who had already filed harassment charges against him. 15 . In so holding, the Court does not intend to imply that the MHRA and Title IX are identical. Nevertheless, for purposes of analyzing the parties' motions, the Court evaluated plaintiff's MHRA claim under the Title IX deliberate indifference standard. Moreover Title IX is similar to the MHRA in requiring a sexual harassment claimant to show that the alleged harassment was so severe as to have the effect of denying him access to some educational benefit or opportunity. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 633, 119 S.Ct. 1661. Furthermore, while ordinary teasing is insufficiently severe to state a claim under either statute, the kind of sexually-oriented physical touching that plaintiff experienced is. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 653, 119 S.Ct. 1661
holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that the lower court erred in dismissing the claimants title ix complaint when she alleged not only verbal harassment but also repeated acts of objectively offensive touching recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim