27 F.4th 461
6th Cir.2022Background
- Student Jaycee Wamer alleges on May 2, 2018 her instructor Eric Tyger made unwanted sexual contact and sent persistent texts; she and colleague Kevin O’Korn reported the conduct to UT’s Title IX office on May 4.
- Wamer declined an in-person interview because she feared encountering Tyger; UT told her it would continue the investigation, but closed it about three weeks later without taking action.
- As a result of fear of further harassment, Wamer alleges she switched majors, avoided campus, and took mostly online classes; a later complaint led UT to place Tyger on leave and investigators ultimately found misconduct.
- Wamer sued under Title IX for deliberate indifference by the University; UT moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Wamer failed to plead "severe, pervasive" harassment or post-notice harassment required by Kollaritsch.
- The district court accepted Kollaritsch’s student-on-student framework and dismissed; the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Kollaritsch is not generally applicable to teacher-on-student claims and adopting a different causation test for such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Kollaritsch to teacher-on-student claims | Kollaritsch governs only peer harassment; different rules apply to teacher misconduct | Kollaritsch applies the same deliberate-indifference standard to all school harassment claims | Kollaritsch is limited to student-on-student claims and is not presumptively applicable to teacher-student claims |
| Causation requirement for teacher-student claims | No post-notice further harassment required; causation satisfied by reasonable fear that leads to deprivation | Post-notice further actionable harassment is required (per Kollaritsch) | Causation may be shown either by additional harassment after notice or by an objectively reasonable fear that caused the plaintiff to take reasonable, deprivation-producing steps |
| Need to plead "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" conduct | That heightened Davis peer-harassment severity element is not required for teacher-on-student claims | The severe/pervasive standard should apply broadly | Davis’s severe/pervasive requirement applies to peer harassment but is not required for teacher-student harassment |
| Dismissal on pleadings; was UT’s response clearly unreasonable? | Complaint plausibly alleges UT closed investigation after three weeks and that Wamer reasonably avoided campus, stating a claim | District court found investigation not obviously unreasonable and dismissed | Complaint states sufficient facts (accepted as true) to survive dismissal; district court erred by drawing inferences for defendant; case remanded for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (distinguishes teacher-vs-student harassment; imposes severe/pervasive requirement for peer harassment and discusses when deliberate indifference causes discrimination)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX damages for teacher-student harassment require actual notice to an official with authority and deliberate indifference)
- Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019) (articulated a post-notice further-harassment causation requirement in student-on-student Title IX deliberate-indifference claims)
- Foster v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Michigan, 982 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (examined deliberate-indifference at summary judgment; emphasized high bar and fact-specific inquiry into the reasonableness of school responses)
- Williams ex rel. Hart v. Paint Valley Local Sch. Dist., 400 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2005) (explains the "clearly unreasonable" standard applies across deliberate-indifference claims but does not collapse other element differences)