Defendants’ conduct does not approach the “extremely high” standard required for behavior that shocks the conscience. The undisputed evidence shows that Defendants undertook some measures to address Plaintiffs harassment. Defendants’ response to the bullying and threats may well have been unreasonable and ineffective in some respects. For instance, Defendants could have made more efforts to communicate with faculty, take Plaintiffs complaints and emotional distress seriously, and preserve documentation of them investigation. Defendants’ response, however, cannot be characterized as “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be. said to shock the contemporary conscience.” Rivera, 402 F.3d at 36. Compare Neal v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 229 F.3d 1069, 1076-77 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), and Rogers v. City of Little Rock, Ark., 152
holding school officials investigation of high school coachs sexual misconduct with students while on the border of deliberate indifference or intentional discrimination was insufficiently extreme and outrageous holding school board liable for studentonstudent harassment if school officials knew of harassment and intentionally failed to take proper remedial action holding that school coachs conduct shocked the conscience where coach intentionally hit football player in the head with a metal lock and knocked out his eye holding that plaintiff was required to comply with notice of claim provisions where complaints assertions that school principals actions in engaging in willful course of malicious conduct designed to defame and inflict emotional distress upon plaintiff constituted conduct intimately related to the discharge of his duties as a principal and the legitimate goals of the school district holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials