findings may be grounds for rejection.” Id. at Exhibit 37, Section G(l). 102 . 918 F.Supp. 1047 (S.D.Tex.1996). 103 . 1996 WL 752803, No. 96-20358, (Aug. 21 1996). 104 . Docket no. 31. Even Andrade’s counsel conceded during oral argument that a privacy cause of action was not pleaded in the Complaint. 105 . Docket no. 31, at 3. 106 . See Southard v. The Texas Board of Criminal Justice, 114 F.3d 539, 548-49 (5th Cir.1997). 107 . Docket no. 49, at 16. 108 . Even though Andrade filed his lawsuit in state Oklahoma, 520 U.S. at 404-06, 117 S.Ct. 1382, and Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 216-17. 172 . Board of Commissioners, Bryan County, Oklahoma, 520 U.S. at 404-05, 117 S.Ct. 1382; and Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483-84, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (plurality). 173 . See Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 215-17 (<HOLDING>). 174 . Montemayor v. City of San Antonio, 985
holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment holding school districts failure to adopt an official policy addressing allegations of sexual assault by teachers on students could not support section 1983 liability where that failure was merely an unintentional negligent oversight 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 school district hable for teachers sexual harassment of student only upon knowing failure to act holding that a local school district did not delegate final district policymaking authority over complaints of sexual misconduct by teachers against students to campus principals although the district had not adopted a formal policy addressing the manner in which such complaints should be handled