241 F. Supp. 3d 1154
D. Kan.2017Background
- Student Sara Weckhorst alleges she was raped multiple times by two KSU students at an off‑campus fraternity party and at a fraternity house; she reported the assaults to KSU but the university declined to investigate because the incidents occurred off campus.
- KSU fraternities are described on the university website as “Kansas State University Organizations,” are overseen by a faculty advisor and the Office of Greek Affairs, and KSU enforces rules and can discipline chapters for off‑campus conduct.
- After reporting, Weckhorst pursued medical care and filed police reports; KSU limited its response to investigating online comments and a separate anonymous alcohol report and suspended the chapter for alcohol violations.
- Weckhorst alleges substantial educational harm (missed classes, grade decline, loss of scholarship, PTSD symptoms) caused or worsened by KSU’s response.
- Procedural posture: KSU moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Weckhorst sought leave to amend to add another victim; the United States filed a Statement of Interest on Title IX enforcement. The court considered briefing and denied dismissal of Title IX claim, dismissed KCPA and negligence claims, denied leave to amend, and granted in part a motion to redact portions of a proposed amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assaults occurred in a "program or activity" for Title IX | Weckhorst: fraternity and events are university‑connected (KSU oversight, faculty advisor, Office of Greek Affairs, promotional materials, ability to discipline chapters), so KSU had substantial control over assailants and context | KSU: assaults occurred off campus at private locations; no contemporaneous control; Title IX does not extend to private off‑campus conduct | Court: Denied dismissal — alleged facts plausibly show KSU had substantial control over the fraternity and assailants, so Title IX may apply |
| Whether deliberate indifference must cause further harassment (i.e., require post‑report harassment) | Weckhorst: need not plead additional assaults; KSU’s inadequate response left her "liable or vulnerable" and deprived her educational access | KSU: plaintiff failed to allege further harassment after notice; such causation is required under Davis and Tenth Circuit cases | Court: Denied dismissal — Davis requires deliberate indifference that makes victim "liable or vulnerable," not proof of an additional assault; alleged deprivation of access suffices |
| Whether KSU violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting fraternity safety | Weckhorst: KSU promotional statements misled students/parents about fraternity safety and concealed a policy of indifference | KSU: denied specific; argued pleading fails to meet Rule 9(b) particularity and causation for an "aggrieved consumer" | Court: Granted dismissal — KCPA claim fails under Rule 9(b) (no particularity as to when, where, who, content) and plaintiff did not plausibly allege reliance or that she was an "aggrieved consumer" |
| Whether KSU owed a legal duty in negligence claim under Kansas Tort Claims Act | Weckhorst: KSU’s control of fraternities created a duty to regulate/warn/protect students | KSU: no special relationship with student or assailant; not a landlord of the fraternity house; Nero limits duty; therefore no legal duty | Court: Granted dismissal — no plausible special‑relationship or landlord basis alleged; therefore no duty and negligence claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (Title IX liability requires recipient’s substantial control and deliberate indifference that "cause[s]" students to undergo harassment or make them "liable or vulnerable")
- Rost ex rel. K.C. v. Steamboat Springs RE‑2 Sch. Dist., 511 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2008) (no per se bar to off‑campus Title IX claims; requires nexus and control analysis)
- Escue v. Northern Oklahoma College, 450 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference inquiry and significance of whether further harassment occurred in assessing school response)
- Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (off‑campus fraternity/apartment assault did not occur under university program where university lacked control over the event)
- Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2003) (off‑campus private residence assault did not fall within university program or activity)
- Nero v. Kansas State University, 861 P.2d 768 (Kan. 1993) (no general university duty to protect students from other students absent a special relationship; landlord relationship can create duty)
- Jamieson v. Vatterott Educ. Ctr., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (D. Kan. 2007) (Rule 9(b) requires particularized pleading of KCPA/deceptive statements: who, what, when, where, and consequences)