Th e Ho norab leS an dr aDayO’ C onnor , Associ ateJu stic e of th e UnitedS tate sS uprem e * C ourt , (Ret .) , sittingb ydes ign ationp urs u ant to2 8U .S .C
. § 2 9 4 (a). Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not ** be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40374
DANA AL EGRIA P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. L A R R YW IL L IA M S , In H is In d iv id u a l C a p a c ity ; S T A T E O F T E XA S ; E D D IE K E L L Y , Su pervi sor D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 06- C V

- 212
B e fo r e O ’ C O N N O R , A s s o c ia te J u s tic e (R e t.), W IE N E R a n dS T E W A R T , C ir c u it * J u d g e s . S A N D R AD AYO ’ C O N N O R , A ss o cia te J u stic e (R e tire d ): ** P l ai nt i f f

- A ppel l antD ana A l egr i a s uf fer ed e gr egi ous physi c aland ve rbal
sexu alha rassm en tat t h e ha n ds of her proba t i on off

i cer. Sh e sued t h i s probati on o f f i c e r , h i s s u p e rv i s o r , a n dt h e S t a t e o f T e x a s , a l l e g i n gv i o l a t i o n s o f 4 2 U. S
. C. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40374

2 § 19 83 and Ti t l e I X o f t he Educ at i o n Act Am e ndm e nt s o f 1 97 2. On app e al , s he
c hal l e nge s t he g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nto f he r§ 19 83 cl ai m s t o t he St at e a nd both the probati on of f i cer an d h i s s u pervi sor i n theiroff i ci alcapaci t i es. Sh e al so c h a l l e n g e s t h e g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n tt o t h e S t a t e o n h e rT i t l e I Xc l a i m. Bec aus e s he s e e ks o nl y m o ne t ar y da m ag e s , he r§ 19 83 c l ai m s can no ts uc c e e d. S i m i l arl y, becau se sh e h as fai l ed to est abli sh that t h e State’ s probati on syst em i s a n “ e d u c a t i o n p r o g r am orac t iv i t y” wi t h i n t h e a m b i to f T i t l e I X, 2 0 U. S
. C. § 1 68 1( a) , he rTi t l e I X c l ai m a l s o fail s as a m at t e ro f l aw. W e t hus a f

f i r m t he relev a n t j u d gm en ts of th e d i stri ct cou rt. I
. A
. Th e di st ri ctcourtapp r o pri at e l y constr u ed p l ai n t i f f ’ s prof fered evi den ce a n da l l e g a tio n s in h e rfa v o rin lig h t o f th e p r o c e d u r a l p o s tu r e in w h ic h it confr on t ed them
. W e bri ef l y sum m ari ze the perti n en tfact s i n the sam e m an n er: In 199 9 plai n t i f

f D an a A l egri a bega n servi n g a 10 year t erm of probati on un der t he a ut ho r i t y o f t he G alve s t o n Count y Com m uni t y Supe r vi s i o n a nd Co r r e c t i o ns D e pa r t m e nt . She w as pl ac e d unde r t he s upe rvi s i o n o f pr o ba t i o n o f f i c er La rry W i l l i a m s in S ep tem b er 2 0 0 5
. O n m u l ti p l e occ a sion s, w h en sh e m et w i th W i l l i a m s i n f

u l fil l m en t of

t h e t e r m s of h er p rob a ti on , h e su bj ected h er to egregi ou s verbal an d phy si cal sexu al h arassm en t . I n Jan u ary 200 6 she reported h i s c on du ctt o t h e G al vest on C ou n t y D i st ri ctA t t orney’ s of f i ce and w as adv i sed t o m ak e a surreptit i ou s aud io re co rdi n g of her nex tencou n t er w i t h W i l l i am s. S h e a g r e e d
. L a t e r t h a t mo n t h s h e r e c o r d e d a me e t i n g d u r i n g wh i c h W i l l i a ms in s tr u c te dh e rto fo llo w h im in to a s ta ir w e ll, se x u a llya s s a u lte dh e r , e x p o s e dh is pe ni s , a n d re que s t e d o r als e x. The ne xtw e e k, de fe nda ntEddi e K e l l y, t he di r e c t o ro f

t he D e pa r t m e nta nd W i l l i am s ’s upe r vi s o r , w as i nf o r m e d of

t he
m is c o n d u c t. K e llys o o n c o n fr o n te dW illia m s , a n dW illia m s re s ig n e ds h o r tly t h ereaf t er.N o. 08- 40374

