1. The adequacy of the school district's response to McComb's reports of bullying and harassment: This was the core of the case. The lawsuit alleged the school district failed to take reasonable measures to protect McComb from persistent bullying and harassment, despite her repeated reports to school officials. The key question was whether the district's response met the legal standard of providing a safe and supportive learning environment, free from discrimination.
2. The school district's alleged deliberate indifference to the harassment: This went beyond simply inadequate response. The lawsuit argued that the school district's actions (or inaction) showed a deliberate indifference to the harassment McComb faced, meaning they knowingly disregarded the serious nature of the situation and its impact on her. This is a crucial legal element in many harassment and discrimination cases.
3. The severity and pervasiveness of the bullying and harassment: To succeed in her lawsuit, McComb had to demonstrate that the bullying she experienced was not just isolated incidents but a pattern of severe and pervasive harassment that affected her ability to receive an education. The specifics of the bullying, its frequency, and its impact on McComb were central to establishing liability on the part of the school district.
These three elements – the inadequacy of the response, deliberate indifference, and the severity/pervasiveness of the harassment – were intertwined and essential to McComb's legal claim against the Clark County School District.