Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge. I. Introduction Before the Court for disposition are the Plaintiffs MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 55), along with her supporting brief, supplement and exhibits (ECF Nos. 56-58), the Defendants’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 59), along with their supporting brief and exhibits (ECF No. 60), and the responsive filings presented by the parties (ECF Nos. 61-69). For the reasons that follow, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted, and the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment will be denied in part. II. Background K.E. is a female who was born on April 13, 1994. ECF Nos. 59 & 68 at ¶ 6. She was enrolled as a sophomore at Brookville High School (“Brookville”) during the 2009/2010 school year. ECF Nos. 55 & 62 at ¶ 97. Shannon Shaffer (“Shaffer”), a senior at Brookville, became acquainted with K.E. through band-related activities. Id. at ¶ 123. Karin Hetrick (“Hetrick”), a female, was a mathematics teacher and girls’ softball coach at Brookville. Id. at ¶ 97. Hetrick’s daughter, Brynna Hetrick (“Brynna”), was a senior at Brookville and one of Shaffer’s best friends. Id. at ¶ 125. K.E. was in a trigonometry class taught by Hetrick during the first semester of her sophomore year. ECF No. 59-25 at 12. She was also a member of the Brookville girls’ soccer team. ECF Nos. 55 & 62 at ¶ 98. The team lost a playoff game to the Earns City girls’ soccer team in November 2009. Id. at ¶ 99. Shortly thereafter, He-trick sent E.E. a text message inquiring as to how the game had gone. Id. at ¶ 99. Hetrick used E.E.’s cellular telephone number to send the message. Id. The number had been given to Hetrick by Shaffer earlier that day. Id. Hetrick asked Shaffer about E.E.’s sexual orientation a few weeks after sending the text message. Id. at ¶ 100. Hetrick and E.E. were both members of a band preparing to play in a school musical. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 102. Brookville had a policy prohibiting teachers from using their personal vehicles to transport students except where specifically permitted by a policy promulgated by the School Board. Id. at ¶ 111. Nevertheless, He-trick sometimes transported E.E. to and from band practice. Id. at ¶ 102. Hetrick also drove E.E. to and from the Young Men’s Christian Association (“YMCA”) in Brookville, where E.E. regularly exercised. Id. at ¶ 105. E.E. frequently visited Hetrick in her classroom around this same period of time. Id. at ¶ 103. They often played board games in Hetrick’s classroom after classes had ended. Id. at ¶ 107. E.E. later started to take piano lessons at Hetrick’s residence. Id. at ¶ 106. Hetrick transported E.E. to and from these lessons. Id. Hetrick attended a basketball game on December 12, 2009. ECF No. 55-10 at 24. During the game, E.E. sent a text message indicating that her mother was not home and asking Hetrick to visit her house. Id. Hetrick proceeded to E.E.’s residence. Id. When Hetrick entered the residence, she was “embraced” by E.E. Id. E.E. proceeded to play music on her drums with Hetrick present. Id. During the ensuing three and a half months, E.E. and Hetrick frequently “embraced” and “kissed” each other in Hetrick’s classroom. Id. at 24-25. Between January and March of 2010, E.E. and Hetrick had several intimate encounters inside of Hetrick’s vehicle, He-trick’s house, and a storage room that was adjacent to a school gymnasium. Id. at 26-27. In addition to “kissing” and “embracing,” some of these encounters involved “fondling” and the “inappropriate penetration” of E.E.’s vagina. Id. Hetrick sometimes fondled E.E. underneath her clothes. Id. at 27. E.E. occasionally disrobed during the encounters inside of He-trick’s vehicle. Id. E.E. and Hetrick engaged in intimate “kissing,” “hugging” or “touching” on 50 to 60 different occasions. Id. at 29. They frequently exchanged text messages and “inappropriate” photographs on their cellular telephones during this same period of time. Id. Brynna started to notice that E.E. was constantly in Hetrick’s classroom during study halls and after school. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 128(f). Brynna told Shaffer that she felt like E.E. was “replacing” her as He-trick’s daughter. Id. Shaffer discussed the situation with Timothy F. Stevenson (“Stevenson”), Brookville’s music teacher and band director, on three separate occasions. Id. at ¶ 128(c). On March 22, 2010, Brynna went to Hetrick’s classroom in order to get some money. Id. at ¶ 132. Hetrick was not in the room, but her cellular telephone was sitting on her desk. Id. Brynna accessed the text messages on the phone and observed that several sexually suggestive messages had been exchanged between her mother and K.E. Id. At that time, Hetrick and K.E. were inside of the storage room of the gymnasium. Id. Brynna proceeded to the gymnasium and saw her mother and K.E. coming out of the storage room. Id. at ¶ 133. Having become aware of the situation, Brynna “stormed” out of the school and showed one of the text messages to Shaffer. ECF No. 55-12 at 32. The message, which had been sent by Hetrick to K.E., referred to an individual who was “excited” and “wet.” ECF No. 59-70 at 13. Brynna then telephoned her older sister, Tia Hetrick (“Tia”), and insisted that she speak with Shaffer. ECF No. 55-12 at 32. At Brynna’s request, Shaffer described the content of the text message to Tia. Id. After speaking with Shaffer, Tia contacted Hetrick and confronted her about her relationship with K.E. Id. Brynna and Shaffer went to the residence of their friend, Logan Sneel (“Sneel”), to spend the night. ECF No. 59-70 at 13. Hetrick sent a text message to Shaffer advising that her family was aware of the relationship, that she was going to speak with K.E.’s parents about the matter, and that she was prepared to submit her resignation to Brookville. Id. at 14. Hetrick apparently sent the text message to Shaffer after learning from her husband that Brynna was with Shaffer at Sneel’s residence. Id. K.E. did not know that Brynna had uncovered the relationship until a few hours later, when Hetrick sent her a text message stating that the relationship would have to end. ECF No. 62-2 at 42. Later that evening, Shaffer contacted K.E. and informed her that Brynna had discovered the inappropriate text message on Hetrick’s phone. Id. At 7:40 A.M. on the morning of Maróh 23, 2010, Shaffer met with Stevenson, described the content of the text messages sent by Hetrick, and advised that Hetrick’s relationship with K.E. had been inappropriate. