993 F.3d 567
8th Cir.2021Background
- In Sept. 2011 Shank, a freshman at Carleton, alleges Student One raped her in a dorm while both were intoxicated; she did not initially report it.
- After winter break she saw campus posters featuring Student One; the posters triggered PTSD and suicidal ideation and led to a Feb. 2012 hospitalization and a Community Concern Form (CCF).
- Carleton later learned Student One’s identity, initiated its own disciplinary complaint in May 2012, and adjudicated the matter through the Community Board on Sexual Misconduct (CBSM); Shank was not a party but submitted a written statement and did not testify.
- CBSM found Student One responsible, imposed sanctions (probation, no-contact order, counseling, withdrew RA offer) but did not disclose sanction details to Shank; an October 2012 meeting between Shank and Student One occurred alone in an administrator’s office and resulted in lifting the no-contact order.
- Shank also alleges a separate April 2013 assault by Student Two; Carleton issued a no-contact order and did not pursue a formal complaint after Shank declined to press charges.
- Procedural posture: District court granted summary judgment for Carleton on Title IX, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and state-law claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carleton was deliberately indifferent under Title IX for initiating its own complaint and limiting Shank’s role in adjudication | Shank says Carleton curtailed her participation, denied party status appeal rights, and mishandled the process, amounting to deliberate indifference | Carleton says it informed Shank of procedures, did not prevent her from filing, and reasonably pursued an institutional complaint given the RA offer and safety concerns | Court: No deliberate indifference; limited role did not make the college’s response clearly unreasonable or causally linked to further harassment |
| Whether allowing a one-on-one meeting with Student One after proceedings was deliberately indifferent | Shank contends the meeting retraumatized her and was inappropriate, and the college proposed it | Carleton says Shank set the terms, voluntarily agreed, and the meeting was intended to resolve interactions going forward | Court: Not deliberately indifferent; meeting was voluntary and did not show causation to additional harassment |
| Whether failure to remove posters and delay in offering alternative housing created Title IX liability | Shank argues posters exacerbated trauma and college knew of harm but did not promptly remove posters or rehouse her | Carleton notes it did not know Student One’s identity initially, multiple posters existed, and it eventually accommodated Shank when requested | Court: Posters and housing delay were concerning but insufficient to show severe, pervasive discrimination or the required causal nexus for Title IX liability |
| Whether Carleton’s response to allegations against Student Two was deliberately indifferent | Shank says she was discouraged from filing and the college did not adequately investigate | Carleton says Shank declined to file a formal complaint and the college issued a no-contact order | Court: No deliberate indifference; college issued no-contact order and record does not show clearly unreasonable conduct or causation |
| Whether Carleton failed to provide reasonable accommodations under ADA and Section 504 | Shank asserts she needed accommodations for PTSD and OCD and the school failed to provide timely reasonable modifications | Carleton says it received documentation in Feb. 2015, promptly met with disability coordinator, agreed to accommodations, and Shank graduated on time | Court: No failure; Carleton reasonably accommodated and summary judgment for defendant proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (establishes Title IX liability standard for peer sexual harassment, deliberate indifference, and requirement of deprivation of access)
- K.T. v. Culver-Stockton Coll., 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2017) (peer sexual assault treated as sex discrimination and need for causal nexus to school misconduct)
- Pearson v. Logan Univ., 937 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements for Title IX school liability summarized)
- Doe v. Dardanelle Sch. Dist., 928 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2019) (deliberate indifference is a stringent standard beyond negligence)
- Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2003) (school’s deliberate indifference must directly cause abuse or make students vulnerable)
- Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2001) (requirements for Title IX showing of deprivation of educational access)
- Mershon v. St. Louis Univ., 442 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act analysis for reasonable modifications)
- Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) (notice of disability triggers duty to accommodate)