Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep
53 F.4th 334
5th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff (Jane Roe), age 14, had a years‑long abusive dating relationship with a classmate (Doe) at Cypress Creek High; six days after her mother warned school officials, Doe violently assaulted Roe in a stairwell, causing severe injuries and two surgeries.
- Roe’s mother had previously reported Doe’s controlling behavior and requested schedule changes to keep them apart; school administrators declined to change Roe’s schedule.
- Hospital staff performed a SANE exam and campus police and the Harris County Sheriff’s Office investigated; the DA declined to charge Doe after investigators concluded the conduct was consensual.
- School administrators (assistant principals Gibson and Godbolt) did not reliably document or follow up on the incident, allegedly did not review police or medical reports, did not ensure separation of students, and provided homebound coursework without instruction.
- After the assault Roe endured in‑person and online harassment (being called a "baby killer," etc.), threatened by Doe, attempted suicide, and ultimately withdrew from school and never returned.
- Procedural posture: Roe sued the District under Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment for the District; the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on pre‑assault deliberate‑indifference claims but reversed as to the District’s deliberate indifference in response to the assault and subsequent harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Roe's Argument | District's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of Roe’s sexual assault | District had deficient Title IX training/policies and a history of sexual conduct in stairwells, which put it on actual notice of risk | No particularized notice about Roe’s specific risk; prior incidents only show constructive notice | Held for District: no genuine issue that it had actual knowledge of Roe’s pre‑assault risk (affirmed) |
| Whether the District was deliberately indifferent to the risk of assault (pre‑assault conduct) | Failure to train, poor reporting, and prior campus sexual misconduct demonstrate deliberate indifference | School discretion and lack of specific knowledge about Roe; responses to other incidents do not show knowledge of Roe’s risk | Held for District as to pre‑assault deliberate indifference (affirmed) |
| Whether the District’s post‑assault response (investigation, protections, academic support) was deliberately indifferent such that Roe was denied educational access | School failed to investigate, did not separate students or stop peer harassment, provided no meaningful academic/counseling support and encouraged withdrawal | School reviewed video, instructed Doe to stay away, deferred to law enforcement and prosecution outcome, and claims to have followed policy | Held for Roe on this issue for jury: genuine disputes about investigation, documentation, and reliance on law enforcement create triable issue of deliberate indifference (reversed) |
| Whether deferring to law enforcement or a prosecutor’s decision defeats Title IX liability | Reliance on a law‑enforcement investigation can be reasonable if school actively cooperates and monitors the investigation | Deference was appropriate where criminal ambiguity existed | Held: relying solely on a prosecutor’s declination without substantive school investigation may be clearly unreasonable; fact dispute precludes summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (school liability under Title IX requires actual notice to an official with authority and deliberate indifference)
- Davis ex rel. Lashonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX liability requires harassment so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it bars access to education; deliberate indifference is "clearly unreasonable")
- Sanches v. Carrollton‑Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. standard for student‑on‑student harassment and deliberate indifference; examples of adequate school responses)
- I.F. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 915 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. — meaningful investigation, academic accommodations, and monitoring can negate deliberate indifference)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. — credibility disputes about key witnesses preclude summary judgment)
- Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. Sch. Dist., 106 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. — actual knowledge requires awareness of facts from which substantial risk could be inferred and that official drew that inference)
- Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982 (5th Cir. — examples of proactive, repeated interventions that satisfied Title IX obligations)
- Doe v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. — incidents involving persons other than the plaintiff generally do not establish actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s specific risk)