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 135. Shortly thereafter, K.E. spoke with Shaffer and acknowledged that her relationship with Hetrick had been sexual in nature. Id. at ¶ 136. Shaffer encouraged K.E. to speak with Stevenson and escorted her to his office. Id. K.E. met with Stevenson at lunchtime and admitted that her relationship with Hetrick had involved hand-holding, kissing and touching. Id. at ¶ 137. Stevenson reported the matter to Keith Wolfe (“Wolfe”), Brookville’s principal, at 9:20 A.M. on the morning of March 24, 2010. Id. at ¶ 140. After meeting with Stevenson, Wolfe and Sandra Craft (“Craft”), Brookville’s superintendent, pulled Shaffer out of class and asked her what she knew about KE.’s relationship with Hetrick. Id. at ¶ 142. Shaffer described the text messages that Brynna had discovered on Hetrick’s phone and stated that K.E. and Hetrick had engaged in intimate activities. Id. at ¶ 143. Wolfe and Craft went to Hetrick’s classroom and advised that they would be speaking with her at 12:25 P.M. about her relationship with a student. Id. at ¶ 145. K.E. was in a class being taught by Amanda Carrico (“Carrico”). Id. at ¶ 147. Hetrick telephoned Carrico and asked for an opportunity to speak with K.E. in a nearby hallway. Id. Carrico honored the request and instructed K.E. to meet He-trick in the hallway. Id. Hetrick and K.E. proceeded to discuss the matter. Id. at ¶ 148. After speaking with K.E., Hetrick decided to meet with Wolfe and Craft at 11:20 A.M. instead of waiting until 12:25 P.M. Id. at ¶ 150. During the meeting, Hetrick acknowledged that her relationship with K.E. had been inappropriate. Id. at ¶¶ 150-151. Craft informed Hetrick that she was being placed on administrative leave. ECF No. 62 at ¶ 146. That same day, Officer Vince Markle (“Markle”), a member of the Brookville Police Department, stopped by the school and spoke with Wolfe. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 155. Wolfe informed Markle that the school was conducting an investigation but did not provide any details. Id. Wolfe and Craft discussed the situation with K.E. at approximately 1:50 P.M. Id. at ¶ 157. K.E. confirmed that her relationship with He-trick had been inappropriate. Id. Hetrick telephoned KE.’s mother, Lisa Douglas (“Douglas”), and apologized for “hugging” her daughter. ECF No. 62-1 at 41. After learning from her husband that K.E. needed a ride home, Douglas drove to the school and found K.E. in a room with Wolfe and Craft. Id. at 42. K.E. left the room at Douglas’ request. Id. Shortly thereafter, Douglas was informed of the relationship that had existed between K.E. and Hetrick. Id. Wolfe and Craft told Douglas that the relationship had been confirmed to them by Hetrick, Brynna and Shaffer, but that K.E. had not provided them with detailed information. Id. Douglas took K.E. home after conferring with Wolfe and Craft. Id. Hetrick presented Brookville with her letter of resignation on March 25, 2010. ECF No. 62 at ¶ 154. Her resignation was immediately accepted. Id. at ¶ 155. Douglas reported the relationship to the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) that same day. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 159. The PSP referred the matter to Markle. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 160. Markle proceeded to conduct an investigation. Id. at ¶ 162. According to an affidavit of probable cause prepared in support of criminal charges later filed against Hetrick, Markle and Officer Mickey Stormer (“Stormer”) went to Hetrick’s residence on March 25, 2010, to conduct an interview. ECF No. 55-16 at 23. After signing a statement acknowledging that she had been read her rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Hetrick agreed to speak with Markle and Stormer. Id. She admitted that she had inserted her fingers into KE.’s vagina on at least one occasion. Id. Hetrick also stated that, on ten to twelve different occasions, she had touched KE.’s breasts and vagina while K.E. was completely unclothed. Id. Later that day, K.E. and Douglas met with Markle and Stormer at the Brookville Police Station. Id. K.E. described incidents in which Hetrick had rubbed her vagina for five to ten minutes at a time. Id. at 24. She stated that Hetrick had touched her breasts and buttocks near the school gymnasium on March 22, 2010. Id. K.E. also provided Markle with a flash drive that she had used to download four “nude or partially nude” photographs that had been forwarded to her by Hetrick. Id. In addition, K.E. advised Markle and Stormer that she had forwarded ten “nude or partially nude” photographs of herself to Hetrick’s phone. Id. Hetrick was ultimately charged with aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, indecent exposure, corrupting the morals of a minor, disseminating sexually explicit materials to a minor, possession of child pornography, and having unlawful contact with a minor. ECF No. 55-16 at 18-24. During his investigation, Markle obtained a warrant authorizing a search of Hetrick’s cellular telephone. ECF No. 55-16 at 31. Nonetheless, he was unable to find the phone, and Hetrick advised that it had been lost “in the woods.” Id. Although Hetrick’s phone was never located, Markle retrieved some of the messages that he was seeking from KE.’s phone. Id. Douglas commenced this action against Hetrick and the Brookville Area School District (“District”) on August 18, 2010, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) [20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.], and the common law of Pennsylvania respecting the tort of battery. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 16-38. Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings against Hetrick continued. On February 7, 2011, Hetrick pleaded “guilty” to three counts of aggravated indecent assault pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement. ECF Nos. 55 & 62 at ¶ 121. Douglas filed an amended complaint in this action on March 14, 2011, and added Craft as a defendant. ECF No. 33. On May 4, 2011, 2011 WL 1706518, the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, sentenced Hetrick to a period of incarceration of five to ten years followed by thirty years probation. ECF Nos. 55 & 62 at ¶ 121. Douglas filed a motion for summary judgment on August 24, 2011. ECF No. 55. The District and Craft filed a motion for summary judgment two days later. ECF No. 59. These motions are the subject of this memorandum opinion. III. Standard of Review Summary judgment may only be granted where the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that a judgment as a matter of law is warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court must enter summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In evaluating the evidence, the Court must interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Watson v. Abington Township, 478 F.3d 144, 147 (3d Cir.2007). The burden is initially on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence contained in the record does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir.2004). A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir.2005). Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may meet its burden by showing that the admissible evidence contained in the record would be insufficient to carry the non-moving party’s burden of proof. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party, who must go beyond his or her pleadings and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions or answers to interrogatories in order to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The non-moving party cannot defeat a well-supported motion for summary judgment by simply reasserting unsupported factual allegations contained in his or her pleadings. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989). IY. Discussion Douglas’ amended complaint pleads five counts. In Counts I and II, Douglas asserts substantive due process and Title IX claims against the District. ECF No. 33 at ¶¶ 18-32. In Counts III and IV, she asserts substantive due process and battery claims against Hetrick. Id. at ¶¶ 33-40. In Count V, Douglas attempts to hold Craft liable for the substantive due process violations allegedly committed by Hetrick. Id. at ¶¶ 41-57. Douglas moves for summary judgment with respect to all of her claims. ECF No. 55. The District and Craft move for summary judgment with respect to Counts I, II and V of the amended complaint. ECF No. 59. Hetrick, who is represented by separate counsel, has neither responded to Douglas’ motion for summary judgment nor filed any motion on her own behalf. A. The Title IX Claim Against the District Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance .... ” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Although a recipient of federal financial assistance can lose its federal funding for failing to comply with Title IX’s anti-discrimination requirement, Title IX’s enforcement provision provides that “no such action shall be taken until the department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.” 20 U.S.C. § 1682. This limitation on the enforcement mechanism created by Congress evinces a legislative intent to give an offending entity an opportunity to end its discriminatory practices before its federal financial support is terminated. In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 709-717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that private victims of sex-based discrimination could seek redress under Title IX even though the applicable statutory language provided only for the discontinuation of an offending entity’s federal financial assistance. Congress subsequently validated the holding in Cannon by abrogating the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in actions brought under Title IX by private individuals. Pub.L. No. 99-506, § 1003; 100 Stat. 1807, 1845 (1986); 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a). In light of this action by Congress, it is “beyond dispute” that private individuals can sue recipients of federal financial assistance under Title IX. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). The Supreme Court held in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 76, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), that individuals can seek monetary relief under Title IX in actions brought to redress sex-based discrimination. Title IX’s proscription of sex-based “discrimination” is broad enough to encompass “sexual harassment.” Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167, 173-174, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005). A teacher engages in a prohibited form of “discrimination” when he or she “sexually harasses and abuses a student.” Franklin, 503 U.S. at 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028. A Title IX action, however, can be brought only against a recipient of federal financial assistance. Mwabira-Simera v. Howard University, 692 F.Supp.2d 65, 70 (D.D.C.2010); Johnny’s Icehouse, Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois, 134 F.Supp.2d 965, 970-971 (N.D.Ill.2001). The recipient of federal financial assistance in this situation is ordinarily the school or educational entity that employs the offending teacher. A plaintiff cannot invoke Title IX to sue an individual teacher or school official. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246, 257, 129 S.Ct. 788, 172 L.Ed.2d 582 (2009). In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274, 277, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a student seeking to recover damages from a school district for a teacher’s misconduct must demonstrate that an official of the district with the “authority to institute corrective measures on the district’s behalf’ had “actual notice” of the prohibited discrimination, and that the official was “deliberately indifferent” to the district’s obligations under Title IX. The Supreme Court reasoned that since a federal agency could not terminate a school district’s federal funding without advising the “appropriate person or persons” of the discrimination and determining that compliance with Title IX could not be “secured by voluntary means,” it would frustrate the purposes of the enforcement mechanism to permit a victim of sexual harassment to proceed against a school district on a theory of respondeat superior or “constructive notice.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at 285-291, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Speaking through Justice O’Connor, the Supreme Court explained: The administrative enforcement scheme presupposes that an official who is advised of a Title IX violation refuses to take action to bring the recipient into compliance. The premise, in other words, is an official decision by the recipient not to remedy the violation. That framework finds a rough parallel in the standard of deliberate indifference. Under a lower standard, there would be a risk that the recipient would be liable in damages not for its own official decision but instead for its employees’ independent actions. Id. at 290-291, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Since a school district’s liability under Title IX is premised on a district official’s “actual notice” of the discrimination, the offending teacher’s own notice of his or her actions cannot be imputed to the district. Id. at 291, 118 S.Ct. 1989. The standard for determining whether a school district is liable under Title IX for sexual harassment w as further delineated in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). In Davis, the Supreme Court clarified that the sex-based “discrimination” prohibited under Title IX was broad enough to encompass one student’s harassment of another student, and that the framework established in Gebser applied with equal force to a situation in which the harasser was “a student rather than a teacher.” Davis, 526 U.S. at 643, 119 S.Ct. 1661. The Supreme Court also declared that a cause of action for sexual harassment was cognizable under Title IX only where the harassment at issue was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bar[red] the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” Id. at 633, 119 S.Ct. 1661. It was noted that harassing conduct engaged in by a teacher was more likely to be actionable than was harassing conduct engaged in by a student, since “[t]he relationship between the harasser and the victim” had a direct impact on the extent to which the harasser’s misconduct could “be said to breach Title IX’s guarantee of equal access to educational benefits and to have a systemic effect on a program or activity.” Id. at 653,119 S.Ct. 1661. Under Pennsylvania law, a person commits the crime of “aggravated indecent assault” when he or she “engages in penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of a complainant with a part of the person’s body for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures” and “the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3125(a)(8). Hetrick was 42 years old when she engaged in intimate activities with K.E. ECF No. 55-16 at 20-21. K.E. was 15 years old at the time of the sexual encounters. Id. Hetrick’s conviction for aggravated indecent assault conclusively establishes that she digitally penetrated KE.’s vagina. M.B. v. City of Philadelphia, 128 Fed.Appx. 217, 225-226 (3d Cir.2005) (unpublished). Given the age difference between the two individuals, Hetrick also committed the offense of indecent assault when she fondled KE.’s breasts and genital area. 