Doe v. Baylor University, 240 F. Supp. 3d 646

Background

Ten female Baylor students (Does 1–10) alleged they were sexually assaulted by fellow students between 2004–2016 and that Baylor responded with indifference, misinformation, inadequate investigation, and discouragement of reporting.
Plaintiffs asserted two principal Title IX theories: (1) post-reporting claims — deliberate indifference after victims reported assaults, creating a hostile educational environment; and (2) heightened-risk claims — a university policy/custom of mishandling reports that increased students’ risk of assault campus-wide.
Plaintiffs also asserted Texas-law negligence and breach-of-contract claims based on Baylor’s alleged failures in protecting students and handling reports.
At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage the court accepted Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for plausibility review; it considered accrual and tolling under Texas’ two-year personal-injury statute (applied to Title IX claims per Fifth Circuit precedent).
The court denied dismissal of all Plaintiffs’ heightened-risk claims and denied post-reporting dismissal for Does 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10; it granted dismissal of post-reporting claims for Does 2, 5, 6, and 7 as time-barred. All state-law claims (negligence and breach of contract) were dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged post-reporting Title IX deliberate indifference	Each Doe reported assaults to Baylor offices and suffered further harassment/educational harm because Baylor did nothing	Baylor: Plaintiffs didn’t show an "appropriate person" had actual knowledge; DOE guidance non-dispositive; many plaintiffs didn’t allege further harassment after reporting	Court: Plausible for Does 1,3,4,8,9,10 — allegations of reports to university offices, inadequate responses, and concrete harms survive 12(b)(6); Does 2,5,6,7 post-reporting claims time-barred
Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged an institutional policy/custom (heightened-risk) actionable under Title IX	Baylor’s widespread mishandling and discouragement of reports constitutes an official policy/custom that increased assault risk	Baylor: Claims are an amalgam of unrelated incidents; general problem of sexual violence insufficient	Court: Plaintiffs plausibly plead a policy/custom of inadequate handling that could have caused a heightened risk; heightened-risk claims survive
Whether Title IX claims accrued and are time-barred	Plaintiffs: heightened-risk claims only reasonably discoverable after 2016 media disclosures; post-reporting claims accrued when plaintiffs learned of deliberate indifference	Baylor: Claims accrued at time of assaults or initial reports; many claims fall outside two-year limitations period	Court: Heightened-risk claims plausibly accrued in spring 2016 (within limitations). Post-reporting claims for Does 2,5,6,7 accrued earlier and are dismissed; others survive because accrual date unclear on pleading face
Whether Plaintiffs’ state-law negligence and breach-of-contract claims survive	Plaintiffs: Baylor owed duties to protect students and to hire/train/supervise staff; university catalog/communications created enforceable contract	Baylor: No special duty to protect adult students from third-party crimes; negligent hiring/training and contract allegations inadequately pleaded	Court: Dismissed all state-law claims — no recognized duty to protect under Texas law on these facts; negligent hiring/training and contract claims insufficiently pleaded

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (school liable under Title IX where deliberate indifference to severe, pervasive student-on-student harassment deprives access to educational opportunities)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX damages liability requires actual notice to an appropriate official and deliberate indifference absent an official policy claim)
Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (recognition of private right of action under Title IX)
Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Public Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (1992) (Title IX plaintiffs may recover damages)
King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2015) (two-year Texas personal-injury limitations period applies to Title IX claims in Texas)
Simpson v. Univ. of Colo. Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs may proceed on theory that university policy/custom caused predictable sexual assaults in an official-program context)
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading standard discussion applying Twombly/Iqbal at Rule 12(b)(6) stage)