his resignation to the DOE. (Id. ¶ 67, 74.) These contentions may carry weight at a later stage of this case. The allegations summarized earlier, which must be assumed as true on a motion to dismiss, however, are sufficient to show that school officials had actual notice of, but failed to investigate or stop Van Amburgh’s sexual harassment of students long before Plaintiffs mother approached Fournier and Salzman. Although the actions Defendants took after the mother’s complaint may eventually defeat Plaintiffs § 1983 claim, it can be sufficiently inferred from the pleadings that school officials exhibited a “deliberate indifference” to the rights of their students by their earlier failure to investigate and supervise. Cf. Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 907 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The court will deny Defendants’ motion to
holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff actually told her supervisors that she was being sexually harassed and the supervisors did not take any steps whatsoever to investigate those allegations holding that plaintiffs allegations that coworker attempted to grab her breast and later touched and rubbed her thigh that customers made sexually threatening remarks and that supervisors did not respond to her complaints about these incidents did not support a hostile work environment claim holding that a oneday time period between the employees complaint and her supervisors recommendation to fire her was sufficient holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment