## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e14,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
CA LLI E ESCUE,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N os . 04- 6270, 04- 6310 v. N O R T H E R N O K L A H O MA C O L L E G E , a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on of t he St at e of O kl ahoma; and R IC H A R D F IN T O N , in h is in d iv id u a l a n d o ffic ia l c a p a c itie s , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. AP P EA LS F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F OR THE W ES TE RN DI S TR I CT OF OKLAHOM A

( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV- 1 3 4 - HE) N. Ka yBr i d g e r - Ri l e y , Br i d g e r - Ri l e yBa i l e y& A s s o c i a t e s , P . C. , Tu l s a , Ok l a h o ma forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antC al l i e Escue . G r e g o r y T h o m a s M e t c a l f, A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , ( S t e fa n K . D o u g h t y, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , on t he br i ef) O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, for D efe ndant - A ppel l ee N or t hern O kl ahoma C ol l ege, and forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee R i c h a r d F i n t o n i n h i s o ffi c i a l c a p a c i t y. K en n eth R . C o e, O k laho m a C ity , O k laho m a, fo r D efen d an t- A p p ell ee R icha rd F i n t o n i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y. B efo re HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.2

H E N R Y , C i r cui tJ udge. C all ie E scu e, fo rm erlya stu d en t atN o rt h ern O k laho m a C o ll eg e (N O C ), all eg es th at R icha rd F inton , h er p rofesso r i n sp ri n g 2 0 0 2 , sex u all yh ara ssed h er, and t hat N O C fai l ed to supervi se and invest i gate adequ at el yM r. F i nton i n thi s, an d o ther p ri o r i n cide n ts. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted N O C ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , and a j ur yfound i n favorof M r . Fi nt on. H er e, M s . E s cue a ppeal s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o N O C . She al s o appea l s t he deni al of herm ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and a ne w t r i al w i t h r es pectt o her cl ai m s agai ns tM r . Fi nt on. B eca us e w e hol d t hat( 1) N O C di d nothave pr i or no t i ce t hat M r. F i nton present ed a sub st anti al ri sk t o it s stud ents , (2) i t s r espon se t o M s . E s cue’ s har as s m entw as notcl ear l yunr eas onabl e, and ( 3) t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct i n favorof M r . Fi nt on w as notagai ns tt he w ei ghtof t he evi dence , w e affi r m t he d istric t co u rt. I . BA CKGROUND I n t he s pr i ng s emest erof 2002, M s . E s cue w as enr ol l ed i n t w o cl as s es t aught byM r . Fi nt on, a t enur ed fa cul t ym ember , atN O C . M s . E s cue c ont ends t hatdur i ng th is tim e , M r. F in to n to u c h e d h e r in a p p ro p ria telyw ith o u t h e r c o n se n t o n m u lti p le occa s i ons and made num er ous s exual comm ent s , s om e aboutheri n fr ontof her peers, and other s t o h er w hil e t heyw ere al on e. S he m akes t hree cl ai m s agai nst3

M r . Fi nt on w i t h r es pectt o t hes e al l egat i ons : ( 1) t hathi s conductvi ol at ed herdue pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on r i ght s and i s act i onabl e under42 U . S. C . § 1983; ( 2) t hathe as s aul t ed and ba t t er ed heri n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw ; and ( 3) t hathe i nt ent i onal l ycaus ed heremot i onal di s t r es s i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw . M r . Fi nt on admi t t ed t o s om e of the al l egat i ons , butcont es t ed other s . B eca us e of di s put es o v er m aterial fa cts, the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. F inton ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. A tt r i al , M r . Fi nt on admi t t ed t o havi ng m ade c om m ent s aboutt he s i ze of M s . E s cue’ s br eas t s on t hr ee orfours epar at e occ as i ons , butdeni ed a numberof M s . E s cue’ s ot heral l egat i ons : he t es t i fi ed thathe di d notl ook dow n herpant s or herbl ous e; t hathe di d nott el l heraboutanys exual dr eams; t hathe di d nots l ap herbut t ocks ; t hathe di d nott el l hers exual j okes ; t hathe di d nott el l hert hathe w a n ted to fo n d le h e r b re a sts ; an d th a t h e d id n o t tell h e r h e w o u ld u se a c o n d o m if th e yh a d se x . H e a lso a d m itt e d to g iv in g M s. E sc u e a “ ste rn u m a dju stm e n t” w h ile l i ft i ng up hers hi r t , i n hi s offi ce w i t h t he doorl ocked, butt es t i fi ed thathe di d not to u c h h e r b re a sts d u rin g th e a dju stm e n t in c id e n t, an d th a t sh e c o n se n ted to w h a tev e r c o n tac t o c c u rre d . A p lt’s A p p . v o l. V I, at 1 1 7 1 (te stif y in g th a t a “s t ernum adj us t m ent ” “c an r eal i gn y ourr i bs on t he fr onts i de of the s t ernum ” by a p p lyin g p re s s u re to th e s te rn u m a n d th e s h o u ld e rs ). T hom as M ey er , M s . E s cue’ s debat e part nerand cl os e fr i end, t es t i fi ed dur i ng4

t r i al abouti nci dent s t hathe had w i t nes s ed betw een M s . E s cue a nd M r . Fi nt on: he had hea r d M r . Fi nt on m ake a num berof comm ent s aboutM s . E s cue a nd her br eas t s , and had a l s o s een M r . Fi nt on pul l hers hi r ts o t hathe coul d l ook dow n her bl ous e. M r . M ey eral s o t es t i fi ed thatM r . Fi nt on s om et i m es had gi ven mass ages and adj us t m ent s t o ot hers tudent s , i ncl udi ng hi m s el f, and thatM s . E s cue tw i ce ha d gone t o M r . Fi nt on’ s offi ce t o gi ve M r . Fi nt on a bac k m as s age. M r . M ey ert ol d t he j ur yt hathe had s een M s . E s cue s how t at t oos t o M r . Fi nt on t hatr equi r ed hert o l i ft par tof hercl ot hi ng. H e t es t i fi ed that , aft erhear i ng aboutt he s exual har as s m ent cl ai m s , he had be en “f ur i ous ” and a gr eed thathe had t ol d a fr i end thathe bel i eved “w hat everhappene d w as as m uch C al l i e’ s faul tas Fi nt on’ s . ” Id . vol . V , at1025. M s . E s cue a l s o t es t i fi ed dur i ng t he j ur yt r i al . She des cr i bed i ns t ance s of inap p rop ri ate c o n tact, an d m aintaine d that d u ri n g the s ternu m adjustm en t, M r. F in to n h a d fo n d le d h e r b re a s ts . Id . vol . V I , at1265 ( M r . Fi nt on pul l i ng dow n her sh irt) , 1 2 6 7 (de scribing “jok es” an d co m m en ts m ad e b yM r. F inton ), 1 2 7 4 (M r. Fi nt on l ooki ng dow n herpant s and moani ng) , 1277 ( M r . Fi nt on fondl i ng her br eas t s i n hi s offi ce dur i ng t he adj us t m ent ) . D ur i ng hert es t i m ony , s he admi t t ed th a t sh e h a d se n t a V a len tin e ’s D a yc a rd to M r. F in to n , tha t sh e d id n o t o bjec t to t he s t ernum adj us t m entand had vol unt ar i l yl ai d on t he fl oorof hi s offi ce, and that aft ert he s t ernum - adj us t m enti nci denti n hi s offi ce, s he had r emai ned i n hi s offi ce a n d s m o k e d a c ig a re tte w ith h im .5

Shor t l yaft ert he s t ernum - adj us t m enti nci denti n M r . Fi nt on’ s l ocked offi ce, M s . E s cue’ s fatherbeca m e i nvol ved and t ogether , M s . E s cue a nd herfather c o n tac ted N O C ’s p re sid e n t, D r. Jo e K in z e r. T h e n e x t d a y , the ym e t in p e rso n w ith D r . K i nzert o di s cus s t he al l egat i ons and t o expr es s M s . E s cue’ s conce r n t hather al l egat i ons r emai n confi dent i al . H erconce r ns aboutconfi dent i al i t yw er e founde d b e c a u se a n o th e r stu d e n t h a d a lre a d yto ld M r. F in to n th a t M s. E sc u e h a d p lan n e d to info rm N O C o ffici als ab o u t her a ll eg ati o n s. T h at nig h t, af ter m ee ti n g w ith D r. K i nzer , M s . E s cue de ci ded t o s t ayatherpar ent s ’ hom e bec aus e M r . Fi nt on had gone t o herdor m i t or yt o t r yt o fi nd her ; s he had notbeen ther e and mayhave be en i n t he meet i ng dur i ng hi s vi s i t . N O C offi ci al s m etw i t h M r . Fi nt on t he dayaft er m eet i ng w i t h M s . E s cue a nd herfather , and i nfor m ed hi m of t he al l egat i ons . A ft er th is p o in t, M s . E s c u e a n d M r. F in to n h a d n o f u rt h e r c o n ta c t. N O C decided to t ransferM s. E scue ou tof o ne o f M r. F i nton’s cl asses , per m i t t ed hert o fi ni s h t he othercl as s as of M ar ch w i t h hert hen- curr entgr ade, and began a n i nves t i gat i on i nt o heral l egat i ons . A ft eri t s i nves t i gat i on, N O C deci ded t hati tw oul d t er m i nat e i t s r el at i ons hi p w i t h M r . Fi nt on att he end of t he s pr i ng s emest er ; al t hough he had pl anned t o r et i r e att he end of t he s pr i ng ors um m er s emest er , he had be en s l at ed t o t eac h a cl as s i n t he s um m er , and pos s i bl yl at er , on an adj un ctbasi s. Pr i ort o t he al l eged ha r as s m enti n s pr i ng 2002, N O C had bee n aw ar e of6

o th e r se x u a l in c id e n ts in v o lv in g M r. F in to n a n d stu d e n ts. In 1 9 9 3 , tw o stu d e n ts had l odged s exual har as s m entcompl ai nt s agai ns tM r . Fi nt on. O ne s tudent r epor t ed thathe had c al l ed her“but ch” on mul t i pl e occ as i ons and anotheral l eged th a t h e h a d sla p p e d h e r b u tto c k s o n c e w h ile s h e b o a rd e d a b u s. In re sp o n se to t hes e tw o s tudent s ’ al l egat i ons , D r . K i nzerverbal l yr epr i m anded M r . Fi nt on and r efe r r ed the mat t er s t o a dea n atN O C . M r . Fi nt on admi t t ed t o cal l i ng one s tudent “but ch” a nd pr om i s ed t o s t op, buthe s t at ed thathe had onl yt ouched the other s tudentbyacc i dentw i t h hi s el bow . N o one atN O C pl ace d anyr ecor d of t he compl ai nt s orr epr i m and i n M r . Fi nt on’ s per s onnel fi l e and no a ct i on w as t aken a g a in s t M r. F in to n a s a re s u lt o f th e s e a lle g a tio n s . T hen, i n 1995 or1996, D r . K i nzerr ece i ved an a nony m ous l et t ert hat r epor t ed M r . Fi nt on had dat ed an unna m ed s tudent . W hen conf r ont ed, M r . Fi nt on to ld D r. K in z e r th a t h e h a d d a ted a stu d e n t in 1 9 9 1 -1 9 9 2 . M r. F in to n w a s a g a in v e rb a llyre p rim a n d e d , b u t D r. K in z e r d id n o t re c o rd a n yin fo rm a tio n a b o u t th is in M r . Fi nt on’ s per s onnel fi l e. L at er , dur i ng hi s depos i t i on, M r . Fi nt on expl ai ned t hatt he per s on r efe r ence d i n t hi s l et t erhad bee n an ol der , non- t r adi t i onal s tudent w h o h ad n o t bee n in an yo f M r. F inton ’s classe s. D u ri n g h is de p o sit ion , M r. Fi nt on al s o admi t t ed t o a s econd r el at i ons hi p w i t h anotherol der , non- t r adi t i onal s tudentw ho had bee n i n one of hi s cl as s es . B ot h D r . K i nzerand M r . Fi nt on t es t i fi ed dur i ng t hei rdepos i t i ons t hatN O C had no know l edge of t hi s s econd7

