Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealtrialsummary judgmentharassment

plaintiffappealsummary judgment

Related Cases

Simpson v. University of Colorado Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170, 225 Ed. Law Rep. 77

Facts

Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, female university students, alleged they were sexually assaulted by football players and recruits from the University of Colorado at Boulder during a recruiting visit in December 2001. The university had a policy of showing recruits a 'good time' during their visits, which included pairing them with female 'Ambassadors' and player-hosts. Despite prior knowledge of risks associated with such recruiting practices, the university failed to implement adequate supervision or training, leading to the assaults. The district court initially granted summary judgment for the university, which the plaintiffs appealed.

Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted in Ms. Simpson's apartment by CU football players and high-school students on a recruiting visit. The CU football team recruited talented high-school players each fall by bringing them to campus. Part of the sales effort was to show recruits 'a good time.'

Issue

Did the university's actions and policies amount to deliberate indifference under Title IX, thereby precluding summary judgment?

Rule

A federal funding recipient can be liable under Title IX if it has an official policy that leads to deliberate indifference to known risks of sexual harassment or assault. This includes failing to provide adequate training or supervision that is necessary for the implementation of its programs, especially when the institution has significant control over the harasser and the environment in which the harassment occurs.

Analysis

The evidence indicated that the university was aware of the risks associated with its recruiting practices, including a history of sexual assaults linked to its football program. The football coach's knowledge of prior incidents and the continuation of an unsupervised player-host program suggested a failure to act on known risks. This created a factual issue regarding whether the university's inaction constituted deliberate indifference, thus warranting a trial rather than summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the university's policies created an obvious risk of sexual assault, which amounted to deliberate indifference under Title IX.

We therefore hold that CU was not entitled to summary judgment.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, prevailed in their appeal against the University of Colorado. The appellate court found that the evidence presented raised significant questions about the university's awareness of the risks associated with its recruiting practices and its failure to take appropriate action. This indicated a potential violation of Title IX, as the university's policies may have fostered an environment conducive to sexual assault, thus necessitating further proceedings.

The plaintiffs, Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, prevailed in their appeal against the University of Colorado, as the appellate court found that the evidence presented raised significant questions about the university's awareness of the risks associated with its recruiting practices and its failure to take appropriate action.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password