Cases & Developments

Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at Dickinson College, brought Title IX and contract claims against the College after a six-month investigation found that a fellow student who had kissed and grabbed her without consent was responsible for sexual misconduct. The respondent was placed on conduct probation and assigned mandatory education on the meaning of consent. In granting summary judgment to the College on her deliberate indifference claim, the court held that neither extensions of the investigation beyond the normal 60-days nor a no-contact directive that did not remove the respondent from all activities in which plaintiff participated were clearly unreasonable. In granting summary judgment on her contract claim, the court noted that plaintiff had received notice that the College’s Title IX policy provided that an investigation could be extended for good cause and held that because plaintiff was likely to have seen the respondent on campus even if the investigation had not been delayed she failed to demonstrate that she suffered damages as a result of the alleged contractual breach.   

Memorandum of Decision granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Central Connecticut State University, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University after she was sexually assaulted in October 2020 in a dormitory suite at a party that violated the University’s COVID-19 restrictions, alcohol policy, and “quiet hours” policy. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege that the University had actual knowledge of the assault or risk of assault despite general statistics on the prevalence of sexual assaults. It granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add allegations related to the University’s response to her report of the assault.   

Opinion reversing summary judgment and remanding. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Arizona, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University after she was physically assaulted by her boyfriend, who was on a football scholarship at the University, in his private, off-campus residence. The privilege of living off-campus required permission from his coaches and was granted on the condition of good behavior. Plaintiff alleged that University officials knew of prior incidents in which he had assaulted two other women on campus but that they did not disclose all of the relevant information concerning the assaults to the appropriate Athletics officials and coaches. In reversing summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that (1) the University had “substantial control” over the “context” in which her assault took place, (2) officials had actual knowledge of the risk based on the prior incidents, and (3) not communicating all of the information about the previous assaults to the Athletic Director was clearly unreasonable.