top of page

Federal courts are failing student victims of harassment.

The SAFER Act would ensure students and school staff would be able to enforce their rights in Michigan courts instead of facing barriers and extremely strict standards in federal court.

Currently, if a student is harassed based on race, sex, or disability, they can't sue their school in federal court unless:

The harassment was “severe and pervasive.”

REALITY: Courts often rule that forced kissing or groping isn’t “severe,” and that even a single instance of oral/vaginal rape is not “pervasive” to qualify.

 

An “appropriate official” had “actual notice” of the harassment.

REALITY: If you tell a teacher, coach, counselor, bus driver, principal, or professor, they may not be considered an “appropriate official.”

REALITY: If staff only hear repeated “rumor” a teacher is “dating” high school students, schools may claim to not have had “actual notice.”

 

The school had “substantial control” over the harassment.

REALITY: Schools often claim that they had no “substantial control” if harassment occurs

off-campus.

REALITY: If students attend different schools, neither school is legally required to intervene or help the victim.

 

The school acted with “deliberate indifference” to the harassment.

REALITY: It is not “deliberate indifference” if the school expels survivor, takes minimal action, or covers up investigation.

 

The student was harassed again.

REALITY: In higher education, a victim must be harassed again after school learns of first incident.

 

The victim had a non-emotional injury.

REALITY: Cummings (SCOTUS): Disabled plaintiffs can’t sue for emotional distress under federal disability discrimination laws.

REALITY: Many federal courts, including in Michigan, are now applying the same rule to sex and race discrimination.

Three-column comparison chart titled “Federal Law,” “Michigan Law,” and “SAFER Act.” Row 1: Federal Law: “The harassment was ‘severe’ and ‘pervasive.’” Michigan Law: “The harassment ‘substantial[ly interfere[d]’ with victim’s education or created an ‘intimidating, hostile, or offensive’ environment.” SAFER Act: “The harassment ‘substantially interfere[d]’ with the victim’s education or created an ‘intimidating, hostile, or offensive’ environment.” Row 2: Federal Law: “An ‘appropriate person’ had ‘actual notice’ of the harassment.” Michigan Law: “N/A.” SAFER Act: “An agent or employee at school ‘knew’ or ‘should have known’ about the harassment.” Row 3: Federal Law: “The school had ‘substantial control’ (usually excludes off-campus incidents).” Michigan Law: “N/A.” SAFER Act: “The school failed to respond, ‘regardless of where the harassment occurs,’ as long as the other requirements are met.” Row 4: Federal Law: “The school responded with ‘deliberate indifference.’” Michigan Law: “The

The SAFER Act
includes additional
Michigan protections:

  • Making sure that students have the right to privacy & choice

  • Schools would now have to select at least one employee (who is not required to make an official report) for students and staff to be able to talk to privately about harassment, including discussing their rights when harassment occurs

  • Ensuring victims know supports available to them

  • Protections against unfair punishments for students

  • Schools would no longer be able to punish students and staff for reporting harassment

On February 18th, Michigan Representative Dievendorf introduced the SAFER Act

MOASH's Interim Deputy Director, Chardae and MOASH youth, Jeff and Divya, spoke at the press conference to share why this legislation is crucial for the well-being of Michigan schools, young people, and educators.

Chardae stands at a podium reading from a printed sheet of paper during a press event. A blue sign on the podium reads “SAFER.” Two people stand behind her listening.
bottom of page