In 2009 and 2010, plaintiff Lilah, 16, a student at Berkeley High School, claimed that she was sexually harassed by Anthony Smith, a school counselor, and that the Berkeley School District did nothing to stop the harassment. Elena, on behalf of Lilah, sued Smith, the Berkeley Unified School District, and the superintendent, William Huyett. She alleged that the defendants violated Lilah’s civil rights under 42 USC 1983 and Title IX. Lilah claimed that Smith slapped her buttocks, touched her thighs, leaned in and smelled her, hugged her, and engaged in other inappropriate touching while he was her academic counselor. She also claimed that he asked her inappropriate questions, including whether she slept naked, and called her out of class to discuss nonacademic matters. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Lilah reported Smith’s conduct to the Berkeley High School vice- principal and gave a written statement about it, but that the school district failed to do anything to prevent this conduct. Counsel further contended that despite the district’s own finding that Smith had “engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior,” the school counselor continued to be retained at the school and assigned other female students to counsel. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that she was deprived of access to educational opportunities and benefits in violation of federal law due to Smith being present on the campus. In addition, counsel contended that Lilah was denied full access and accommodations to the campus because of her sex. The district claimed that it did not have actual notice of Smith’s alleged harassment until April 29, 2010, when the allegations were reported to the school’s vice-principal. It further claimed that once it learned of the allegations, it took immediate action to investigate the charges and impose reasonably appropriate measures to stop any future harassment and contact between Lilah and Smith. The district claimed that as a result, no further incidents of harassment took place. Defense counsel contended that Smith’s alleged actions, in the context of the type of close student-academic counselor relationship that had developed, were not “so severe and pervasive” that the plaintiff was deprived access to educational benefits or opportunities provided by the school. Counsel further noted that Lilah continued attending school and subsequently graduated on time., Lilah claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of Smith’s actions and the district’s failure to timely prevent it. Thus, she sought injunctive relief and recovery of damages for her emotional distress. She also sought recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.