the morning may please the core counsel to listen mar was victimized first by the man to see just mad on campus who raped her and then by iowa state university when it failed provider a safe environment free from fourteen and discovered that the perpetrator of the crime against her was living in the building right next door to her immensely to use force to see him regularly each week to come to the same bus stop to see him countering very early on the way home state to provide her with different housing at least comparable to the housing that she had and they had nothing available they iowa state offered her a hotel room that was only available on a temporary basis she would have had in and out of it they offered her the warm converted warm dan we have for strangers just months after she had been raped by a stranger is an uncomfortable situation for her and she was not moving forward but i would state also said that it would offer her that it may move the perpetrator of that crime against her at a later date  and so relying on that she stayed where she was waiting for them to finish the investigation which is what they told her they would do they finish the investigation then they consider moving from when they finish the investigation  the director of an equal opportunity office and the title nine coordinator advocated for her on her behalf to try and get them to move to the perpetrator of the crime and they did nothing at that time and they did nothing at that time to move her they had nothing available to her i was state argues that that a single room was available to her but that is actually not in the record  the it is in the court findings and that's what i would state the district court findings that's what i was state sites too but they don't cite to the actual record for facts that show that she was offered a single word you said to offer to move after they offered they never offered to move or after the investigation they stead that they would that they would consider moving the perpetrator after the investigation they did not want to move him while the investigation was pending and that is in the records but they never made an offer after the investigation they they stated they would not move him and they did not make an offer  at that point in time to move her to any housing so why does cons of the action make the offer because at least at that point in time they're making an effort and they're indicating that they're going to continue to make effort by stating that they were not going to do something now when the investigation was over they would do something doesn't she she does she does start doing more harm on them and they still have to be deliberately indifferent and if they're offering to do something i can't say that they're being deliberately indifferent so you don't think they that point in time in the fact that they don't have anything that's comparable but if they don't have anything i don't think we can force them to offer something they don't have but at the same time they're saying that they generally have available single after their investigation when they said we'll do something after the investigation and then they did nothing with fused to move him even though they found that he had raped her and they had they made no offer more but he didn't remove from school  he laughed at the end of the semester but she had already left by that time he he made it all the way through the semester and actually transferred to another school there wasn't a finding there wasn't he wasn't actually expelled by a finding intel think the following july of two thousand fifteen so the rape happened in march of two thousand and fourteen there was no finding or or he chose to go through the ministry of process the ministry process didn't actually  something through because the clear that at least they're trying to do something is when they just drop the ball and say well we're not going to do anything and she has to choose between staying where she is which doesn't give her a safe environment and she can focus on stud and so you know you're coming back to that basic statement in title mind that no person on the basis of sex be excluded from participation every night the benefits are subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity and that's what she's not receiving at that point in time she tried to stay as long as she possibly could but realized when they're not doing anything for her that that's just not going to work so effort to try and find space for her to be accommodating to her the problem is those accommodations are not the same as what she had at the that point in time and actually would have caused caused her much disruption to her studies one being in a comfortable room with with a with strangers that was a problem for her at that time point in time and she talks about that but she she is not comfortable around strangers just because of what happened earlier that year and then the temporary housing is really just moving in stay there for a while what is she going to do every other weekend when there's a football game it's not it's not a solution for and that's the biggest problem and why she stayed where she did as long as she co certainly her damage i mean that's why you actually get to the other problem with the district courts statement that there is no severe pervasive discrimination going on because she is vulnerable to discrimination other ports of noted that are found that just just being that close to being in his presence can be discrimination can be harassment and certainly in this situation it had a great effect on her  she was trying to do is cooperate with the state and get i would state to cooperate with her by listening to what they had said which is will do something when the investigations over thing as i wish they never did tell me again did i think at the point where they where i was state made the finding that he had raped or finished their investigation as they said they would but then made no changes to the housing and in other cases that have been cited by one of them being leader of the connecticut case they do move the perpetrator of it in that case not immediately they offer her housing as far as we know that housing is comparable there is nothing that says that it was worse housing than what she was what she had so this is a much different situation given what went on but also that i will state said we'll do something and then didn't do  good morning your honour's may please the court the tutor for the apple we i was state university your honors as the district court correctly found there are numerous legal grounds to find summary judgment here and now i'll mention those in a moment but at a global level i think it's important to say this was a case where iowa state did what it was supposed to do when ms moher came forward and made her report of sexual assault i would state police officers immediately responded she was transported to a hospital she was connected with sexual assault advocates in the weeks that followed individuals from student life met with her parents met with her facilitated the class changes facilitated her withdrawal her assault was in march but she didn't disclose the identity of the perpetrator until may right before school was to close for the summer but when she did that i was state immediately launched an investigation and impose a no contact order on th ask her whether she would be interested in moving and she said that she was not interested in moving nonetheless they met with her and proposed these options of a converted den hotel and she indicated she didn't want to have any of those it was not until september that the equal opportunity office completed its investigation which under iowa states policy is not a finding of responsibility but rather the basis upon which charges are brought under the student code student could conduct without it and then a healing process results at the end of that hearing process mr whetstone was expelled from the university so  indisputable is not satisfied with some of the remedies that were offered to her under davis that's not the test for liability test is whether the university's overall response was clearly on reasonable or deliberately indifferent she was sexually assaulted she had expressed discomfort about the proximity of her house and missed the rest of iowa state responded by proposing alternatives that she deemed insufficient and she saying that because of that she suffered  things to that your honor one i've never heard an explanation for why it became different in september when the investigation merely found a basis to charge mr webster but ms mockers perspective that of the plaintiff she was incurring the that somehow iowa state told her they would reconsider the house and that that's not in the record that's not in the play of statement of uncontroverted fact the court will not find it there what the court will find is that miss marr her and her parents clearly said they did not want her to move so the notion that iowa state somehow had to come back to her and again reiterate something she had already rejected i think is also erroneous as far as when iowa state's  opportunity office investigation is the basis on which charges filed under the student code of conduct and then the alleged perpetrator has the right to a hearing before the education  or says an institution can't be deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment in a way that subjects the student to for the discrimination that test of deliberate indifferen state with many other things including imposing a no contact order that miss marr her admits was effective at preventing any further substantive interaction between herself and mr webster all she said was that she saw him from a distance on campus but she admits there was no interaction so if the concern is iowa state needed to do something to prevent the possibility  it did and it was effective it's not realistic to think that at least until an adjudication in a school can prevent any sort of situation where two parties might see each other at least were witnesses to the events leading up to it and i think as as this marker noted and in some of the briefing i overstayed even told her this was a very close case and it was one that was contested with vigor by mr west down in the administrative hearing that he had counsel at the gate that threw it at every step of the way so it was certainly not a case where there was some sort of objective evidence of the outset by which the neighbors would say the district court correctly found in our view that there was an absence of pervasiveness which is a particular part of title mind that's different than title seven the supreme court in davis noted that it has title mind is spending cla legislation and doesn't have an express cause of action the implied cause of action is narrowly construed and the supreme court explained that it couldn't proceed a circumstance where congress would create liability a rising from a single instance of sexual harassment no matter how opprobrious and that's ultimately what we have in this case a single instance of sexual assault and i'm not minimizing the effect that has  indicates related to that but a a distinct concept under both davis and this court's decision in culver stockton a school must have actual knowledge of the sexual harassment  upon which the plane is found it or put differently a single ex post report of sexual assault is insufficient to trigger that actual knowledge so that was another ground the district court did not reach that could be an or the supreme court said an institution is only liable for its own conduct that conduct must subject students to grasp here because of the effectiveness of the no contact order th suffered no sexual harassment after reporting the set itself so there's a lack of causation there's no causal time between institutions action and anything that would qualify as that grasp or you might think of it this way the best test of determining whether or not the institutions response was appropriate is whether it was effective at preventing further harass and here it's uncontroverted there was no for the sexual harassment council points out that i was state university issued a no contact order and that there was no contact but of course part of that is because melissa mara left the university because she couldn't handle what was going on couldn't handle the close contact with him exact problem that some marcus cried so into college versus the regents of the university of california in dover says derby board of education and cali vs yale university divinity school all of those courts said yes there is a connection between seeing that person regularly on campus and not feeling safe on campus even even in women's versus board of regents the university of georgia they said the exact same thing need to do something to get these people away and she never asked that he be expelled immediately but that process takes a very long time and we're talking about a process that wasn't completed until july of two thousand and fifteen more than a year and a half almost a year and a half after the actual event and because that process takes so long and there's nothing for her too to keep her safe and yeah they're going to be times you know it's it's still a small town it's still you know it's still university campus the neuron in each other but not on a regular basis not stake in the same bus not not at the same social advances just on different sides of the campus and mean that's what she was looking for was a reasonable  way to handle those things over stockton deals with a different issue because over stockton was a student who came to visit campus was raped washington on campus and information we're talking about their obligation afterwards to keep her to provide her with the same educational opportunities provide her with the same opportunities that the perpetrator and that's what did not happen here and she waited they you know she understood that that we're going to do something while the investigation is going on that that they didn't have anything comparable for her she waited to see what they were going to ultimately was not a student the title nine didn't really offer because she wasn't getting educational benefits she was actually just coming there to visit campus when that the