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3126(a)(8). The relevant statutory prohibitions are designed “to protect minors younger than 16 years of age from older teenage and adult sexual aggressors.” Commonwealth v. Albert, 563 Pa. 133, 758 A.2d 1149, 1154 (2000). Title IX does not purport to establish the minimum age at which a minor is deemed to be capable of consenting to sexual activities with an older individual. Instead, Title IX prohibits certain forms of sex-based “discrimination” in the educational context. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Where an individual’s interactions with another person are sexual in nature, it is reasonable to assume that those interactions are motivated, at least in part, by the other person’s “sex.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998). In order to constitute “harassment,” however, sexually-oriented conduct must be “unwelcome.” Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). While Title IX prohibits certain forms of “sexual harassment,” it is not implicated by every form of “sexual misconduct” declared to be illegal under state law. Benefield v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 214 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1220 (N.D.Ala.2002). Some federal courts have suggested that sexually-oriented conduct directed toward an underage individual should not be presumed to be “unwelcome” simply because state criminal statutes classify that individual as someone who is too young to consent to sexual activity. Id. at 1217-1220; R.L.R. v. Prague Public School District I-108, 838 F.Supp. 1526, 1534 (W.D.Okla.1993). In Chancellor v. Pottsgrove School District, 501 F.Supp.2d 695, 708 (E.D.Pa.2007), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that a high school student assigned to a teacher’s class had lacked the capacity to “welcome” that teacher’s “physical sexual conduct.” Nonetheless, the District Court later held that the student’s “voluntary participation in sexual activities with the teacher” could be considered for the purpose of determining whether the “harassment” in question had been sufficiently “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” to be actionable under Title IX. Chancellor v. Pottsgrove School District, 529 F.Supp.2d 571, 574 (E.D.Pa.2008). The Court notes that while K.E. was enrolled in a trigonometry class taught by Hetrick during the first semester of her sophomore year, she was no longer in Hetrick’s class when the second semester began. ECF No. 59-25 at 11-12. Hetrick’s relationship with K.E. did not become sexual until January 2010. ECF No. 55-10 at 26-27; ECF No. 62-2 at 26-27. It is also worth noting that K.E. was not a member of the Brookville girls’ softball team, which was coached by He-trick. ECF No. 62-2 at 28-29. K.E. testified that she had understood her interactions with Hetrick to be “inappropriate,” but that she had declined to speak up about the matter for fear that Hetrick would lose her job. Id. at 31. KE.’s comments to Stevenson on March 23, 2010, evidently left him with the impression that she did not want disciplinary action to be taken against Hetrick. ECF No. 59-72 at 32-33. Under these circumstances, it is not clear whether Hetrick’s actions in relation to K.E. constituted “unwelcome” harassment. Benefield, 214 F.Supp.2d at 1217-1220. In any event, the Court will assume arguendo that K.E. was “subjected to discrimination” within the meaning of Title IX when Hetrick fondled her breasts and genital area. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). In order to advance her Title IX claim against the District, Douglas must point to evidence suggesting that an official with the “authority to institute corrective measures” had “actual notice” of the ongoing discrimination, and that the official was “deliberately indifferent” to the District’s obligation to stop Hetrict’s misconduct. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 277, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”) [23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6301 et seq.] provides that “a school employee who has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of professional or other training or experience, that a student coming before the school employee in the employee’s professional or official capacity is a victim of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation by a school employee shall immediately contact the [school] administrator.” 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6352(a)(1). Brookville has implemented this legislative mandate by promulgating Policy No. 806, which requires a “school employee” who has “reasonable cause to suspect” that a student is a victim of “serious bodily injury,” “sexual abuse” or “sexual exploitation” to immediately contact the principal and notify him or her of the situation. ECF No. 55-13 at 37. Shaffer testified that she had spoken with Stevenson as early as December 2009 about text messages between Hetrick and K.E. stating, “I love you.” ECF No. 59-70 at 9. Shaffer learned of these messages while speaking with Brynna. Id. at 8-10. Hetrick’s close relationship with K.E. apparently caused Brynna to feel like she was being “replaced” as Hetrick’s daughter. Id. at 10. When questioned about the matter during a deposition, Stevenson acknowledged that he had overheard conversations between Shaffer and Brynna about the text messages. ECF No. 59-72 at 28. Shaffer and Stevenson both testified that they had not believed the relationship between Hetrick and K.E. to be sexual prior to Brynna’s discovery of the graphic text message on March 22, 2010. ECF No. 59-70 at 8-9; ECF No. 59-72 at 28. In any event, Douglas argues that Stevenson had enough information before that date to call the situation to Wolfe’s attention. ECF No. 56 at 19-20; ECF No. 61 at 8-9. Wolfe testified that Stevenson had violated Policy No. 806 by failing to report the matter sooner. ECF No. 59-76 at 7. Douglas relies on Wolfe’s testimony to buttress her Title IX claim. ECF No. 56 at 19-20; ECF No. 61 at 8-9. The argument advanced by Douglas is unavailing. The duty to report established by the CPSL and Policy No. 806 extends to every “school employee.” 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 6352(a)(1); ECF No. 55-13 at 37. Only an individual with the “authority to institute corrective measures” can be fairly characterized as an “appropriate person” under Gebser. