937 F.3d 1119
8th Cir.2019Background
- Pearson and Kirkpatrick enrolled at Logan University in Sept. 2015 and later complained about a fellow student (FS) who allegedly stalked/harassed them (staring, persistent contact attempts; Pearson alleged one incident of being pressed against in a cadaver lab).
- Pearson first complained in Dec. 2015 to Logan administrators, requested anonymity, and provided a written statement; investigation was delayed over winter break and by Pearson’s initial request for confidentiality.
- Logan’s Title IX coordinator interviewed FS in January, then (after Pearson dropped anonymity in February) interviewed witnesses, issued a written investigative report to the Honor Council, and circulated witness summaries.
- The Honor Council found insufficient evidence to discipline FS but issued a no-contact order; Pearson appealed and the appeal officer upheld the process; both students later transferred.
- Pearson and Kirkpatrick sued under Title IX and state negligence/premises-liability; the district court granted summary judgment for Logan; the Eighth Circuit affirmed on Title IX and state-law duty grounds (with one judge concurring in part and dissenting on the duty issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kirkpatrick can show actual knowledge by school of sex-based harassment | Kirkpatrick argues post-fact interview and past discomfort put school on notice | Logan argues there was no pre-existing notice and only limited, after-the-fact disclosure | Held: No — Title IX claim fails for lack of actual knowledge |
| Whether Logan was deliberately indifferent to Pearson’s Title IX complaint | Pearson argues investigation/adjudication was clearly unreasonable and delayed, and remedies insufficient | Logan contends it investigated, issued no-contact order, offered work-study alternative, and respected confidentiality requests | Held: No — summary judgment for Logan; no deliberate indifference as a matter of law |
| Whether Logan owed a duty under Missouri negligence/premises-liability law to protect plaintiffs from student-on-student harassment | Plaintiffs argue complaints and alleged touching/stalking put Logan on notice and created a special relationship/duty | Logan argues Missouri law generally imposes no duty on colleges absent extraordinary danger or numerous recent violent incidents | Held: No — plaintiffs failed to establish a duty under Missouri law (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- K.T. v. Culver-Stockton Coll., 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2017) (elements for student-on-student Title IX harassment)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard)
- Maher v. Iowa State Univ., 915 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. 2019) (investigative measures and no-contact orders may negate deliberate indifference)
- Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (flexibility for school administrators and confidentiality considerations)
- Faheen v. City Parking Corp., 734 S.W.2d 270 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) (Missouri exception where presence of a person indicates extraordinary danger)
- Nickel v. Stephens College, 480 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (general rule that colleges owe no duty to protect students)
- Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Coop., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. banc 2000) (elements for negligence/duty analysis under Missouri law)