GOOD RULING: Appeals Court Declines to Expand Universities’ Obligations Under TitleIX
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a Providence College student did not have a Title IX claim against Brown University, even though she was allegedly raped by Brown students on Brown’s campus. Jane Doe sought relief under a novel legal theory that would have dramatically expanded universities’ already-significant obligations under Title IX. For the most part, alleged Title IX violations are matters to be resolved administratively between the university and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which enforces Title IX at recipient institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that in some circumstances, an individual who has suffered student-on-student harassment covered by Title IX may be able to sue a university for damages. That’s what Jane Doe did. The question facing the First Circuit in this case, Doe v. Brown: Does someone who was not seeking access to a university’s educational opportunities or benefits – that is, a non-student – still have the right to recover damages under Title IX if he or she was sexually assaulted at that university? Jane Doe, a Providence College student, alleged that she was raped by three members of Brown’s football team. Brown informed Doe that she could file a complaint against the students under Brown’s student conduct code, but did not offer her recourse through the university’s Title IX process. Doe filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Doe also filed a lawsuit against Brown. She alleged that she had withdrawn from Providence College for fear of seeing her assailants in the Providence area — a fear that, she alleged, resulted from Brown’s inaction. This, she argued, had the effect of denying her access to educational opportunities and benefits in violation of Title IX. In September 2017, a federal district judge dismissed Doe’s lawsuit, holding that as a non-student with no connection to Brown’s educational programs and opportunities, Doe did not have a Title IX claim against Brown. Doe appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which last week upheld the dismissal of her case. The court held that an individual cannot bring a Title IX claim alleging “discrimination under” a university’s educational programs or activities unless they are “participating, or at least attempting to participate, in education programs or activities provided by the defendant institution.” Because the primary mission of a university is to be an educational institution, not a court, expanding the role of universities in adjudicating sexual misconduct claims would almost certainly have harmed both due process and the ability of universities to fulfill their educational missions.
thefire.org By Samantha Harris