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 277, 118 S.Ct. 1989. In Warren v. Reading School District, 278 F.3d 163, 173 (3d Cir.2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a guidance counselor who had sometimes assumed the duties of the principal when the principal was away could not be regarded as an “appropriate person” when the principal was present. It was determined that the guidance counselor had not been “cloaked with sufficient authority” to be an “appropriate person” during the relevant period of time. Warren, 278 F.3d at 173. The Court of Appeals explained that a school’s principal was ordinarily high enough on the institutional hierarchy to base a school district’s Title IX liability on his or her “actual knowledge” of discrimination and “deliberate indifference” thereto. Id. at 170. Since the guidance counselor had not been acting as the principal during the period of time in question, however, the Court of Appeals concluded as a matter of law that he was not an “appropriate person” for the purpose of Title IX liability. Id. at 172-174. Douglas’ contention that the category of “appropriate persons” recognized in Gebser is broad enough to include every “school employee” who is required to report cases of suspected child abuse under state or local law is foreclosed by the holding in Warren. There is nothing in the record which suggests that Stevenson had the “authority to institute corrective measures” against Hetrick. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 277, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Consequently, his alleged knowledge of the “discrimination” against K.E. cannot be imputed to the District. Warren, 278 F.3d at 173-174. Even if Stevenson could be treated as an “appropriate person” under Title IX, Douglas’ claim would still fail for a different reason. Where the relevant “discrimination” consists of a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student, an “appropriate person” must have “actual notice” of the relationship itself, and be deliberately indifferent to the situation, before the relevant school district can be subjected to Title IX liability. Bostic v. Smyrna School District, 418 F.3d 355, 360-361 (3d Cir.2005). It does not suffice for Douglas to show that Stevenson was aware of facts consistent with the “possibility” that Hetrick and K.E. were involved in a sexual relationship. Id. In this context, a recipient of federal funding is liable under Title IX only where it is deliberately indifferent to “known acts” of “discrimination.” Davis, 526 U.S. at 643, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Since Stevenson did not know the extent of Hetrick’s relationship with K.E. prior to March 23, 2010, his awareness of the text messages prior to that date would not have established the District’s liability under Title IX even if he had been an “appropriate person” under the circumstances of this case. Bostic, 418 F.3d at 360-361. Douglas faults Wolfe and Craft for failing to prevent contact between Hetrick and K.E. after learning of their inappropriate relationship on the morning of March 24, 2010. ECF No. 56 at 20; ECF No. 61 at 9. After being told to meet with Wolfe and Craft no later than 12:25 P.M., He-trick telephoned Carrico and asked for an opportunity to speak with K.E. ECF No. 59-25 at 13. Carrico instructed K.E. to meet Hetrick in the hallway. Id. at 14. K.E. exited Carrico’s classroom and discussed the situation with Hetrick. Id. He-trick apparently asked K.E. to dissuade Douglas from initiating a criminal investigation. ECF No. 62-2 at 46-47. K.E. returned to Carrico’s classroom after speaking with Hetrick. Id. at 47. Carrico inquired as to whether K.E. was alright, and K.E. responded in the affirmative. ECF No. 59-25 at 14. Carrico had no knowledge of the preexisting sexual relationship when she asked K.E. to meet Hetrick in the hallway. Id. Although Douglas does not allege that Hetrick touched K.E. inappropriately on March 24, 2010, she contends that the District is liable under Title IX for failing to prevent-the meeting. ECF No. 56 at 20; ECF No. 61 at 9. This argument posited by Douglas is not persuasive. The Court understands the “deliberate indifference” prong of the Gebser framework to incorporate a causation requirement. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291, 118 S.Ct. 1989 (“Comparable considerations led to our adoption of a deliberate indifference standard for claims under § 1983 alleging that a municipality’s actions in failing to prevent a deprivation of federal rights was the cause of the violation.”) (emphasis added). When an “appropriate person” knows of sex-based discrimination and refuses to remedy the situation, his or her “deliberate indifference” inevitably causes the discrimination to continue. Id. at 290-291, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Title IX’s statutory enforcement mechanism provides a recipient of federal financial assistance with an opportunity to end discrimination “by voluntary means” before prospective funding is jeopardized. 20 U.S.C. § 1682. The standard adopted in Gebser was “fashioned along the same lines.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Douglas cannot hold the District liable under Title IX without establishing that the “deliberate indifference” of an “appropriate person or persons” caused K.E. to “be subjected to discrimination.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a), 1682; Davis, 526 U.S. at 650-653, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Given that K.E. was not “subjected to discrimination” during her meeting with Hetrick on March 24, 2010, the District’s alleged failure to prevent that engagement cannot serve as the basis for Title IX liability. The CPSL provides that a school administrator or employee “shall report immediately to law enforcement officials and the appropriate district attorney any report of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation alleged to have been committed by a school employee against a student.” 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 6353(a). Policy No. 806 implements this mandate by requiring a school principal “who has independent cause to suspect injury or abuse” to immediately call the matter to the attention of “law enforcement officials and the appropriate district attorney.” ECF No. 55-13 at 37. Wolfe testified that he and Craft had contacted the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office shortly after learning that Hetrick had abused K.E. ECF No. 59-76 at 19. He also stated that he had spoken with Markle about the matter at approximately 4:00 P.M. on March 24, 2010. Id. at 21. Markle testified that Wolfe had not provided him with any names or details during the course of this discussion. ECF No. 59-68 at 7. Douglas contacted the PSP on March 25, 2010, and reported Hetrick’s illicit sexual relationship with K.E. ECF No. 62-1 at 44. The PSP referred the case to Markle. ECF No. 59-68 at 7. The ensuing criminal investigation appears to have been triggered by Douglas’ contact with the PSP rather than by reports made by Wolfe or Craft. ECF No. 55-16 at 23. The parties apparently disagree as to whether the District’s actions satisfied the requirements of the CPSL and Policy No. 806. ECF No. 56 at 20; ECF No. 63 at 19. That issue, however, is not material to Douglas’ Title IX claim. The District’s alleged failure to conform its conduct to the specific requirements of Pennsylvania law and Policy No. 806 did not constitute actionable “discrimination” within the meaning of Title IX. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 291-292, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Douglas complains that “evidence was lost” because of the District’s failure to isolate Hetrick and contact law enforcement personnel immediately after learning that Hetrick’s relationship with K.E. had been sexual. ECF No. 56 at 20; ECF No. 61 at 9. The Court assumes that Hetrick’s phone may have been secured if Wolfe or Craft had acted sooner. Title IX, however, did not require the District to take a particular “form of disciplinary action” against Hetrick. Davis, 526 U.S. at 649, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Instead, Title IX merely required the District to respond to He-trick’s known acts of “discrimination” in a manner that was not “clearly unreasonable.” Id. at 648-649, 119 S.Ct. 1661. The relevant question is whether Wolfe and Craft took reasonable actions to stop He-trick’s discriminatory conduct. Warren, 278 F.3d at 170-171. Hetrick was placed on administrative leave immediately after admitting that she had touched K.E. inappropriately. ECF No. 59-26 at 27. She submitted her resignation the next day. ECF No. 59-17. Craft accepted Hetrick’s resignation and instructed her to return any school equipment or materials in her possession. ECF No. 59-18. The actions taken by Wolfe and Craft ended Hetrick’s discriminatory conduct. These actions were taken almost immediately after Stevenson called the illicit relationship to the attention of the “appropriate persons.” Title IX required the District to do nothing more. Davis, 526 U.S. at 648-649, 119 S.Ct. 1661. The record indicates that Hetrick touched K.E.’s breasts and buttocks on March 22, 2010. ECF No. 55-16 at 24. It was on that occasion that Brynna discovered the illicit relationship and reported her mother’s misconduct to Shaffer and Tia. ECF No. 55 at ¶¶ 132-134. Nothing in the record suggests that K.E. was ever “subjected to discrimination” again. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Stevenson did not have “actual notice” of Hetrick’s relationship with K.E. until March 23, 2010. Bostic, 418 F.3d at 361 (explaining that a “possibility” of discrimination “cannot be equated with” a “known act” of discrimination). He called the matter to Wolfe’s attention on the morning of March 24, 2010. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 140. Wolfe was the first “appropriate person” to learn that Hetrick had “discriminated” against K.E. Warren, 278 F.3d at 170-171. He immediately contacted Craft and began an investigation. ECF No. 59-76 at 15-17. Hetrick was confronted with the allegations against her and placed on administrative leave later that day. ECF No. 59-26 at 27. Even if the remedial actions taken by Wolfe and Craft were imperfect in some respects, they were not “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Davis, 526 U.S. at 648, 119 S.Ct. 1661. On the basis of the existing record, the District cannot be held liable under Title IX for the “discrimination” perpetrated by Hetrick. Accordingly, Douglas’ Title IX claim must be dismissed. The Court will deny Douglas’ motion for summary judgment with respect to that claim and grant the corresponding portion of the District’s motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 55 & 59. B. The Substantive Due Process Claims Douglas brings her federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress .... ” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statutory provision does not create substantive rights. Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129, n. 11, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980) (observing that § 1983 “does not create substantive rights at all, but merely provides a remedy for the violation of rights conferred by the Constitution or other statutes”). A plaintiff cannot prevail in an action brought under § 1983 without establishing an underlying violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 119-120, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....” U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1. Although the precise language of the Due Process Clause refers only to the “process” by which an individual is deprived of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the constitutional provision “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). The Due Process Clause has been construed to prohibit “certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). In this respect, the Fourteenth Amendment substantively prohibits a State from “abusing governmental power” or “employing it as an instrument of oppression.” Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986). In County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847, n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), the Supreme Court explained that where executive action is challenged on substantive due process grounds, “the threshold question is whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.” If this question yields a positive answer, a reviewing court can proceed to consider whether the liberty or property interest infringed is sufficiently “fundamental” to be worthy of substantive due process protection. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847, n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (referring to the egregiousness of an executive official’s conduct as “an issue antecedent to any question about the need for historical examples of enforcing a liberty interest of the sort claimed”); Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University, 227 F.3d 133, 138-143 (3d Cir.2000) (explaining that only the deprivation of a “fundamental” liberty or property interest can give rise to a substantive due process claim). The Supreme Court has described “conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest” as “the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level.” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708. The act of sexually assaulting an individual can never further a legitimate governmental interest. Doe v. Taylor Independent School District, 15 F.3d 443, 452 (5th Cir.1994) (explaining that “no state interest” is furthered by a sexual assault, since “there is never any justification for sexually molesting a schoolchild”); Whittaker v. County of Lawrence, 674 F.Supp.2d 668, 700, n. 13 (W.D.Pa.2009) (observing that “[a] government never has a legitimate interest in subjecting a woman to rape”). The “fundamental rights and liberty interests” protected by the Due Process Clause include an individual’s right to “bodily integrity.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258. In Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District, 882 F.2d 720, 727 (3d Cir.1989), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognized that “a student’s right to bodily integrity” under the Due Process Clause is broad enough to encompass his or her “right to be free from sexual assaults” perpetrated by a public school teacher. Douglas relies on Stoneking in support of her contention that Hetrick’s sexual relationship with K.E. constituted a violation of K.E.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. ECF No. 56 at 21. 