889 F.3d 471
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Fryberger sued the University of Arkansas and its Board of Trustees, alleging the University's response to her campus sexual assault violated Title IX and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The University moved to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; the district court denied dismissal as to Title IX claims relying on 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 (Remedies Equalization amendment).
- The University appealed the denial of sovereign-immunity dismissal; this Court has collateral-order jurisdiction to review such denials.
- Central legal question: whether § 2000d-7( a ) unequivocally waives a State recipient's Eleventh Amendment immunity to private suits for damages under Title IX.
- The Remedies Equalization amendment: (1) bars Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of listed civil-rights statutes including Title IX; (2) makes remedies “available ... to the same extent as” against public or private entities.
- The district court left punitive-damages availability unresolved; this appeal concerns only plaintiff’s compensatory-damages claim and whether the State waived immunity to suit for such relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2000d-7 unambiguously waives state sovereign immunity to Title IX suits | § 2000d-7(a) expressly waives Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title IX when a state accepts federal funds | Waiver must be unequivocal; § 2000d-7 is ambiguous and should not be read to waive immunity broadly | Held: § 2000d-7 unambiguously waives state immunity to Title IX suits |
| Whether waiver in § 2000d-7 includes monetary (compensatory) damages | Fryberger: subsection (a)(2) makes remedies at law (including damages) available to the same extent as against non-states | Univ.: Sossamon requires an express textual waiver for damages; § 2000d-7(a)(2) depends on availability against non-states and so is not an unequivocal textual waiver | Held: § 2000d-7(a)(2) clearly makes remedies at law available; compensatory damages are included |
| Whether uncertainty in 1986 about Title IX damages undermines waiver | Fryberger: Congress enacted §2000d-7 in response to Atascadero to provide an unequivocal waiver and legislated with awareness of Cannon | Univ.: In 1986 Franklin had not yet held that damages were available, so Congress could not have unambiguously waived damages | Held: Historical context supports rather than undermines an unequivocal waiver for Title IX damages |
| Whether court must decide punitive damages immunity on this appeal | Fryberger: not raised; district court did not decide punitive damages | Univ.: argued generally but did not press on appeal | Held: Court declines to address punitive damages; ruling resolves immunity as to compensatory damages only |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (recognizing Title IX private right and availability of compensatory damages)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (waiver of sovereign immunity construed strictly; damages require clear textual waiver)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (discussing § 2000d-7 as an unequivocal waiver of States' Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (reciting that recipients of federal funds are subject to suit for compensatory damages under Title IX)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (holding Congress must unmistakably express intent to abrogate state immunity)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139 (collateral-order appealability of denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (distinguishing waiver of sovereign immunity from existence of a damages cause of action)