Joan Roe v. St. Louis University
746 F.3d 874
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Roe, a SLU field hockey recruit, sued for Title IX discrimination and state-law claims after a rape at an off-campus party in Oct 2006.
- University officials provided Roe with counseling and academic support options but she declined some reporting actions and ultimately was dismissed for academic and attendance issues.
- Roe reported the assault to campus personnel who referred her to counseling; she did not report to Public Safety or Judicial Affairs while on campus.
- The University cooperated with police after Roe left campus; no criminal charges were filed.
- Roe and parents filed suit in Sep 2008 (amended Apr 2009) alleging deliberate indifference under Title IX and negligence/misrepresentation/breach of contract; district court granted summary judgment for the University, which Roe appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether University was deliberately indifferent under Title IX | Roe alleges failure to act after knowledge of rape | Oberle Responded appropriately; no deliberate indifference shown | No genuine issue; not deliberately indifferent |
| Whether the rape was a student-off-campus incident within University control | University had control over students/Greek life | No control over off-campus conduct | University not liable for off-campus rape under Title IX |
| Whether failure to involve Title IX coordinator shows indifference | Coordinator not notified | Regulations do not itself prove deliberate indifference | Insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference |
| Whether state-law claims (negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract) survive | University breached duties/promises | Support not shown; educational malpractice and other defects bar claims | Summary judgment affirmed for University |
| Whether district court abused discretion in recusal/due process rulings | Judge should recuse; due process violations | No abuse of discretion; rules followed | No reversible error; decisions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (establishes knowledge-and-response standard for Title IX damages)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate indifference requires basic control and response to harassment)
- Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2003) (university control over harassment context required for liability)
- Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing summary judgment under hostile procedural posture)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (due process considerations in adjudicative hearings)