Sofie Karasek v. University of California
956 F.3d 1093
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Three UC Berkeley undergraduates (Karasek, Commins, Butler) alleged they were sexually assaulted and sued UC under Title IX asserting: (a) individual claims based on UC’s responses to their reports, and (b) a "pre-assault" claim that UC maintained a policy of deliberate indifference that increased the risk of assaults.
- Karasek: complained after a club trip; UC used informal/early-resolution processes, delayed and failed to timely notify or update her, and TH received limited sanctions; Karasek learned full sanctions long after TH graduated.
- Commins: assaulted in Jan 2012; UC placed the accused on interim suspension, delayed aspects of its process pending criminal proceedings, ultimately resolved the matter informally with suspension and no effective appeal or timely notice to Commins.
- Butler: assaults occurred off-campus at an unaffiliated program guest-lecturer location; UC investigated whether its policies applied, concluded the program was not UC-affiliated and took no further action; Doe occasionally lectured at UC.
- The FAC alleged broader institutional failures: a California State Auditor report documenting UC’s informal-resolution practices and procedural lapses, statements by UC Title IX officials criticizing early resolution for sexual assault, and an asserted incentive to use informal resolutions to avoid Clery Act reporting.
- Procedural posture: district court dismissed Karasek’s and Commins’s individual claims and the pre-assault claim, and granted summary judgment for UC on Butler’s individual claim. Ninth Circuit affirmed the individual-claim dismissals and Butler’s summary judgment but vacated the dismissal of the pre-assault claim and remanded, holding that a pre-assault (official-policy) Title IX theory is cognizable and articulating the applicable standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UC’s response to Karasek’s report was deliberately indifferent | UC delayed, violated DCL/own policies, failed to prevent further harassment, and withheld information from Karasek | UC investigated, met with accused, imposed sanctions; conduct was at most negligent and not clearly unreasonable | Dismissal of Karasek’s individual claim affirmed; UC’s conduct not deliberate indifference |
| Whether UC’s response to Commins’s report was deliberately indifferent | 13‑month resolution delay, policy/DCL violations, failed protective measures, denied participation in process | UC imposed interim suspension promptly, acted to protect Commins, and later imposed sanctions; procedural deficiencies don’t alone show deliberate indifference | Dismissal of Commins’s individual claim affirmed |
| Whether UC was deliberately indifferent to Butler’s report (summary judgment) | UC failed to investigate, to protect from repeat harassment, and violated policy/DCL | UC did investigate (determined program was non‑UC), had limited ability to control a non‑affiliated assailant, and provided accommodations; no evidence of continued harassment on campus | Summary judgment for UC on Butler’s individual claim affirmed |
| Whether a pre-assault (official‑policy) Title IX claim is cognizable and what standard applies | UC maintained policy of deliberate indifference (informal resolutions, Auditor report, incentive to avoid Clery reporting) that heightened risk campus-wide | Such broad pre‑assault theory conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and requires showing actual knowledge/deliberate indifference to particular incidents | Court holds pre-assault claims are cognizable; plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) official policy of deliberate indifference to reports of sexual misconduct, (2) that policy created a heightened risk of harassment, (3) the context was within school control, and (4) the plaintiff was harassed as a result; dismissal vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (damages require official policy or actual notice and deliberate indifference)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX deliberate‑indifference standard for student‑on‑student harassment)
- Simpson v. Univ. of Colo. Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) (official policy of indifference to program‑specific risk can support Title IX liability)
- Oden v. N. Marianas Coll., 440 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2006) (delay alone, without prejudice or a deliberate attempt to sabotage, is not deliberate indifference)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile‑environment principles in sex discrimination law)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (damages available under Title IX)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Mansourian v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 602 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2010) (official‑policy deliberate indifference to known overall risk can support Title IX liability)