Lauren Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 967 F.3d 519

Background

Lauren Kesterson, a Kent State softball scholarship athlete, alleges she was raped by Tucker Linder (coach Karen Linder’s son) in December 2012.
In May 2014 Kesterson told head coach Karen Linder about the assault; Linder (a mandatory reporter) did not notify the Title IX office.
Over the next year Kesterson told several other Kent State employees (also mandatory reporters), who likewise did not notify Title IX.
In August 2015 Kesterson reported the assault to Kent State’s deputy Title IX coordinator; an investigation followed, Karen Linder resigned, and Tucker left the university.
Kesterson sued: (1) Linder (and Oakley) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection violations; and (2) Kent State under Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation v. Linder	Kesterson says her report of rape was protected speech and Linder retaliated (reduced playing time, public criticism, exclusion) to punish and deter reporting.	Linder contends actions were legitimate coaching decisions and any impact was minimal; qualified immunity protects her.	Reversed in part: disputed facts (injury and retaliatory motive) preclude summary judgment; the retaliation claim survives against Linder and qualified immunity is denied on this claim.
First Amendment prior restraint v. Linder	Kesterson claims Linder told her not to tell others, amounting to a prior restraint.	Linder says she merely asked for confidentiality; did not impose any legal prohibition.	Affirmed: no prior restraint—no administrative/judicial order or legal impediment.
Equal Protection / § 1983 v. Linder	Kesterson argues deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment and discriminatory treatment; claims Linder violated clearly established equal protection rights.	Linder asserts no clearly established law put her on notice of an Equal Protection violation in this factual context; qualified immunity applies.	Affirmed for Linder on qualified immunity grounds: law not clearly established for these equal protection theories at that time.
Title IX claim v. Kent State	Kesterson contends university had actual knowledge via employee reports and acted with deliberate indifference in response.	Kent State argues it lacked "actual knowledge" until Kesterson reported to deputy Title IX coordinator (an "appropriate person"), and once notified it promptly investigated and remedied.	Affirmed for Kent State: only the deputy coordinator qualified as an "appropriate person" for actual knowledge; once notified, the university’s response was not clearly unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Papish v. Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667 (students at state universities have First Amendment protections)
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (student First Amendment rights subject to disruption test)
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (student speech limits in school settings)
Lowery v. Euveard, 497 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007) (coach liability where player speech motivated adverse actions)
Jenkins v. Rock Hill Local Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2008) (elements for First Amendment retaliation claim)
Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (prior restraint requires legal impediment)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (objective notice and qualified immunity)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (actual knowledge by an "appropriate person" for Title IX)
Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (school liability for student-on-student harassment when deliberate indifference shown)
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs., 551 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2009) (deliberate indifference and school liability)
Shively v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., [citation="579 F. App'x 348"] (6th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference supports equal protection theory)