3 I n Apr i lpl ai nt i f

f b r o ugh ts uitu n d e r(i) 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 , a l l e gi ng vi o l at i o ns o f he rr i ght s und e rt he Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt ; a nd ( i i) T i t l e I X of t he Educ at i o n Ac tAm e ndm e nt s o f 1 97 2, 2 0 U
. S. C. § 1 68 1, e ts e q. Ori gi nal l y, s he
sue d G al ve ston C ount y and W i l l i am s i n bot h hi s pro fes si onaland per so nal
c a p a c itie s . Al egr i a v . Texas , N o. G –06–0212, 2007 W L 2688446, at*1 ( S. D
. Tex. S ep t. 11 , 20 0 7 ) (m em ora n d u m op i n i on a n d ord er). In a fi rst am en d ed com p l a i n t, she d i sm i ssed the C ou n t y, a dd ed the S t ate of T exas as a defenda n t , an d d ropped he rc l ai m s a ga i ns tW i l l i am s i n hi s pe r s o nalc ap ac i t y, b utr e t ai ne d t he p r o fe s s io n a l c a p a c ityc la im s . I d. at *2
. F i n a l l y, i n a “th i rd ” am en d ed com p l a i n t, s he e nde av o r e d t o r e vive he rpe r s o nalc ap ac i t y c l ai m s a ga i ns tW i l l i am s a nd i n cl u ded cl ai m s agai n stK el l y i n b ot h h i s p ersonala n d professi on alcapaci t i es. I d. a t * 6 ; Al egr i a v . Texas , No
. G– 0 6

– 0 2 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 5 9 1 0 7 2 , a t* 1 n . 1 ( S
. D. T e x . S e p t . 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( o r d e rg r a n t in gin p a r ta n dd e n y i n gi n p a r td e fe n d a n t ’s
m ot i on t o di sm i ss)
. A l on g t h e w ay, p l ai n t i f f ’ s theori es of

li abil i t y an d p rayers f or rel i e f e vo lve d i n r e s po ns e t o s e ve r al m o t i o ns t o di s m i s s o r f o r s u m m ary j udg m e nt . W e ne e d no the r e de t ailt he na t ure o f t hi s e vo l ut i o n no rt he p roce d u ra lh i story i n w h i ch i t u n fol d ed
. F or ou r p u rp ose s, i t i s su ff i ci en t t o n ote t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t“ al l o w e d t he pl ai nt i f f ex t r ao r di nar y l e e w ayi n s ubm i t t i ng n u me r o u s b r i e fs a n do th e rw r it t e n ma t e r i a l s ” a n di t“ e x p e n d e dc o n s i d e r a b l et i me

. . . pe rform i n g in d ep en d en t resea rch
. ” Al egr i a v . Texas , N o. G –06–0212, 2008 W L 68 61 61 , a t* 10 n. 31 ( S. D
. T ex. M ar . 7 , 2 00 8) ( m e m o r and um o r de ra nd
o p in io n ). B
. I n as e r ie s of fo u ro r d e rs , th ed is tr ic t c o u r t d is p o s e dof e a c h of p la in tiff’s
c la im s . 1. Plai n t if

f’ s § 198 3 claim s. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te dth e S ta te a n dK e llya n dW il lia m s in th e ir professi on alcapaci t i es s u m m ary j u dg m en tof plai n t i f f ’ s §19 83 cl ai m s. Th e court ex p l a i n ed ( a n dplain ti ff later co n ced ed ) th a t t h e S tate’ s sov ere i gn i m m u n i tyN o. 08- 40374

4 u n der t h e E l even t h A m en dm en tbarre d p l aint if f ’ s prayer f

or m on et ary da m ages. A leg ria , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 6 8 8 4 4 6 , a t * 2 & n .5 (S e p t. 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ); A leg r ia , 2 0 0 6 WL 259 107 2, at *2 ( S ept. 7, 200 6)
. P l ai n t i f f ’ s earl y pl ead i n gs ref erenced d ecl arator y and pro spe c t ive i nj unct ive r el i ef, though i tw as “s om ew hatuncl earex ac t l y w hat i nj u n ctive reli ef [ sh e w a s] see k i n g.” Id
. a t* 2 n .4 . D e s p it e th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s

“ h op[e] t h at t h e rel i ef sough t
. . . an d the l egal au t h ori t y al l ow i n g such rel i ef
w [ou l d ] b e m ore f

u l l y h a sh ed ou t, ” i d. , pl ai n t i f f subsequ en tlyaba n don ed h er c la im s fo rs u c h re lie f. Al egr i a v . Texas , N o. G –06–0212, 2007 W L 32 5 6586, at *16 (S. D
. T ex. N ov. 2, 200 7) ( m em oran du m o p in ion an d order) ( “ T h e court c ons t r u es pl ai nt i f

f ’ s st at em entt hats he i s no l ongers ee ki ng pr os pec t ive inju n ctiv e re li e f as a n a b a n d o n m e n t of th o se cla im s.”). T h e di st ri ctcourtal so granted K el l y i n hi s personalcapaci t y sum m ary j u dg m en tof pl ai n t i f

f ’ s §198 3 cl ai m s, concl u di n g t h at he w as enti t l ed to qu al i f i ed i m m u n ity
. A leg ria , 200 7 W L 268 844 6, at *4–1 0 ( S ept. 11, 200 7)
. Th e court c o n c lu d e dth a t p la in tiff fa ile dto p r e s e n t a n ye v id e n c e s h o w in gth a t K e lly p e r s o n a llyp a r tic ip a te din th e a lle g e ds e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t. I d. a t* 5– 6. I tal so h eld th a t plaintif

f fai l ed to raise a g en u i n e issu e of m a terial fa c t f or tri a las to
w h e th e rth e c o n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n o f w h ic h p la in tiff co m p la in e dw a s ca u s a lly
conn ect ed to K el l y’ s fai l u re t o t rai n an d/or s u pervi se hi s em pl oyees, or w h et h er K elly’ s fa i l u re to train an d/or su p erv i se h i s em p l oy ee s refl ectedde l ib e r a te i ndi f fer enc e t o t he r i sk thatpl ai nt i f f w oul d s uf

fers exualhar as sm entat W illia m s ’h a n d s . I

d. at*6–9. Last l y, t he di st r i c tc our tdi sm i ss ed w i t houtpr ej u d i c e pl ai nt i f f ’ s §1983
c la im a g a in s tW illia m s in h is p e r s o n a l ca p a c ity
. A leg ria , 2008 W L 686161, at *1 0 (M a r. 7 , 2 0 0 8 ). It ex p l a i n ed th a t W i l l i a m s h a d on l y be en serv ed w ith p la in tiff

’ s fir s t a m e n d e dco m p la in t, w h ic h o n lya lle g e dcla im s a g a in s t h im in h is off i ci a lcap a ci ty. B eca u se p l a i n ti ff didn ot sh ow go od cau se for h er fail u re to s e r ve W i l l i am s w i t h he rt hi r d a m e nde d c o m pl ai nt , w hi c h e nde av o r e d t o a dd t heN o. 08- 40374

5 persona lcapaci t ycl ai m s agai n stW i l l i am s, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h ose cl ai m s pu rsuan tt o F ED . R. C IV . P. 4( m ) ( “ I f a def endanti s nots erved w i t hi n 120 da ys a f t e rt he c o m pl ai nt i s f i l e d, t he c o ur t
. . . m us tdi s m i s s t he a c t i o n wi t ho ut prej u di ce agai n stt h at defen da n tor order t h at s ervi ce be m ad e w i t h i n a speci f i ed tim e ”). 2. Plai n t if

f’ s Tit le I X claim s. T h e co u r t g r a n te dth e d e fe n d a n ts s u m m a r yj u d g m e n t o f p la in tiff ’ s T itle I Xc l ai m s. I tf

i r str ec ogni ze d t hatTi t l e I X c l ai m s c annotbe as se r t ed ag ai nstan i ndiv i d ua l , b uto nlya n “ e d uc a t i o n p r o g r a m o ra c t iv i t yr e c e iv i ngFe der al fin a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e ,” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 (a ). A leg ria , 200 7 W L 325 658 6, at *6 ( N ov. 2, 2007) (c i t i ng R o w in sky v . B ry a n In d ep . S ch
. D ist. , 80 F
. 3 d10 0 6 ( 5 th C ir.) ( r e v ’d o n o t h e rg r o u n ds , D a v is v . Mo nr o eCounty Bd. of Ed. , 526 U
. S. 629 (1 9 9 9 )); seealso Fi tzge r a l dv . B a r n s t a b leS c h
. Co mm. , 129 S. C t . 788, 796 ( 2009) ( “ Ti t l e I X r e ac he s i ns t i t ut i o ns and pr o gr am s t hat r e c e ive fe de r al f unds , . . . b ut i tha s c on si st en t l y been i n t erpret ed as n otau t h ori zi n g sui tagainstsc h ool of f i ci al s, t each ers, an d other i n di vi du al s[
. ] ” )
. P l ai n t i f f ’ s T i t l e IX cl ai m s agai n st W illia m s a n dK e llyw e r e th u s im p r o p e r lyp le a d e d
. T u r n in gto p l a i n t i f f’s T itle I Xc l ai m as se r t ed ag ai nstt he St at e, t he c our tcon cl u d ed thatt he St at e w as en t i t l ed to sum m ary j u dg m en tb ecau se p l ai n t i f f fai l ed to present evi den ce f rom w h i ch a re a son a b l e tri er of fa ct cou l dcon cl u d e th a t an y sta te off i ci a lw i th sup ervi sory pow er over W i l l i am s had act u alk n o w led ge of t h e al l eged h a r a s s m e n t a n dre s p o n d e dw ith d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e . A leg ria , 2007 W L 3 2 5 6 5 8 6 , a t *7

– 1 5 (N o v . 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). C
. Pl ai nt i f

f now appeal s t he gr antof s um m ar y j udgm entof: (i) h er§1 983 cl ai m s agai n stW i l l i am s and K el l y i n t h ei r prof essi on alcapaci t i es and (i i) her Ti t l e I X cl ai m a gain s tt he St at e . W e no t e t hatt he r e i s s o m e di s c us s i o n o f t he def ens e o f qual i f i ed i m m uni t y i n pl ai nt i f f ’ s br i ef
. App el l antB r i ef 54–58. H o w e ve r , w e do no tc o ns t r ue t hi s di s c us s i o n t o pr e s e ntac hal l e nge t o t he g r antN o. 08- 40374

6 of s um m ar y j udgm entof pl ai nt i f

f ’ s §1 9 8 3 cl ai m agai nstK el l y i n hi s per so nal capa ci t y. N ei t h er pl ai n t i f f ’ s st atem en t of

