singling out and mocking a student in front of a class, giving him an unjustifiably low grade, or giving him mean looks on multiple occasións in retaliation for that student having previously made a report of student-on-student sexual assault, and (2) violation of the First Amendment by public school administrators by ignoring a student’s reports of bullying by other students and teachers, in retaliation for that student having previously made'a report of student-on-student-sexual assault. With respect to the first theory, the case law is clear that the teachers’ harassment against a student in retaliation for reporting a sexual assault is impermissible retaliation in violation of the student’s First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). The second theory is harder because the
holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law holding that students reporting of sexual hazing was entitled to first amendment protection and school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity when they punished him by throwing him off the football team holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity