987 F.3d 1199
8th Cir.2021Background
- Du Bois was a recruited student‑athlete at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD); head coach Joanna Warmington took leave while investigated for sexual harassment.
- Athletic administrators encouraged athletes, including Du Bois, to participate in the investigation; Du Bois provided information supporting Warmington.
- While Warmington was on leave, Du Bois assumed many coach‑like tasks; later she suffered an injury and considered redshirting.
- In spring UMD staff had told Du Bois she could redshirt; in August/September new staff told her she could not and made comments that redshirting was not “for someone like her,” segregated her from the team, and required locker removal.
- Du Bois filed an internal complaint alleging UMD retaliated against her for supporting Warmington, then transferred and sued under Title IX for retaliation and sex discrimination; the district court dismissed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Du Bois engaged in protected activity for a Title IX retaliation claim | Du Bois argues supporting and participating in the university’s sexual‑harassment investigation for her coach is protected and she was retaliated against for that participation | UMD argues Title IX retaliation protects complaints of sex discrimination, not participation on behalf of the accused; Du Bois did not oppose discrimination | Court: Not protected. Jackson requires the protected activity be a complaint of sex discrimination; Du Bois supported the accused, not opposed discrimination, so retaliation claim fails |
| Whether UMD discriminated against Du Bois on the basis of sex (Title IX) | Du Bois alleges denial of redshirt and comments showing disparate treatment versus male athletes (redshirting and funding/equipment disparities) | UMD contends the complaint lacks factual detail showing unequal treatment, comparators, or concrete allegations of funding/equipment disparities | Court: Dismissed. Pleading is conclusory and fails to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible Title IX discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (recognizes implied Title IX cause of action for retaliation tied to complaints of sex discrimination)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private plaintiffs cannot enforce statutory protections beyond what the statute itself prohibits)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (teacher sexual harassment can constitute Title IX discrimination)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (student‑on‑student sexual harassment may be actionable under Title IX when school is deliberately indifferent)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (zone‑of‑interests approach: students who complained about unequal treatment could be within Title IX’s protective scope)
- Bunch v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Tr., 863 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2017) (describes Title VII retaliation elements used to inform Title IX retaliation analysis)
- Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co., 911 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)