667 F. App'x 560
8th Cir.2016Background
- Tyler Thomas, a 19-year-old freshman at Peru State College, disappeared Dec. 3, 2010; she was last seen on campus and later declared dead by state court; her body was never recovered.
- Joshua Keadle, a 29-year-old residential neighbor and former volunteer strength/conditioning assistant for the women's basketball team, had a background revealing minor offenses and a prior misdemeanor theft; an email suggested a more serious past sexual allegation but initial checks did not confirm it.
- Peru State received at least two student complaints in Sept. 2010 alleging sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct by Keadle; disciplinary proceedings resulted in a finding of responsibility on one complaint and sanctions that Keadle did not complete.
- College officials (including the Athletic Director and Director of Housing/Security) restricted Keadle from team contact and considered removal from campus housing, but ultimately did not remove him; some officials recommended stronger action.
- Keadle was the last person known to be with Tyler and admitted to being alone with her near the Missouri River; he has invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused deposition; Thomas sued the Board of Trustees under Title IX for deliberate indifference to risk posed by Keadle.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board; the estate appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed, holding no genuine dispute that the Board had actual knowledge of a substantial risk or acted with deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had actual knowledge of and was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of sexual violence by Keadle under Title IX | Thomas: Peru State knew of prior misconduct, complaints, and warnings that put it on notice of a substantial risk from Keadle and nevertheless failed to protect students | Board: Known incidents and complaints were insufficiently severe or conclusive to establish actual knowledge that Keadle posed a substantial risk of serious harm; responses were not clearly unreasonable | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Board — the record did not show actual knowledge of a substantial risk or deliberate indifference under Title IX |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing peer-on-peer Title IX claims and summary judgment view of facts)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX requires actual notice and deliberate indifference for damages)
- Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2001) (rumors and inconclusive investigations do not establish actual knowledge)
- Escue v. N. Okla. Coll., 450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (past less-severe misconduct unlikely to show knowledge of substantial future risk)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (schools must not respond to known peer harassment in a manner that is clearly unreasonable)