938 F.3d 204
5th Cir.2019Background
- In May 2016, during a two‑week summer class at UTA, student Nicholas Watson reported that Thomas Klocke typed “gays should die,” called him a slur, and told him to kill himself; Watson said he was afraid to return to class if Klocke was present.
- Student Conduct Officer Dan Moore investigated, immediately barred Klocke from attending class pending investigation, interviewed Watson, Klocke, and an adjacent classmate, and found Watson’s account more credible.
- Moore observed Klocke relying on a written script and giving evasive answers; the adjacent classmate corroborated Watson’s contemporaneous note to a peer and email to the professor.
- Moore concluded Klocke was responsible for harassment (not threats or sexual harassment), placed him on disciplinary probation, barred him from class attendance but allowed coursework completion with accommodations, and prohibited contact between the students.
- Klocke killed himself on June 2, 2016. His estate sued UTA under Title IX alleging gender‑biased discipline (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and retaliation) and sought damages; the district court granted summary judgment for UTA, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports a Title IX damages claim based on an erroneous outcome (disciplinary error motivated by sex bias) | Estate: Moore’s own emails showed an “acknowledged lack of evidence,” so outcome was erroneous and motivated by gender/sexual‑orientation bias | UTA: Moore developed a meaningful investigatory record; credibility findings and investigative facts supported the harassment finding and were nondiscriminatory | Held: No triable evidence that outcome was driven by gender bias; Moore’s investigation was reasonable and produced non‑discriminatory bases for discipline |
| Whether selective enforcement occurred (similarly situated comparators treated better because of sex) | Estate: Identifies nine female students investigated but not barred from class, implying disparate treatment | UTA: Comparators were not similarly situated (different facts, timing, or no same‑class complainant); institutional statistics show no gender disparity | Held: Comparator evidence insufficient; statistics do not show systemic gender bias; selective enforcement claim fails |
| Whether discipline was retaliatory (for Klocke’s complaint of sexual harassment) | Estate: Klocke alleged he was sexually harassed by Watson; UTA retaliated by disciplining him | UTA: No evidence of retaliation beyond same facts; Moore independently investigated and had nondiscriminatory reasons | Held: Retaliation claim unsupported; no additional evidence showing retaliatory motive |
| Whether being barred from class constitutes a Title IX deprivation | Estate: Being excluded from attendance is an educational deprivation supporting Title IX damages | UTA: Argues as a matter of law Klocke suffered no deprivation | Held: Court rejected UTA’s categorical argument—being barred from most class sessions can be a Title IX deprivation, but here liability still requires intentional discrimination, which was not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (monetary damages available under implied private Title IX action; school liable only for intentional conduct)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (school liable for student‑on‑student harassment when response is clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination is itself actionable under Title IX)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX challenges to campus disciplinary proceedings: erroneous outcome and selective enforcement)