. Providing alternative facilities or sporadic interventions will not suffice where broader threats remain unchecked.
Administrative Protocols: Schools may need to revisit “non-disclosure” guidelines around gender identity. Although the court upheld qualified immunity, the opinion spotlights parental-notification controversies, foreshadowing future litigation.
Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs now have a template: plead a pattern of warnings + minimal school action to survive dismissal. Defendants must document proactive investigations, Title IX-coordinator involvement, and parental outreach.
Intersection of Gender Identity & Harassment: The ruling underscores that civil-rights protection for transgender or gender-non-conforming students can coexist with parental interests; ignoring bullying in the name of affirmation exposes schools to liability.
Split Among Circuits? The dissent’s concern about diluting Davis may resonate elsewhere, potentially inviting Supreme Court review if other circuits hew to a stricter standard.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title IX: A federal statute barring sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds. It is often invoked for athletics and sexual-harassment cases.
Deliberate Indifference: Not simple negligence. The school must act in a way that is “clearly unreasonable” given what it knew. Think of it as conscious disregard of obvious risks.
Monell Liability: A municipality (or school board) can only be sued for its own policies or customs, not merely for employees’ misconduct.
Qualified Immunity: Shields government employees unless they violated a law that was “clearly established” such that any reasonable official would know the conduct was unlawful.
Piecemeal vs. Global Response: Handling isolated aspects (e.g., bathroom access) without addressing the chain of related threats amounts to “piecemeal” action. Courts now weigh the totality.

Conclusion

Sage Blair v. Appomattox County School Board reinforces that in the Fourth Circuit, school administrators must do more than offer logistical work-arounds when confronted with gender-based peer harassment. The decision:

Elevates the importance of a comprehensive response under Title IX.
Clarifies that “piecemeal” measures can demonstrate deliberate indifference.
Leaves parental-notification rights unsettled, but spotlights the issue for future cases.
Demands stronger documentation and investigative rigor from school personnel.

While the majority and dissent diverge on how high Davis’s bar should be, the controlling opinion sets a clear message: schools that know of multi-faceted harassment must tackle the entire problem, or face potential liability. In an era of heightened attention to both transgender rights and parental involvement, this case marks a significant waypoint in Title IX jurisprudence, signaling that protective policies must be matched by decisive, well-documented action to safeguard all students.