35 F.4th 459
6th Cir.2022Background
- Two female high‑school students (Jane Doe at Maplewood; Sally Doe at Hunters Lane) were secretly videoed by other students while engaging in sexual activity; the videos were circulated at school and online, provoking harassment.
- Parents notified school administrators and School Resource Officers (SROs); school responses included interviews, referral to police by some staff, limited follow‑up, and arrangements for homeschooling in Sally’s case; Jane transferred schools the next day.
- Plaintiffs sued Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) alleging Title IX sexual‑harassment claims (two theories: "before" — systemic indifference pre‑incident; and "after" — inadequate post‑notice response causing additional harm) and § 1983 Equal Protection claims; district court granted summary judgment for MNPS after remand.
- This Court reviews summary judgment de novo, addresses how Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Univ. (6th Cir. 2019) constrains student‑on‑student Title IX claims, and distinguishes university and high‑school contexts.
- The panel holds that (1) "before" (systemic pre‑incident) Title IX claims can proceed under a Karasek‑style test and are not categorically barred by Kollaritsch; (2) Sally’s "after" claim survives summary judgment; and (3) Kollaritsch does not bar Jane’s high‑school "after" claim because different institutional control justifies a different application of the same‑victim requirement. The § 1983 claims are vacated with the Title IX claims and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of "before" Title IX claims (systemic, pre‑incident indifference) | MNPS’s widespread history of sexual misconduct and decentralized, inadequate responses created a known risk that caused plaintiffs’ assaults; therefore a "before" claim is actionable. | Kollaritsch requires post‑notice further harassment of the same victim; a pre‑incident systemic theory is incompatible with Kollaritsch. | "Before" claims are viable. Court adopts Karasek test (policy of deliberate indifference → known/obvious heightened risk in school’s control → plaintiff suffered severe/pervasive deprivation) and vacates summary judgment, remanding for factfinder. |
| Applicability of Kollaritsch same‑victim requirement to high schools (Jane’s "after" claim) | Jane: high schools exercise greater custodial control over students than universities, so Kollaritsch’s same‑victim rule should not bar high‑school "after" claims. | MNPS: Kollaritsch’s post‑notice further‑harassment requirement applies equally to K–12 and higher‑ed; same‑victim rule bars Jane’s claim. | Kollaritsch does not extend to bar high‑school "after" claims; vacates dismissal of Jane’s "after" claim and remands. |
| Sufficiency of MNPS’s post‑notice response in Sally’s case ("after" claim) | Newman and school officials failed to investigate, refer to Title IX coordinator, or take remedial steps; advising police only and steering to homeschooling constituted deliberate indifference causing ongoing harassment. | MNPS: staff involved, SRO reported to police, school communicated with parents, and some remedial steps were taken; not deliberately indifferent as matter of law. | Reverses summary judgment for MNPS on Sally’s "after" claim — reasonable juror could find deliberate indifference. |
| § 1983 Equal Protection claims tied to Title IX remedies | § 1983 claims arise from the same deprivation and should survive if Title IX claims survive. | § 1983 claims fail if Title IX claims fail. | Vacates dismissal of § 1983 claims and remands for district court to evaluate them in light of Title IX rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX liability for deliberate indifference to student‑on‑student harassment when school has control and its indifference causes students to undergo harassment)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (damages under Title IX require actual notice to an official and deliberate indifference)
- Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Univ., 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019) (panel holding that deliberate‑indifference student‑on‑student claims require post‑notice further actionable harassment of the same victim)
- Karasek v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 956 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2020) (articulating a viable "before"/pre‑assault Title IX claim test based on systemic deliberate indifference)
- Pahssen v. Merrill Cmty. Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2012) (three‑part prima facie Title IX test: severe/pervasive deprivation, actual knowledge, deliberate indifference)
- Foster v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich., 982 F.3d 960 (6th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Title IX deliberate‑indifference analysis depends on institutional context and degree of control)