78 F.4th 419
8th Cir.2023Background
- Jane Doe, a Chadron State College student and campus security officer, was sexually assaulted by fellow student Anthony Ige in May 2016 and again in September 2016; she reported the second assault to campus officials and the police.
- Chadron’s Title IX coordinator issued a no-contact order, investigated, interviewed both parties, and concluded Ige violated policy for lack of consent.
- The college moved Doe’s work assignment to a more secure building, banned Ige from certain buildings, and imposed non‑suspension sanctions on Ige (behavioral probation, counseling, a consent/alcohol course, reading/journaling requirements).
- Doe objected and sought Ige’s removal from campus and other accommodations; she later sued NSCS under Title IX, alleging deliberate indifference to known discrimination.
- A jury found for Doe and awarded $300,000; the district court denied NSCS’s post‑trial JMOL motion and awarded attorney’s fees. NSCS appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit majority reversed: it held (1) the undisputed record showed prompt, substantive remedial steps that were not clearly unreasonable, and (2) Doe failed to show the requisite causal link between the school’s response and the assaults; the court directed entry of judgment for NSCS and vacated attorney’s fees. Judge Kelly dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chadron was deliberately indifferent under Title IX after the second assault | Doe: College response was objectively unreasonable and left her vulnerable on campus (moving her, restoring Ige’s access to some areas, inadequate sanctions and safety measures) | NSCS: College acted promptly and reasonably (no‑contact order, investigation, reassignment, sanctions, offered accommodations); not clearly unreasonable | Reversed judgment for Doe; JMOL for NSCS — school’s response was not clearly unreasonable on the undisputed record and causation lacking |
| Admissibility of Dr. Charol Shakeshaft’s expert testimony | Doe: Expert evidence supported the claim of institutional failure / standard practices | NSCS: Expert testimony was inadmissible (procedural/Daubert challenges) | Not reached by the court (decision resolved on JMOL grounds) |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Doe | Doe: As prevailing party, entitled to fees | NSCS: Fees improper if Doe is not prevailing party after appeal | Vacated — because judgment entered for NSCS, Doe is no longer prevailing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (recipient liable only where an appropriate official had notice and was deliberately indifferent)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard and Title IX causation principles)
- Maher v. Iowa State Univ., 915 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements of a Title IX deliberate‑indifference claim)
- Shank v. Carleton Coll., 993 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2021) (Title IX requires causation linking school’s indifference to harassment)
- Doe v. Dardanelle Sch. Dist., 928 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2019) (deliberate indifference is a stringent standard, not mere negligence)