Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming summary judgment and a jury verdict in favor of the College.  Plaintiff, a former student at Rollins College, brought Title IX and contract claims against the College after it sanctioned him for violating its sexual misconduct policy.  The district court granted summary judgment to the College on his Title IX claims, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the College on his contract claim, finding that taking longer than the 60-days allowed in its policy to complete the investigation was not a material breach.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the College on plaintiff’s Title IX selective enforcement claim, the Eleventh Circuit held that the complainant, who had alleged she was incapacitated from alcohol, was not similarly situated because plaintiff never claimed to have been incapacitated.  In affirming on his Title IX erroneous outcome claim, the court noted (1) that alleged stereotyping in the College’s training materials cannot be imputed to the independent investigator who never saw them, (2) that the pressure of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter had dissipated when it was rescinded before the College launched its investigation of plaintiff, and (3) that the College had only investigated complaints against males because they had received only complaints against males.  Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on the jury’s finding that the breach of the College’s 60-day rule for completion of the investigation was not material, noting that the investigative report addressed the evidentiary concerns plaintiff suggested he might have neglected as a result of the longer duration. 

Opinion reversing denial of judgment as a matter of law.  Plaintiff, a student at Chadron College, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the College, alleging that college officials responded inadequately to a report that a fellow student had sexually assaulted her on two separate occasions.  A jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 and attorney’s fees, and the district court denied the College’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.  In reversing, the Eighth Circuit found that the College’s steps to issue a no-contact order; to verify that the two were not in classes together; to initiate an investigation; to ban the respondent from the building where plaintiff worked on campus; to accommodate plaintiff academically; to sanction the respondent with probation, counseling, and behavioral classes; to offer plaintiff a plain-clothed escort on campus; and to seek her input on additional assistance or accommodations were “prompt, extensive, substantive, directed to protect and assist [plaintiff], and not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances known to Chadron.”