LANSING, Mich (Michigan News Source) – In a ruling that has left many parents and advocates for student safety reeling, the Michigan Supreme Court recently decided that K-12 schools in the state are not liable under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) for student-on-student sexual harassment.

This controversial decision, which overturns a prior Court of Appeals opinion, asserts that Michigan’s anti-discrimination law does not require school administrators to prevent or address sexually hostile environments in schools. Critics argue this leaves students vulnerable and unprotected, questioning the law’s effectiveness in safeguarding schoolchildren.

MORE NEWS: Thanksgiving Feast in Detroit Taming Bears, 23-20

The case that led to this ruling involved a disturbing incident in the Alpena Public School District, where a fourth-grade girl, referred to as Jane Doe, was repeatedly sexually harassed by a fellow student. Despite the boy’s history of inappropriate behavior and temporary suspensions, the girl’s family felt that the school district failed to take sufficient action to protect their daughter. The family’s legal battle, which has spanned several years, was rooted in the belief that the school’s negligence created a “sexually hostile educational environment,” a claim that the Michigan Supreme Court has now rejected under ELCRA.

The court’s reasoning: A flawed interpretation?

The crux of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision lies in its interpretation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The court determined that because students are not employees, the protections against discrimination and harassment afforded by ELCRA do not extend to them in the same way they do to workers.

This narrow interpretation has sparked intense debate, with Justice Richard Bernstein dissenting fervently. Bernstein argued in his dissent that ELCRA should indeed provide a cause of action for students facing sexual harassment from their peers, pointing out that the law’s primary intent is to prevent discrimination and ensure a safe environment for all.

Bernstein’s dissent highlights a growing concern that the ruling effectively creates a legal loophole, where students can be subjected to harassment without meaningful recourse.

Implications for Michigan students: A dangerous precedent.

The implications of this ruling are profound and far-reaching. By absolving schools of responsibility under ELCRA, some say that the Michigan Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent with schools now effectively shielded from liability when they fail to address student-on-student sexual harassment, leaving students like Jane Doe to fend for themselves.

Many argue that this decision not only undermines the intent of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act but also raises serious questions about the state’s commitment to protecting its children.