615 F.Supp.3d 877
W.D. Wis.2022Background
- Jane Doe reported an off-campus sexual assault by a UW football player ("Player 1") on April 21, 2018; UW promptly suspended Player 1, imposed a no-contact directive, opened a Title IX investigation, and provided Doe academic accommodations.
- After a formal Title IX hearing in January 2019 and internal appeals, UW found Player 1 responsible for sexual assault and harassment and expelled him; the Board of Regents denied his final appeal in June 2019.
- A Dane County jury acquitted Player 1 of criminal sexual assault on August 2, 2019; Player 1 petitioned for readmission on August 6, 2019.
- Chancellor Rebecca Blank reviewed the petition (with input from UW General Counsel and a consultation with the Title IX coordinator), vacated the administrative finding of sexual assault, and granted readmission on August 19, 2019, without notifying or giving Doe or her counsel an opportunity to respond; the harassment finding and no-contact order remained in effect.
- Doe sued under Title IX alleging the UW discriminated on the basis of sex by reinstating Player 1 without allowing her participation; cross-motions for summary judgment followed and the court granted defendants’ motion and denied Doe’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UW acted with deliberate indifference (indirect discrimination) by reinstating Player 1 without giving Doe a chance to respond | UW’s failure to let Doe participate in the truncated readmission process amounted to deliberate indifference to her sex-based harassment | UW followed UWS §17.18 (consultation with Title IX coordinator) and had legitimate reasons (new evidence, criminal acquittal) to reconsider; Chancellor complied with the code | Court: A reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference to the vacatur itself, but overall deliberate indifference claim fails for lack of proof of deprivation of access to education |
| Whether Doe suffered deprivation of access to educational opportunities (severe, pervasive, objectively offensive) | Emotional distress and avoidance of campus after reinstatement suffice to show deprivation | Doe’s grades, attendance, extracurricular participation, and graduation show no material educational harm | Held: Doe failed to show severe, pervasive, objectively offensive harassment depriving her of educational benefits; summary judgment for defendants on this element |
| Whether UW’s actions constitute direct discrimination/erroneous outcome based on gender (bias favoring male football player) | Rapid reinstatement and donor/football program pressure show gender-based preferential treatment | UW punished Player 1 (suspension/expulsion) initially and had non-discriminatory reasons (new evidence, acquittal) to reverse; evidence of bias is speculative | Held: Plaintiff’s proof of gender-motivated decision is insufficient; direct-discrimination claim fails |
| Whether deviation from UW’s Title IX practice/procedures (not soliciting complainant input) independently creates Title IX liability | Chancellor’s departure from the university’s practice of hearing both sides makes the reversal actionable under Title IX | UW administrative code does not require complainant notice prior to decision; procedural deviation alone does not establish Title IX discrimination | Held: Failure to follow UW’s informal practice is not independently dispositive; liability requires proof of discrimination and deprivation of educational access |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-dispute standard; evidence of non-movant credited at summary judgment)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (deliberate indifference standard for student-on-student sexual harassment)
- Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.) (ask whether facts raise a plausible inference of discrimination on basis of sex)
- Doe v. Columbia Coll. Chicago, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (same approach; eschew rigid subtests)
- Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Catholic Educ., Inc., 996 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (direct/indirect rubric for Title IX claims)
- Galster v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 768 F.3d 611 (7th Cir.) (high bar for deliberate-indifference liability)
- Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights Sch. Dist. 163, 315 F.3d 817 (7th Cir.) (examples of concrete educational harm relevant to Title IX claims)