re la tio n s h ip . B as ed on thes e pr i ori nci dent s and w hatM s . E s cue a l l eged w as an i n a d e q u a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o h e ra l l e g a t i o n s , s h e ma d e t wo c l a i ms a g a i n s tNOC: ( 1) t hati tnegl i gent l ys uper vi s ed M r . Fi nt on i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw , and ( 2) t hat i tvi ol at ed Ti t l e I X of t he Educat i on A m endment s of 1972, 20 U . S. C . §§ 1681- 1 6 8 8 , b yfa ilin g to re m e d ya n a b u s iv e a n d /o r h o s tile e d u c a tio n a l e n v ir o n m e n t. Af t e rr e c e i v i n g c r o s s - mo t i o n s fo rs u mma r yj u d g me n tf r o m M s . Es c u e a n d NOC, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to N O C w ith re s p e c t to b o th c la im s . I n i t s or dergr ant i ng N O C s um m aryj udgm ent , t he courts t at ed thatt he evi dence w as “s om ew hatconfus i ng” as t o w hi ch s tudentthe l et t err efe r ence d, but“the cour t ’ s deci s i on on N O C ’ s l i abi l i t yw oul d notchange even i f D r . K i nzerhad under s t ood t he l et t erper t ai ned t o a r el at i ons hi p betw een Fi nt on and a s tudentot her than [th e o lder, no n -t rad it ion al stu d en t w h o h ad n o t bee n in an yo f M r. F inton ’s classe s]. ” A p lt ’s A p p . v o l. IV , at 82 1 n . 9 (D ist . C t. O rde r, fil ed Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ). I I . DI S CU S S I ON I n t hi s cons ol i dat ed appe al , M s . E s cue c hal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr ant of s um m aryj udgm entt o N O C . She al s o chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of herm ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and the deni al of herm ot i on fora new t r i al w i t h r es pectt o hercl ai m s agai ns tM r . Fi nt on, cont endi ng t he ver di ctw as not su p p o rte d b yth e e v id e n c e . W e first c o n sid e r M s. E sc u e ’s a rg u m e n ts a s th e yre lateT he di s t r i ctcour tal s o not ed that , i n herr es pons e t o N O C ’ s s um m aryj udgm ent 1 m ot i on, M s . E s cue e xpl ai ned that“s he di d noti nt end t o s ue N O C under§ 1983 or asser tassaul t , batt ery , or i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis t res s cl ai m s agai nst t he col l ege. T hos e cl ai m s agai ns tN O C ar e, t her efor e, di s m i s s ed. ” A pl t ’ s A pp. v o l. IV , at 8 1 9 n .2 ; see also i d. v o l. I II , a t 4 6 9 (P l.’ s R e s p . to M o t. fo r S u m m . J ., fi l ed A pr . 29, 2004) . I n herbr i ef on a ppeal , M s . E s cue s t at es t hat“[t ] he D i s t r i ct C ou rterr ed in grant i ng N ort hern O klahom a C oll ege’s Moti on f or Su m m ary Judgm ent on M s . E s cue’ s cl ai m s under. . . § 1983, [and] s t at e l aw cl ai m s for a s s a u lt, b a tte ry, in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . . . .” A p lt’ s B r. a t 1 . B ecause M s. E scue ex press l ydis cl ai m ed h er i ntentt o sue N O C un der t hese t heor i es , s he ca nnotr enew t hes e aba ndoned cl ai m s on appea l , es peci al l ygi ven that M s . E s cue makes no ar gum entt hatdi s m i s s al of t hes e cl ai m s pur s uantt o Feder al R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 1 (b ) w a s im p ro p e r. 8 to N O C . A. Ar g u me n t s P e r t a i n i n g t o De fe n d a n t NO C T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t th e re w e re n o iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t in d isp u te w ith re sp e c t to M s. E sc u e ’s c laim s a g a in st N O C , tha t N O C d id n o t v io late T itl e I X , and thatN O C di d notnegl i gent l ys uper vi s e M r . Fi nt on. I n herbr i ef on 1 appea l , M s . E s cue doe s notcont end thatt her e ar e anyi s s ues of m at er i al fac tt hat w o u ld p rec lud e su m m aryjud g m en t; rathe r, sh e a rgu es th at t h e d istri ct co u rt in c o rr e c tly a p p lie d th e la w in g ra n tin g N O C s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . S p o rts Unli m i t ed v. Lan kf

