Farmer v. Kansas State University
918 F.3d 1094
10th Cir.2019Background
- Two KSU students (Farmer and Weckhorst) reported that other KSU students raped them; they allege KSU responded with deliberate indifference to those reports.
- Plaintiffs say KSU’s failure to act left the alleged assailants on campus, causing Plaintiffs to fear encountering them and to withdraw from or limit participation in educational activities and campus resources.
- Plaintiffs sued KSU under Title IX (and state law); district court denied KSU’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Title IX claims.
- KSU sought interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) asking whether a plaintiff must allege that deliberate indifference caused further actual harassment (a subsequent assault) rather than mere vulnerability.
- The Tenth Circuit accepted the pleadings as true for interlocutory review and addressed only the causation element: what harm must deliberate indifference cause to state a Title IX claim?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX requires a plaintiff to allege that the school’s deliberate indifference caused subsequent actual harassment (additional assaults) rather than merely making the plaintiff "vulnerable to" harassment | Plaintiffs: Davis allows a plaintiff to allege that deliberate indifference made them "liable or vulnerable to" harassment; actual further assault is not required | KSU: A viable Title IX claim requires alleging that deliberate indifference led to further, actual harassment of the plaintiff | Held: Plaintiffs may plead that deliberate indifference made them "vulnerable to" harassment; subsequent actual assault is not a required pleading element |
| Whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged that KSU’s deliberate indifference caused actionable harm under Title IX | Plaintiffs: Allegations that fear of encountering assailants forced them to avoid campus resources, withdraw from activities, suffer grade/scholarship loss—sufficient to show deprivation of educational opportunities | KSU: Such allegations do not substitute for proof of further harassment and are insufficient | Held: Allegations sufficiently plead objective, reasonable deprivation of access to educational benefits caused by KSU’s indifference; survive dismissal |
| Whether prior Tenth Circuit or other decisions require a different rule | Plaintiffs: Davis is controlling; out-of-circuit distinctions show those cases do not impose a stricter requirement | KSU: Cites Rost, Escue, Williams and other decisions suggesting need for "further discrimination" | Held: Rost and Escue addressed deliberate indifference at summary judgment and do not create a pleading rule; Williams and others can be reconciled with Davis and do not control the result here |
| Whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring these claims | Plaintiffs: Alleged concrete, particularized injury—deprivation of access to educational resources—satisfies standing | KSU: Argued lack of standing (not certified for interlocutory review) | Held: Plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing (court briefly addressed jurisdictional concern) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate indifference must at minimum cause students to undergo harassment or make them "liable or vulnerable" to it)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX liability limited to recipient’s own deliberate misconduct)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX private-right-of-action and discrimination via deliberate indifference to peer harassment)
- Rost ex rel. K.C. v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. Dist., 511 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment context assessing whether school’s response was deliberately indifferent)
- Escue v. Northern Oklahoma Coll., 450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (summary-judgment context where school’s remedial measures rebut deliberate-indifference claim)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (recognizes "further discrimination" need not be a discrete new assault; denial of meaningful access can satisfy requirement)