Melissa Maher v. Iowa State University, 915 F.3d 1210

In March 2014, ISU student Patrick Whetstone sexually assaulted fellow student Melissa Maher; Maher reported it and ISU opened an investigation after she identified Whetstone in May 2014.
ISU issued a no-contact order between Whetstone and Maher; when Maher returned to campus she discovered Whetstone lived nearby.
On August 20, 2014, Maher, her parents, and her roommate met ISU administrators to request a housing change; ISU declined to move Whetstone pending investigation and offered at least two alternative housing options, which Maher refused.
ISU’s investigative report (Sept. 19, 2014) concluded Whetstone sexually assaulted Maher; an administrative judge later expelled Whetstone (July 22, 2015).
Maher filed a Title IX suit against ISU on Sept. 9, 2016, alleging ISU’s response excluded her from educational benefits; the district court granted summary judgment for ISU as time-barred under Iowa’s two-year statute of limitations and for lack of deliberate indifference.
The Eighth Circuit assumed (without deciding) the claim was timely but affirmed summary judgment on the merits, holding ISU was not deliberately indifferent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maher’s Title IX claim is barred by the statute of limitations	Maher argued her claim was timely (disputed accrual date)	ISU argued claim accrued Aug. 20, 2014 and is time-barred under Iowa’s two-year rule	Court assumed timeliness for argument and decided on merits; did not overturn statute-of-limit ruling below
Whether ISU was deliberately indifferent to known sex discrimination	Maher: ISU’s refusal to move Whetstone and offering no comparable housing after it admitted assault was deliberate indifference	ISU: Offered reasonable interim housing, respected due-process by waiting for hearing, and had a no-contact order in place	Held ISU was not deliberately indifferent; its response was not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances
Whether Maher’s refusal of ISU’s housing alternatives creates a triable issue	Maher: Offered alternatives were inadequate; refusal shows ISU’s response was insufficient	ISU: Offered at least two reasonable alternatives before report; Maher declined them	Held dissatisfaction or refusal does not render the school’s response deliberately indifferent
Whether due-process concerns justify delaying disciplinary relocation of the alleged perpetrator	Maher: Preferred immediate relocation of Whetstone	ISU: Waiting respected Whetstone’s procedural due-process rights and was reasonable	Held reasonable to delay moving Whetstone pending process; no deliberate indifference

Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
K.T. v. Culver-Stockton College, 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.) (elements of Title IX deliberate-indifference claim)
Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S.) (deliberate indifference standard and limits on remedial demands)
Estate of Barnwell by & through Barnwell v. Watson, 880 F.3d 998 (8th Cir.) (deference and flexibility for school administrators)
Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir.) (victim dissatisfaction does not automatically mean deliberate indifference)
Keefe v. Adams, 840 F.3d 523 (8th Cir.) (when disciplinary nature triggers due-process protections)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S.) (summary-judgment evidence construed favorably to nonmovant rule cited)
Walker v. Barrett, 650 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir.) (Title IX claims borrow state personal-injury statute of limitations)