ord E nters. , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 9 9 6 , 9 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw her e “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand . . . t he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c) . W e mustvi ew t he evi dence and al l i nfer ence s t hatm i ghtbe9

re a s o n a b ly d ra w n f

ro m it in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to M s . E s c u e . See S p o rts Unl i m i t ed , 275 F. 3d at999. 1 . T itl e IX C laim M s. E scu e a rgu es th at N O C is l iable u n d er T it le IX fo r M r. F inton ’s al l eged s exual har as s m ent . T i t l e I X pr ovi des t hat “[n] o per s on i n t he U ni t ed St at es s hal l , on t he bas i s of s ex, . . . be s ubj ect ed t o di s cr i m i nat i on under any e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m o r a c tiv ity re c e iv in g F e d e ra l a s s is ta n c e .” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 (a ). P u rsu a n t to its p o w e r u n d e r se c tio n fiv e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t,

“ C o n g re s s a b ro g a te d th e S ta te s ’ E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity u n d e r T itle IX ,” Frankli n v. G w i nn et tC ou nty Pu b. Sch s. , 5 0 3 U .S . 6 0 , 72 ( 1992) , and t her efor e a s c h o o l s u c h a s N O C m a y p ro p e rl y b e s u e d b y its s tu d e n ts . See a lso 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000d- 7( a) ( 1) ( “A St at e s hal l not be i m m une undert he El event h A m endment of t he C ons t i t ut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es fr om s ui t i n Feder al cour t for a vi ol at i on of . . . title IX o f

th e E d u c a tio n A m e n d m e n ts o f 1 9 7 2 .” ). S e x u a l h a ra ss m e n t is a fo rm o f d isc rim in a tio n o n th e b a sis o f se x a n d is a c tio n a b le u n d e r T itle IX . Fr a n k lin , 5 0 3 U .S . a t 7 5 . N O C , how ever , i s not vicar i ou sl y l i able t o it s st ud ents for al l sexual haras sm ent caused by t eache rs , and t he Supr eme C our t has hel d t hat , under T i t l e I X , a s t udent m ayhol d a s chool l i abl e “onl y for i t s ow n m i s conduct . ” D avis v. Monr oe C ount y Bd. of E duc. , 526 U .S . 6 2 9 , 6 4 0 (1 9 9 9 ).10

A s w e h a v e e x p lain e d , this so rt o f su p e rv iso ryliab ili tyis im p o se d : (1 ) “ o n ly if th e [ sc h o o l] re m a in s d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to a c ts o f h a ra ss m e n t o f

w h ich it has actual know l edge, ” Mu r r e ll v . S c h . D is t. No . 1 , D e n v e r, C o lo ., 186 F. 3d 1238, 1246 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) , ( 2) t he har as s m entw as r epor t ed t o an “a ppr opr i at e per s on .

