K.T. v. Culver-Stockton College
865 F.3d 1054
8th Cir.2017Background
- K.T., a 16-year-old high-school recruit visiting Culver-Stockton College for soccer, alleged she was served alcohol and sexually assaulted at an on-campus fraternity house by a college student.
- K.T. reported the incident to College authorities within one to two days; she alleges the College only canceled a scheduled meeting and did not investigate or provide medical/mental-health assistance.
- K.T. sued Culver-Stockton College for money damages under Title IX, alleging student-on-student (peer) harassment and that the College acted with deliberate indifference by failing to prevent the assault and failing to investigate or treat her after the incident.
- The College moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing (among other things) that K.T. was not a student and that Davis-based peer-harassment claims require the plaintiff be a student and additional elements not pleaded here.
- The district court dismissed the Title IX claim for failure to state a claim; the court found either that a non-student cannot bring such a claim or, alternatively, that K.T. failed to plausibly plead deliberate indifference, actual knowledge, and discrimination severe/pervasive enough to deny access to educational opportunities.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, assuming arguendo non-student status might not preclude suit, but concluding K.T. failed to plead the necessary elements of a Title IX peer-harassment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-student may bring a Title IX student-on-student harassment claim | K.T.: non-student status does not bar a Title IX peer-harassment claim | College: Davis-based peer-harassment doctrine applies only to a school's own students | Court: Assumed arguendo non-student status might not be dispositive but affirmed dismissal on other grounds (did not decide definitively) |
| Whether College acted with deliberate indifference causing or making plaintiff vulnerable to harassment | K.T.: College failed to adopt preventive practices and failed to investigate/treat her, showing deliberate indifference | College: Complaint lacks allegations that College’s inaction caused or made K.T. vulnerable to the assault | Court: Dismissed — complaint did not plausibly allege a causal nexus between College inaction and the assault (no deliberate indifference as required) |
| Whether the College had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of peer harassment | K.T.: Reporting the assault to the College suffices to establish actual knowledge | College: After-the-fact notice of the single incident is insufficient; actual knowledge requires prior notice of a substantial risk (e.g., prior similar incidents or known perpetrator history) | Court: Dismissed — complaint contained no allegations of prior similar incidents or knowledge that would put College on notice of a substantial risk |
| Whether the misconduct and response were severe/pervasive enough to deny access to educational opportunities | K.T.: The single assault and inadequate response deprived her of equal access | College: A single one-on-one assault (without systemic evidence) does not meet Davis’s severe/pervasive requirement | Court: Dismissed — single alleged assault insufficient to plausibly allege discrimination was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to deny access |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (holds school liable under Title IX for student-on-student harassment only where deliberate indifference to known harassment denies access to educational opportunities)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (requires actual notice to school and deliberate indifference by an official for Title IX damages based on teacher-on-student harassment)
- Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir.) (outlines elements for peer-harassment Title IX claim including deliberate indifference, actual knowledge, control)
- Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (8th Cir.) (deliberate indifference must cause or make students vulnerable to abuse)
- Plamp v. Mitchell Sch. Dist. No. 17-2, 565 F.3d 450 (8th Cir.) (after-the-fact reports alone do not establish actual knowledge of a risk of peer harassment)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (school had actual knowledge where it recruited a student-assailant despite preexisting knowledge of prior misconduct)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: allegations must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
- Cox v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 685 F.3d 663 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)