Venturella v. Addison-Rutland Supervisory Union

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendant school district in a peer-harassment case. The court held that the plaintiffs and amicus curiae failed to preserve their challenges to the jury instructions under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 51(b). The court also declined to apply plain-error review because the appeal concerned compensatory damages for past conduct rather than a fundamental right requiring such review.

Holdings

1. The challenge was not preserved because plaintiffs agreed with the trial court's proposed definition at the charge conference and did not object to that definition after the jury was instructed.
2. The contextualization challenge was not preserved because the objection made below challenged the use of Title IX-based language, whereas the appellate argument challenged how the instruction required the jury to contextualize the alleged harassment and objectively assess the victims' reactions.
3. Plain-error review was unavailable because the appeal concerned compensatory damages for past conduct, not a prospective deprivation of a fundamental right or interest of the kind recognized in Varnum.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs preserved their challenge to the jury's definition of harassment.
2. Whether plaintiffs preserved their challenge to the jury instruction requiring contextual consideration of the age of the students engaging in the alleged harassment.
3. Whether the alleged instructional errors qualified for plain-error review because the case implicated a fundamental right to public education.

Disposition

affirmed