t h e i ssues presented nor the st ructure of her argu m en tdem on st rat e an i n t en t i on to c h a ll en ge t h e gran tof qu al i f i ed i m m u n ityin K el l y’ s favor; both are l i m i t ed to t h e t w o chal l en ges enu m erat ed
a b ov e. M ore ov er, i n h er d i scu ssion o f h er §1 9 8 3 claim s, p l a i n ti ff e xp l i ci tl y o m i ts h e rp e r s o n a l c a p a c ityc la im a g a in s t K e lly
. I d. at 47 (“A s a prel i m i n ary m att er, i t sh ou l dbe n oted tha t K elly a n dW i l l ia m s w e r e s u ed i n the i r off i ci a lcap a ci ty an d W i l l i am s w as su ed i n h i s i n di vi du alcapaci t y. ” )
. Fu rt h er, pl ai n t i f f does not l i m i ther di scussi on of qu alif i ed i m m u n i t y t o argu m en t s pert ai n i n g t o her p e r s o n a l ca p a c itycla im a g a in s t K e lly(a n d/o rW illia m s ). I d. at 55 ( di sc us s i ng “q u a lifiedim m u n ityon b e h a lf o f W il li a m s , K e ll y , a n dth e S ta te of T e x a s”). L astly, defen da n t s c al l ed at t en t i on t o pl ai n t i f f ’ s fai l u re t o chal l en ge t h e gran tof
sum m ary j u dg m en tof her persona lcapaci t y §198 3 cl ai m againstK e lly. Appel l ee B r i ef 21 n. 11 (“A ppel l antas se r t s i n herbr i ef t o t hi s C our tt hathers ec t i on 1983 c l ai m ag ai ns t K e l l y i s m ad e ag ai ns t hi m i n hi s o f f i c i al c ap ac i t y o nl y. ” )
. I n her
r epl y br i ef, pl ai nt i f

f di d notar gue t o t he c ont r ar y. W e have j uri sdi c t i on to rev i ew pl ai nt i f f ’ s appealu nder28 U
. S. C
. §1 291, a n dw e rev i ew th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo . Con n ors v. G raves , 5 3 8 F .3d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). II. A. Plai nt if

f’ s § 19 83c lai m s agai ns tWi l l i ams a n dKe l l yi nt h e i rprof

e s s i o nal
c a p a c itie s . A s th e dist ri ct cou rt ex p l a i n ed a n dplain ti ff con ced ed , the S tate’ s E l ev en th A m en dm en tsoverei gn im m u n i t y bars the recover y of m on et ary da m ages u n der § 1 9 8 3
. A leg ria , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 6 8 8 4 4 6 , a t * 2 n .5 (S e p t. 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ); A leg ria , 2 0 0 6 WL 2 5 9 1 0 7 2 , a t * 1 ( S e p t . 7 , 2 0 0 6 ); seealso , e .g ., Hansv . Lo ui s i ana , 1 3 4 U .S . 1 ( 189 0)
. Th i s i m m u n i t y extend s t o pl ai n t i f f ’ s of f i cia l ca pa ci t y cl ai m s agai n st W illia m s a n dK e lly
. E .g ., Monnel lv. D e p’ tof Soc
. Ser vs . , 436 U
. S. 658, 691 n. 55N o. 08- 40374

7 ( 197 8) ( “ [ O ] f

f i ci al

- capa ci t y sui t s general l y represent onl y an ot h er w ay of p le a d in ga n a c tio n a g a in s t a n e n tit yo f w h ic h a n o ffic e ris a n a g e n t[.]” ); F ord Mot or Co. v. D ep’

tof Treasury , 3 2 3 U .S
. 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 ( 1 9 4 5 ) (overr u led on ot h er groun d s by La

pides v . Bd. of

Rege nt s of

Uni v . Sy s . of

G a. , 5 3 5 U .S . 6 1 3 (20 0 2 )) ( “W he n t he a c t i o n i s i n e s s e nc e o ne f o r t he r e c o ve r y o f

m o ne y f

r o m t he s t at e , t he state is t h e rea l , su b stan ti a lpa rtyin in teres t an di s en ti tl ed to i n vo k e it s so ver ei gn im m uni t y f r om s ui tev en t hough i ndivi dualof f i c i al s ar e no m i nal d e fe n d a n ts .”); Tu r n e rv . Ho u m aMu n . Fi r ean dPo l i c eCi v i lSe r v . Bd
. , 229 F. 3d 478 , 4 83 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0) (o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y s ui tg e ne r al l y an ac t i o n a ga i ns tt he ent i t y o f

