285 F. Supp. 3d 1028
W.D. Mich.2018Background
- Four former Michigan State University students sued under Title IX after alleging sexual harassment or assault by other students and unsatisfactory institutional responses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court dismissed one plaintiff's Title IX claim but allowed Title IX claims for three plaintiffs to proceed.
- Defendants sought interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to appeal whether Title IX requires pleading that a school's deliberate indifference caused further acts of harassment (not merely vulnerability).
- The Sixth Circuit has not squarely resolved the precise pleading issue; district and circuit decisions offer conflicting language and guidance on whether actual subsequent harassment is required.
- The Court found the question to be a controlling legal issue, presented substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and that immediate appeal could materially advance termination of the litigation (efficiency with an existing qualified-immunity appeal).
- The Court certified two controlling questions for interlocutory appeal regarding (1) whether plaintiffs must plead acts of further discrimination caused by the institution’s deliberate indifference versus mere vulnerability, and (2) whether allegations that deliberate indifference deprived educational opportunities satisfy that pleading requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX requires pleading that the school's deliberate indifference caused further acts of harassment (not just vulnerability) | Plaintiffs contend pleading vulnerability or loss of educational opportunity suffices; further acts need not be alleged | MSU contends plaintiffs must plead actual subsequent acts of discrimination caused by the school's deliberate indifference | Court certified for interlocutory appeal that this is a controlling legal question and that substantial grounds for difference of opinion exist |
| Whether allegations that the school's deliberate indifference deprived educational opportunities satisfy any "further harassment" pleading requirement | Plaintiffs argue deprivation of educational opportunities caused by the school's response can satisfy the requirement | MSU argues deprivation alone is insufficient unless tied to additional acts of harassment caused by the school’s indifference | Court certified this question for interlocutory appeal to obtain clarity from the appellate court |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (framework for Title IX deliberate indifference and "liable or vulnerable to" language)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (language discussing "further discrimination" following deliberate indifference)
- Vance v. Spencer Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000) (context on single-incident harassment and severity/pervasiveness inquiry)
- K.T. v. Culver-Stockton Coll., 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2017) (reversed/affirmed on deliberate-indifference pleading; did not resolve "further acts" pleading issue)
- Escue v. N. Okla. Coll., 450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (summary-judgment resolution noting absence of alleged further harassment)
- In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2002) (standards for § 1292(b) interlocutory certification)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (final-decision rule for appeals)
- United States v. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussion of dicta versus holding)