Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District
4:18-cv-02850
S.D. Tex.Aug 9, 2024Background
- Jane Roe, a former high school student, sued the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District (CFISD) under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages arising from a brutal sexual assault by another student and the District's alleged inaction.
- Plaintiff alleged CFISD failed to investigate her report or provide adequate support, ultimately recommending she drop out, which she did.
- The District Court dismissed Roe's § 1983 Equal Protection claims and later granted summary judgment to CFISD on all Title IX claims; Roe appealed only the Title IX rulings.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on pre-assault Title IX claims, but remanded the post-assault deliberate indifference claim, holding a jury could find a Title IX violation based on CFISD's post-assault conduct.
- After the Supreme Court ruled emotional distress damages unavailable under Title IX, Roe amended her complaint to seek only permissible damages.
- CFISD moved for partial dismissal of any revived § 1983 or pre-assault Title IX claims asserted in the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of § 1983 Equal Protection claim | Roe not pursuing § 1983 claim on remand | § 1983 claim already dismissed; no appeal by Roe | Moot—§ 1983 claim already dismissed |
| Dismissal of pre-assault Title IX claim | No intent to pursue pre-assault claim | Pre-assault Title IX claims already dismissed | Moot—no pre-assault claim remains |
| Scope of remaining claim | Only post-assault deliberate indifference under Title IX remains | Only post-assault Title IX claim survives | Only live claim is post-assault Title IX claim |
| Damages under Title IX post-Cummings | Seeks only damages allowed by Cummings | Emotional distress damages not recoverable | Not addressed substantively in ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 F.4th 334 (5th Cir. 2022) (Fifth Circuit decision affirming dismissal of pre-assault Title IX claim but allowing post-assault deliberate indifference claim to proceed)
- Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022) (Supreme Court holding emotional distress damages unavailable under Spending Clause statutes like Title IX)