w hi c h t he def

endanti s an agent)
. The di st r i c tc our tc onc l uded t hat desp i t e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s early al l u si on s t o prospect ive i nj u n ct ive rel i ef, she aba n don ed h e re ffo r t t o s e c u r e a n y r e lie f o th e r th a n m o n e ta r y d a m a g e s . A leg ria , 2 0 0 7 WL 3256586, at*1 6 ( N ov. 2 , 2007) ( “ Th e c our tc ons t r ues pl ai nt i f f ’ s st at em entt hat she i s no l on ger seeki n g prospective i nj u n ct ive rel i ef as an a ban don m en tof t h ose c la im s .”). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te dd e fe n d a n ts s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n th e b a s is of t h i s c on cl u si on , w h i ch p la in t i f f does not c h al l en ge on app eal
. I n deed , her b ri efs fa i lto m a k e a n y m en ti on of th e reli ef sh e seek s. W e t h u s fi n d n o b a sis to di st u rb t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sposi t i on of her §198 3 cl ai m s. B
. P la in tiff’

s Title IX

cl a im aga in s t th eS ta te . O n ap p ea l , the pa rti es’l eg a larg u m en ts pe rtain i n g to p l a i n ti ff ’ s T i tl e IX
c l ai m ha ve s hi f

t e d o nc e a ga i n. As no t e d a bo ve, T i t l e I X, w hi c h a br o ga t e s t he St at e s ’so ve r e i gn i m m uni t y f r o m suit , ex t e nds l i ab i l i t y t o an “ edu cat i on pr ogr am o ra c tiv ityre c e iv in gF e d e r a l fi n a n ci a lass i stan c e .” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 (a ) (e m p h a s is added)
. Bef

or e t he di st r i c tc our t , t he def endant s i nexpl i c abl y fai l ed t o a r g ue t hat th e G a lv e s to n C o u n tyC o m m u n ityS u p e r v is io n a n dC o r r e c tio n s D e p a r tm e n t is
n o t a n “e d u c a tio n p r o g r a m o ra c tiv ity ” w ith in th e s ta tu te ’ s a m b it. A leg ria , 2007 W L 3 2 5 6 5 8 6 , a t *8 n .1 3 (N o v . 2 , 2 0 0 7 ); A leg ria , 2007 W L 2688446, at*1 2 & n. 35 ( Sept
. 11, 20 0 7 ). T he di st r i c tc our tt hus “ [ a] ss um [ ed] w i t houtdec i di ng” t hatN o. 08- 40374

8 Ti t l e I X app l i e d a nd itg r ant e d t he St at e s um m ar y j udg m e nt af t e r as s e s s i ng t he
m e r its o f p la in tiff

’ s cla im
. A leg ria , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 2 5 6 5 8 6 , a t *8 (N o v . 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). O n a p p e a l, p la in tiff

h a s co n c e d e dth a t t h e p r o b a tio n p r o g r a m a t is s u e is
n ot “ edu cat i on [ al]
. ” T h i s concessi on w as m ad e exp l i ci t l y by pl ai n t iff ’ s cou n sel d u r in go r a l a r g u m e n t, a n dit is a t le a s t im p lic it inp la in tiff ’ s o p e n in ga n dre p ly b ri efs ( a s d i scu sse d b elow ). T h e Sta te vigo rou sly pu rsu ed this con ten ti on i n i ts bri ef, A pp el l ee B ri ef 13