1. The Substantive Due Process Claims Against Hetrick Douglas moves for summary judgment with respect to her substantive due process claims against Hetrick, arguing that a jury need only consider the issue of damages in light of Hetrick’s “guilty” plea to three counts of aggravated indecent assault. ECF No. 56 at 21-22. Hetrick has not responded to Douglas’ motion for summary judgment. The Court notes that Hetrick is not represented by the District’s attorney, and that her answer to Douglas’ amended complaint was filed by a separate attorney. ECF No. 45. When Douglas filed her motion for summary judgment, she did not include a certificate of service confirming that Hetrick’s counsel had been served with a copy of the motion. ECF No. 55. Hetrick is presently incarcerated, and it is not clear to the Court whether she is aware of Douglas’ motion for summary judgment. The lack of a response from He-trick does not independently justify the entry of summary judgment against her. Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review & Tax Assessor, 922 F.2d 168, 171 (3d Cir.1990). Since Douglas has the burden of proof with respect to her claims, the Court has an obligation to consider whether the “facts specified” in her motion entitle her to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 175. That is especially true in this instance, since Hetrick may not even know that Douglas’ motion is pending. Under the present circumstances, the proper course of action is to provide Hetrick with notice of the pending motion and a renewed opportunity to file a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1), (4). Stoneking involved a school employee’s alleged use of “physical force, threats of reprisal, intimidation and coercion to sexually abuse and harass” a female student over the course of several years. Stoneking, 882 F.2d at 722. The present case appears to be different. As far as the Court can tell, KE.’s relationship with Hetrick was consensual. Hetrick’s conduct was illegal under Pennsylvania law only because of the age difference between herself and K.E., and because K.E. had not yet attained the age of 16. 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 3125(a)(8). KE.’s first intimate encounter with Hetrick occurred only four months before her sixteenth birthday. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 113; ECF No. 59 at ¶ 6. When the relationship ended, K.E.’s birthday was only three weeks away. ECF No. 55 at ¶ 132-134; ECF No. 59 at ¶ 6. In the absence of force or coercion of some kind, Hetrick’s conduct would not have been illegal under Pennsylvania law prior to 1995. 1990 Pa. Laws 4, § 5; Commonwealth v. Decker, 698 A.2d 99, 100, n. 2 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997). Although Hetrick’s sexual encounters with K.E. were prohibited under Pennsylvania law, it does not necessarily follow that they were similarly prohibited under the Due Process Clause. The “substantive rights” conferred on individuals by the Fourteenth Amendment are “self-executing.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). The contours of those rights do not turn on the intricacies of state law. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 402 (3d Cir.2003). The Supreme Court has cautioned against constructions of the Due Process Clause that “would make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). For this reason, courts should not be eager to “constitutionalize broad swaths of state tort law” by defining substantive due process rights in overly general terms. Boyanowski v. Capital Area Intermediate Unit, 215 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir.2000). Not every form of “inappropriate or unwanted touching” perpetrated by a state official is sufficiently egregious to violate the Due Process Clause. Hawkins v. Holloway, 316 F.3d 777, 785 (8th Cir.2003). The sexual contact in this case, however, was clearly severe enough to implicate KE.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. Craig v. Lima City Schools Board of Education, 384 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1147 (N.D.Ohio 2005) (finding a teacher’s digital penetration of a female student’s vagina to be conscience-shocking); Hinkley v. Baker, 122 F.Supp.2d 48, 52-53 (D.Me.2000) (holding that a teacher’s act of touching the breasts of a young female student could “shock the conscience”). The only question is whether the seemingly consensual nature of her relationship with Hetrick should weigh against a determination that Hetrick’s conduct was conscience-shocking. Some courts have found consensual sexual relationships between teachers and underage students to be violative of the Due Process Clause. Doe, 15 F.3d at 451 (stating that the Constitution protects a 15-year-old student from “statutory rape”); Doe v. Beaumont Independent School District, 8 F.Supp.2d 596, 606 (E.D.Tex.1998) (declaring “[c]onsensual sexual intercourse between a teacher and a minor student” to be actionable under § 1983 “where the teacher abuses his position under the color of state law to engage in the sexual acts”). Nonetheless, the Court is “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process” beyond the context of coercive activities without the benefit of adequate briefing from the parties, since “guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). For these reasons, Hetrick will be notified of Douglas’ motion for summary judgment and ordered to file a response. Douglas will be afforded an opportunity to file a responsive brief after Hetrick’s response is filed. If Hetrick refuses or fails to file a timely response, summary judgment will be entered against her without further inquiry. Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir.1991). In the meantime, Douglas’ motion will remain pending with respect to her substantive due process claims against Hetrick. The Court’s consideration of Douglas’ remaining substantive due process claims will proceed on the assumption that Hetrick violated KE.’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity. 2. The Substantive Due Process Claims Against Craft Douglas seeks to hold Craft liable for the constitutional injuries suffered by K.E. ECF No. 33 at ¶¶ 41-57. According to Douglas, Craft may be liable under § 1983 for failing to implement a training program designed to prevent the sexual abuse of students and for failing to prevent contact between Hetrick and K.E. after discovering the abuse on March 24, 2010. ECF No. 56 at 22. Douglas apparently believes that Craft’s liability for KE.’s injuries depends on whether she was “acting in her personal capacity” rather than in her “official capacity.” Id. at 23 (emphasis added). It is clear from Douglas’ argument that she fundamentally misconstrues the distinction between personal-capacity claims and official-capacity claims. The “capacity” in which a public official is sued has nothing to do with the “capacity” in which he or she has acted. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27-31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). A plaintiff bringing a personal-capacity claim against an official seeks to hold the official personally liable for his or her conduct. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). An award of damages entered against a personal-capacity defendant can be executed only against his or her “personal assets.” Id. at 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099. An official sued in his or her personal capacity may rely on personal defenses or immunities that are not available to governmental entities. Id. at 166— 167, 105 S.Ct. 3099. In contrast, an official-capacity action brought against a public official is not materially different from an action brought directly against the entity of which he or she is an agent. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25, 112 S.Ct. 358. When an official-capacity defendant leaves office, his or her successor is “automatically substituted as a party” to the litigation by operation of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). An award of damages entered against an official-capacity defendant can be executed only against the employing governmental entity, since “an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099. The only immunities available to a defendant sued in his or her official capacity are those available to the governmental entity itself. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25, 112 S.Ct. 358. This distinction does not relate to the “capacity” in which a defendant has acted, since a public official may be personally liable for his or her official acts. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 27-31, 112 S.Ct. 358. The distinction between personal-capacity and official-capacity suits is most relevant in actions brought against state officials. In most instances, the Eleventh Amendment bars actions brought by private parties against unconsenting States in federal court. Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779-780, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991). The Supreme Court has not construed § 1983 as an abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342-345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Since an official-capacity suit against a state official is no different than a suit against the State itself, a state official sued in his or her official capacity for money damages is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 62-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Nevertheless, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 154-160, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not bar official-capacity actions brought against state officials by private parties seeking prospective relief. The Supreme Court has characterized the doctrine established in Young as “an expedient fiction’ necessary to ensure the supremacy of federal law.” Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 378, n. 14, 126 S.Ct. 990, 163 L.Ed.2d 945 (2006). In accordance with this “fiction,” a state official sued in his or her official capacity for injunctive relief is treated as a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304. As a general rule, however, the relief sought by a plaintiff has no bearing on whether his or her claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Therefore, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief against a state official must ordinarily bring an official-capacity action against that official rather than an action against his or her employing State. Burns v. Alexander, 776 F.Supp.2d 57, 73 (W.D.Pa.2011). Local governmental entities cannot avail themselves of the Eleventh Amendment immunity enjoyed by the States. Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 369, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001); Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 530, 10 S.Ct. 363, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890). The Supreme Court held in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), that municipal entities are “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Douglas can proceed directly against the District without naming Craft as an official-capacity defendant. Consequently, Douglas’ official-capacity claims against Craft will be dismissed on the ground that they are duplicative of her claims against the District. Malone v. Economy Borough Municipal Authority, 669 F.Supp.2d 582, 604-605 (W.D.Pa.2009). Douglas attempts to hold Craft personally liable for violating KE.’s constitutional rights. In support of her claims, Douglas argues that Craft enjoyed “policy-making authority” under 24 Pa. Stat. § 10-1081. ECF No. 56 at 22. Under that statutory provision, Craft was a non-voting member of Brookville’s School Board during the 2009/2010 school year. 24 Pa. Stat. § 10-1081. An official sued under § 1983, however, may only be held personally liable “for his or her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). For this reason, Craft’s status as Brookville’s superintendent cannot serve as a basis for holding her liable for KE.’s injuries. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353-354 (3d Cir.2005). Liability under § 1983 cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.1988). In order to proceed with her personal-capacity claims against Craft, Douglas must show that Craft was personally involved in Hetrick’s misconduct. Id. Douglas contends that Craft is personally liable under § 1983 for failing to implement a training program for teachers prior to Hetrick’s actions in relation to K.E. ECF No. 56 at 22. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has indicated that a supervisor may be personally liable under § 1983 if he or she “implements a policy or practice that creates an unreasonable risk” that a subordinate will perpetrate a constitutional violation, provided that the supervisor’s “failure to change the policy or employ corrective practices” actually causes the subordinate to violate a person’s constitutional rights. Argueta v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60, 72 (3d Cir.2011). A plaintiff proceeding on such a theory, however, must do more than show that the defendant could have prevented the constitutional violation and failed to do so. Black v. Indiana Area School District, 985 F.2d 707, 712 (3d Cir.1993). In this context, Douglas cannot hold Craft liable for KE.’s injuries without demonstrating that Craft “played an affirmative role in bringing about the sexual abuse” perpetrated by Hetrick, and that Craft “acted with deliberate indifference to that abuse.” Id. The evidentiary record provides no support for Douglas’ personal-capacity claims against Craft. Craft became Brookville’s superintendent in August 2009. ECF No. 59-26 at 3. K.E.’s sophomore year was Craft’s first year in the position. Id. Craft played no role in formulating the District’s preexisting policies. Id. at 6-7. She first became aware of Hetrick’s relationship with KE. on March 24, 2010. Id. at 12-13. At that point, the relationship had already ended. Craft placed Hetrick on administrative leave immediately after speaking with her about the matter. Id. at 27. No action taken by Craft contributed to K.E.’s injuries. Stoneking, 882 F.2d at 728-729 (permitting claims against school officials to go forward based on evidence that they had caused sexual assaults to occur by concealing prior allegations of sexual abuse, discouraging students from pursuing complaints of sexual abuse, giving offending teachers excellent performance evaluations, and forcing an alleged victim to publicly recant her allegations). Douglas argues that Craft failed to follow the appropriate isolation, detention and reporting procedures after learning of the abuse on March 24, 2010. ECF No. 56 at 23. The alleged deficiencies in Craft’s reaction to the abuse, however, have no bearing on Douglas’ constitutional claims