959 F.3d 246
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe, a University of Kentucky (UK) freshman, reported two separate alleged rapes by two different male students ("John Doe" and "James Doe") in Aug.–Oct. 2016 and notified UK’s Title IX office.
- UK issued immediate no-contact orders, investigated both incidents, and held hearings: John Doe was found not responsible after a Panel hearing (and appeal upheld); James Doe was found responsible and dismissed after failing to appear.
- Jane Doe reported several post-report encounters with John Doe and James Doe (staring, following, sitting nearby, classroom proximity); she asked for additional restrictions (e.g., library floor ban) which UK declined.
- Jane Doe alleged UK’s response was deliberately indifferent under Title IX, pointing to alleged procedural shortcomings at the hearing (support-person/attorney participation, excluded voicemail evidence) and claimed UK’s actions left her vulnerable to further harassment.
- The district court treated UK’s Rule 12(b)(6) filing as a summary-judgment motion, found no genuine dispute that UK was not deliberately indifferent, and granted summary judgment for UK; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jane pleaded "actionable sexual harassment" (severe, pervasive, objectively offensive) after UK had actual knowledge | Rape plus subsequent encounters (staring, following, proximity) together constitute actionable harassment | Post-notice interactions were non-sexual, not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable | No — plaintiff failed to plead any post-notice incident that was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive |
| Whether UK’s response was "clearly unreasonable" (deliberate indifference) and caused further actionable harassment | UK’s investigative and hearing failures (policy noncompliance, weak representation) were unreasonable and left Jane vulnerable to further harassment | UK promptly issued no-contact orders, investigated, held hearings, and took remedial steps; its actions were not objectively unreasonable | No — UK took proactive and investigatory steps; plaintiff did not show UK’s response made her vulnerable to further actionable harassment |
| Whether noncompliance with UK administrative policies establishes Title IX deliberate indifference | Failure to follow school policy at investigatory/hearing stages is evidence of deliberate indifference | Policy breaches alone do not constitute Title IX discrimination absent causation showing | No — policy noncompliance alone is insufficient without showing it caused further harassment |
| Whether plaintiff may pursue a hostile-environment Title IX claim on appeal | Hostile-environment theory raised in complaint | UK argued plaintiff failed to develop the hostile-environment theory below | Forfeited — plaintiff did not develop or raise the hostile-environment claim on appeal, so court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (establishes Title IX deliberate-indifference standard requiring actionable harassment that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive)
- Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019) (re-articulates pleading elements: actionable harassment plus deliberate-indifference tort including causation from school’s unreasonable response)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (failure to adopt grievance procedures does not itself constitute Title IX discrimination)
- Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cty., 819 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizes issuing no-contact orders and prompt investigation as proactive remedial steps)
- Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (due process requires opportunity for cross-examination when university must choose between competing narratives)
- M.D. ex rel. DeWeese v. Bowling Green Indep. Sch. Dist., [citation="709 F. App'x 775"] (6th Cir. 2017) (post-notice sightings and limited encounters did not constitute actionable sexual harassment)
- Foster v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich., 952 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2020) (panel addressed scope-of-conduct analysis but was noted in opinion as having been vacated and rehearing granted)