英文字典中文字典


英文字典中文字典51ZiDian.com



中文字典辞典   英文字典 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p   q   r   s   t   u   v   w   x   y   z       







请输入英文单字，中文词皆可：


请选择你想看的字典辞典：
单词字典翻译
Dimittis查看　Dimittis　在百度字典中的解释百度英翻中〔查看〕
Dimittis查看　Dimittis　在Google字典中的解释Google英翻中〔查看〕
Dimittis查看　Dimittis　在Yahoo字典中的解释Yahoo英翻中〔查看〕

安装中文字典英文字典查询工具!


中文字典英文字典工具:
选择颜色:
输入中英文单字

































































英文字典中文字典相关资料:


  • Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. , 526 U. S. 629 (1999)
    A private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the
  • Part 1: Questions and Answers Regarding the Department s Title IX . . .
    Answer 3: The Title IX regulations require a recipient to promptly respond to actual knowledge of sexual harassment in the recipient’s education program or activity against a person in the United States in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent 34 C F R § 106 44(a)
  • Appellate Courts Divided on Whether a Single Incident of Sexual . . .
    The Court soon extended this reasoning to sexual harassment of a student by another student, ruling in Davis that the “misconduct” in Gebser—a school’s deliberate indifference to known harassment— violates Title IX if certain conditions are met
  • Davis v. Monroe: Title IX Liability for Student Harassment
    Actual knowledge: An official with authority to take corrective action knew about the harassment Deliberate indifference: The school’s response was clearly unreasonable given what it knew
  • DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED.
    A private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge, and that harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the
  • DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED.
    Rather, we concluded that the district could be liable for damages only where the district itself intentionally acted in clear violation of Title IX by remaining deliberately indifferent to acts of teacher-student harassment of which it had actual knowledge
  • Reaffirming Actual Knowledge and Deliberate Indifference . . . - CaseMine
    This Supreme Court decision established that schools could be held liable under Title IX for the sexual harassment by its employees only if the school had actual knowledge of the misconduct and acted with deliberate indifference to it
  • Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. , 524 U. S. 274 (1998)
    The question in this case is when a school district may be held liable in damages in an implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat 373, as amended, 20 U S C § 1681 et seq (Title IX), for the sexual harassment of a student by one of the district's teachers
  • Doe v. Haverford: Title IX and Deliberate Indifference
    Doe’s complaint sought damages under Title IX, alleging the college was deliberately indifferent to known acts of peer sexual harassment The college moved for summary judgment, arguing Doe failed to meet the stringent legal standard for institutional liability
  • Scope of Title IX liability remains a vexing challenge - Nixon Peabody . . .
    In its petition for a writ of certiorari, the School Board raised a separate question of whether the requirement of “actual knowledge” in a private action under Davis is met when the funding recipient lacks a subjective belief that any harassment actionable under Title IX occurred





中文字典-英文字典  2005-2009