145 F.4th 561
4th Cir.2025Background
- Plaintiff Jane Roe, a Marshall University student, was sexually assaulted by another student (Doe) at a private, off-campus party after a university football game in September 2022.
- The assault was reported to local police, who notified the Marshall University Police Department and the university’s Title IX office.
- Marshall’s Title IX Evaluation Committee determined the off-campus incident did not fall within the scope of its Title IX jurisdiction and referred the case to the Office of Student Conduct.
- Both Roe and Doe were disciplined for underage drinking as a result of admissions made during the investigation.
- Roe filed suit, alleging Marshall was deliberately indifferent to her report of sexual assault under Title IX and retaliated against her by disciplining her after she participated in the Title IX process.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Marshall, finding no actionable deliberate indifference or retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX Deliberate Indifference | Marshall was deliberately indifferent in its response to the sexual assault, interfering with Roe’s education | Marshall did not have substantial control over the context (off-campus, private setting) and responded appropriately under its policies | For defendant: No substantial control, so no liability under Title IX |
| Title IX Retaliation | Marshall retaliated by disciplining Roe for underage drinking after reporting the assault | Disciplinary action was based on an admitted, legitimate violation unrelated to retaliation | For defendant: Plaintiff failed to show pretext; discipline was not retaliatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX liability for student-on-student harassment requires substantial control over both harasser and context)
- Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (Title IX harassment elements and standards)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (Title IX protects against retaliation for reporting discrimination)
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in retaliation claims)
- Hux v. City of Newport News, Va., 451 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2006) (pretext may be dispositive at summary judgment)
- Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2018) (requirements for substantial control in Title IX context)