under color of state law, acted in a way that deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by ss.2005) (finding that fifth-grade student’s allegations of sexual harassment by teacher were sufficient to support a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the student’s substantive due process right to bodily integrity). Defendants argue, however, that the allegations in this case, where the relationship between Van Amburgh and Plaintiff was in some sense consensual, are fundamentally different from the allegations of sexual assault that courts have found to constitute violations of due process. Some decisional law supports the existence of a due process violation when a teacher engages in a consensual sexual relationship with a student. See, e.g., Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d at 450-52 (<HOLDING>); Chancellor v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501
holding that a seventeenyearold student lacked the capacity to consent to engage in sexual conduct with a teacher and consequently her allegations of a seeminglyconsensual sexual relationship with the teacher were sufficient to state a  1983 claim based on a violation of substantive due process holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers holding that a teachers consensual sexual relationship with a fifteenyearold student constituted a violation of the students substantive due process rights holding board did not fail to disclose exculpatory information in violation of teachers due process rights holding school district hable for teachers sexual harassment of student only upon knowing failure to act