Ross v. University of Tulsa, 859 F.3d 1280

Abigail Ross alleged she was raped by fellow student Patrick Swilling and sued the University of Tulsa under Title IX for deliberate indifference to sexual harassment.
In 2012, two football players and J.M. reported to campus security that J.M. had been raped by Swilling; campus security dropped the matter after J.M. declined to pursue it.
Ross claims the university’s earlier failure to investigate (pre-rape theory) left a dangerous student on campus and that the university’s later student-conduct hearing (post-rape theory) improperly excluded evidence of Swilling’s prior misconduct.
The district court granted summary judgment to the University of Tulsa on both theories; Ross appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit held that (a) campus-security officers may have had actual notice and acted unreasonably in 2012, but they were not shown to be “appropriate persons” under Gebser to impute Title IX notice to the university; and (b) exclusion of prior-acts evidence at Ross’s hearing was not clearly unreasonable under the deliberate-indifference standard and federal OCR guidance.
Result: the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the University of Tulsa.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the university had actual notice through an "appropriate person" of a substantial risk from Swilling based on 2012 reports about J.M.	Ross: reports to campus security (and J.M.’s confirmations) gave actual notice and campus-security officers’ dropping the investigation was deliberate indifference.	Univ.: only campus-security officers knew; those officers lacked authority to take corrective action for Title IX notice; university not liable.	Court: A fact-finder could find actual notice and unreasonable response by campus security, but campus-security officers were not shown to be "appropriate persons" under Gebser; therefore Title IX liability fails.
Whether exclusion of prior-misconduct evidence at Ross’s student-conduct hearing was deliberate indifference (i.e., clearly unreasonable)	Ross: university’s evidentiary rule barring prior-acts evidence absent a prior finding of responsibility effectively shielded a repeat predator and was unreasonable given prior reports.	Univ.: the evidentiary rule conforms to OCR guidance; prior acts without a finding of responsibility are properly excluded; no clearly unreasonable response.	Court: Applying Davis deliberate-indifference standard and OCR guidance, the university’s application of the rule was not clearly unreasonable; summary judgment affirmed.

Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (establishes that Title IX notice must be through an "appropriate person" with authority to take corrective action)
Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (deliberate-indifference standard: school response must be clearly unreasonable)
Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir.) (elements required for student-on-student Title IX claims)
Escue v. N. Okla. Coll., 450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir.) (discusses actual notice and sufficiency of reports)