– 1 4 , an d d u ri n g i t s or alargu m en t
. Plai n t i f f ha s not argu ed to t h e contr ary or obj ect ed t o t h e State’ s app el l ate posi t i on on w aiver or o t he rg r o unds
. Rep l y Bri e f 3 ( st at i ng t hatt he St at e ’ s j ur i s di c t i o nala r gum e nt as t o t h e scope of T i t l e IX ’ s abrogati on of i t s s overei gn i m m u n i t y “ can be rai sed
a t a n ys ta g e o f th e p r o c e e d in g”). B u tse e Ne i nas tv . Texas , 21 7 F
. 3 d2 7 5 , 27 9 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ) (i n certa i n ci rcu m stan ces a S tate m a y w a ive i ts sov ere i gn i m m u n i ty defense by fai l i n g t o rai se i t)
. W e al so n o te th a t there i s nothi n g i n t h e rec ord t o s ugg e s t t hat t he G alve s t o n Count y Com m uni t y Supe r vi s i o n a nd Co r r e c t i o ns D e pa r t m e nti s a n e duc at i o n pr o gr am o ra c t ivit y f o rpur po s e s o f

Ti t l e I X; t he
e v id e n c e is to th e co n tr a r y . E .g . , R. 2 48 ( K e l l y Aff
. ) (expl ai ni ng t hatt he d ep a rtm en t i s “ch a rg ed w i th th e su p erv i sion of p erso n s sen ten ced to com m u n i ty s u p e r v is io n ”). W e th u s a c c e p t t h e p a r tie s ’m u tu a l p o s itio n o n th is is s u e . W e a ls o co n cl u d e th a t it i s fa tal t o p l a i n ti ff ’ s T i tl e IXcl a i m . T i tl e IX unequivoc ally appli es o n l y to a n “ed u ca ti on pr og ra m or a ctivity rec eivi ng Feder al f i n an ci alassi st an ce. ” 20 U
. S
. C
. § 1681 ( a)
. Plai n t if f ha s of fered n o sup port f

or h er s u ggesti on tha tw e can n on et h el ess extend i t s app l i cat i on t o t h e G al vest on C o u n t yC o m m u n i t yS u p e r v i s i o n a n dC o r r e c t i o n s D e p a r tm e n t. H e re ffo r ts to th is end ar e unavai l i ng. Pl ai nt i f f c ont ends t hat“ [t] hough m os tTi t l e I Xc as es i nvolve e duc at i o n c l ai m s , t he pa r am e t e r s o f i t s s c o pe ha ve b e e n b r o ad l y i nt e r pr e t e d” a nd t hat“ [i] tl ogi c al l y f

ol l ow s . . . thata c om m uni t y s uper vi si on o f f i c ers houl d notbe protec t ed f

or act ivi t i es w h i ch are proscrib ed byt h e st atute. ” A pp el l an tB ri ef 3 4

– 3 6
. S h e o ffe r s tw o a r g u m e n ts in s u p p o r t o f th is co n te n tio n .N o. 08- 40374

9 Fi r s t , s hes ug g e s t s t ha tTh e Civ i lRi g ht s Re s t o r a t i o n Ac to f 1 9 8 7 ( Pub
. L. No
. 1 0 0

– 2 5 9 , § 3 ( a ) , § 9 0 8 , 1 0 2 S t a t
. 2 8 , 2 8

– 2 9 ( 1 9 8 8 ) (c o d i f i e da t2 0 U. S
. C. § 1 68 7) ) , e l i m i nat e d t he “ e duc at i o n” l i m i t at i o n o f Ti t l e I X. She i s m i s t ak e n. The Actdi d e xp and t he r e ac h o f fe de r alf

undi ng f

o rpur po s e s o f

Ti t l e I X byde f

i ni ng

“ pro gr am orac t ivi t y” to in cl u d e “ ‘ al lope r at i ons of
. . . a de par t m ent , age ncy, spe c i alpurpo se di st r i c t , orot heri nst r um en tali ty of a St at e o rof

a l oc al g o v e r n m e n t. . . a n yp a r to f w h ic h is e x t e n d e dfe d e r a l f in a n c ia l a s s i s t a n c e . ’” R e p lyB r ie f 3

– 4 (q u o tin g2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 7 ). H o w e v e r , it d idn o th in gto a lte rT itle IX ’ s u n d e r ly in gre q u ir e m e n t t h a t th e p r o g r a m o r a c tiv itym u s t b e e d u c a tio n a l. P l ai n t i f f fai l s t o poi n tt o an y edu cat i on alprogram i m pl i cat ed byt h i s di spu t e (or oth erw i se). T h e C ivilR i gh ts R estor a ti on A ct t h u s off ers h er n o su p p ort. Se c o nd, pl ai nt i f

f s t r e s s e s t hat“ ‘ Ti t l e I X w as m o de l e d af t e rT i t l e VI o f

t he C ivi lR i ght s A ct o f 19 6 4
. ’” Repl y Bri ef 9 ( quot i ng D o e v . S m ith , 470 F. 3d 331, 33 8 ( 7t h Ci r . 2 00 6) )
. Fr o m t hi s fac t , s he r e as o ns t hatTi t l e I X’ s “ e duc at i o n”
r e q u ir e m e n t s h o u ldb e ig n o r e d in lig h t o f th e re q u ir e m e n t’s a b s e n c e in th e T itle V I c ont ext . T h i s ar gum enti s w i t houtm er i t . W hat eve rs i m i l ar i t i es m ay be sh a red byT i tl e V I an dT i tl e IX , the statu tes’resp ective s cop es re fl ect a d iffe r e n c e . Cann on v. Uni v. of Chi c ago , 441 U
. S. 677, 695 n. 17 ( 1979) ( “A l t hough Ti t l e I Xi s appl i c abl e o nl y t o c er t ai n educa t i onali nst i t ut i ons r ec eivi ng fede r al f i nanci alas si st ance , Ti t l e V I i s appl i c abl e t o a ddi t i onali nst i t ut i ons s uch as hos pi t al s, hi ghw ay de par t m ent s, and housi ng aut hor i t i es . ” )
. A nd w hi l e w e have
en dorsed the u n rem arka bl e proposi t i on t h at “ ‘ [b] ecau se Tit l e I Xan d T i t l e V I u se t he s am e l anguage, t hey s houl d, as a m at t er of st at ut or y i nt er pre t at i on, be r ead to re q u ir e th e s a m e le v e ls o f p r o te c tio n a n de q u a lity ,’” t h is p r in c ip le e x te n d s o n ly i n sofaras th e sta tu tes “u se th e sam e lan gu a ge . ” Flo w e rs v . S. Reg ’lPhy s i c i an Se r v s . , I

nc . , 2 47 F. 3d2 29 , 2 33 n. 4 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1) (c o ns i de r i ng c l ai m und e rt he A m er i c ans W i t h D i sa bi l i t i es A c tand quot i ng Jel d n essv. Pearce , 30 F. 3d 1220, 1 2 2 7 (9t h C ir.19 9 4 )).N o. 08- 40374

10 B eca u se p l a i n tiff h a s con ced ed tha t t h e G a lve ston C ou n ty C om m u n i ty S u p erv i sion an dC orr ec t i on s D ep a rtm en t i s n ot an ed u ca ti on pr og ra m or a ctivity
w i t h i n t h e m ean i n g of T i t l e I X , her cl ai m againstt h e State fai l s as a m att er of l aw . O n t h i s basi s al on e, w e af f i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s g ra n t o f sum m ary j u d gm en t. III. P l a i n ti ff

’ s §1 9 8 3 cl a i m s f

or m on eta ryda m a ge s ag a i n st t h e S tate a n di ts o f f i c i al s a r e ba r r e d by t he El e ve nt h Am e ndm e nt
. H e rTi t l e I X c l ai m a ga i ns tt he S t ate fai l s as a m att er of l aw becau se, as she has conceded , th e G a lve st on C ount y Com m uni t y Super vi si on and C or r ec t i ons D epar t m enti s notan

“ e duc at i o n pr o gr am orac t ivit y” w i t hi n t he st at ut e ’ s am bi t . W e t hus a f f i r m t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o f th e s e cla im s . AF F I RMED.