. . w i t h t he author i t yt o t ake c or r ect i ve ac t i on t o end the di s cr i m i nat i on, ” G ebs erv. L a g o Vista In d e

p . Sc h . D ist. , 524 U . S. 274, 290 ( 1998) , and ( 3) t he har as s m ent w a s “ so se v e re , p e rv a siv e a n d o bjec tiv e lyo ffe n siv e th a t it. . . d e p riv e d th e v ictim of ac ces s t o t he educ at i onal benef i t s oroppor tuni t i es pr ovi ded byt he s chool , ” Mu rr e ll , 186 F. 3d at1246. H er e, i ti s notcont es t ed thatM s . E s cue r epor t ed the h a ra s s m e n t to a n a p p ro p ri a te p e rs o n , D r. K in z e r, s a tis f y in g th e s e c o n d e le m e n t. See A p lt’ s B r. a t 1 0 -1 1 . M s. E sc u e p re se n ts tw o d iffe re n t th e o rie s o f liab ili tyto sa tisf

y e lem e n ts one and t hr ee. Fi r s t , s he as s er t s t hat N O C had ac t ual know l edge t hat M r . Fi nt on s exual l y har as s ed s t udent s befor e M s . E s cue w as a s t udent , t o w hi ch i t w as del i ber at el y i ndi ffe r ent . T hus , M s . E s cue a r gues t hat t hi s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o know n act s of har as s m ent caus ed M s . E s cue t o be s ubj ect ed t o har as s m ent by M r . Fi nt on and depr i ved herof educ at i onal oppor t uni t i es . H er s econd t heor y of li ab il it y is t h at, after be co m ing aw are o f M s. E scu e’s a ll eg ati o n s ag ains t M r. F i nton, N O C w as del i berat el y i nd i fferent t o h er com plai nts of h aras sm ent, al so c a u s in g h e r t o b e d e p ri v e d o f e d u c a tio n a l o p p o rt u n itie s .11

B el ow , w e exa m i ne ea ch t heor y i n t ur n. B eca us e w e conc l ude ( 1) t hat t he pr i or i nci dent s w er e not s uffi ci ent t o pr ovi de N O C w i t h act ual know l edge t hat empl oy i ng M r . Fi nt on put i t s s t udent at s ubs t ant i al r i s k of bei ng har as s ed, and (2 ) th a t N O C w a s n o t d e lib e ra tely in d iffe re n t to M s. E sc u e ’s a lleg a tio n s, w e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro p e rl y g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to N O C .

a. A ctual K now l edge of Pr i orA ct s of H ar as s m ent M s . E s cue f

i r s tar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bydeci di ng t hat“[t ] he i nfor m at i on N O C / K i nzerpos s es s ed ca nnotbe equa t ed w i t h t he ‘ actual know l edge’ r equi r ed t o i m pos e l i abi l i t yunderT i t l e I X . ” A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I V , at824. T he di s t r i ctcour tr eas oned thatN O C di d nothave thi s know l edge be caus e “[ t ] he i nci dent s of w hi ch i tw as aw ar e w er e t oo di s s i m i l ar , t oo i nfr equentand/ ort oo d ist an t i n ti m e . . . to im p o se li ab il ityo n N O C fo r i ts fail u re to tak e a cti o n ” b efo re M s . E s c u e ’s c la im s a ro s e . Id. For t he r eas ons expl ai ned bel ow , w e agr ee w i t h t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a n a lysis o f th is is s u e . I n G ebs er , the S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t to m a k e a T itl e IX c laim a g a in st a sc h o o l fo r se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t, th e p lain tiff m u st s h o w a n a p p ro p ria te per s on, ( her e, D r . K i nzer ) , had “a ctual know l edge of di s cr i m i nat i on i n the
r e c i p i e n t ’s [

NO C’s ] p r o g r a ms . ” 524 U . S. at290 ( emphasi s added) . B ynot i ng t hatactual know l edge of di s cr i m i nat i on i n th e r e c i p i e n t ’s p r o g r a m is s u fficie n t, t he C our ti m pl i ci t l ydeci ded thathar as s m entof per s ons ot hert han the pl ai nt i ff12

m a yp ro v id e th e s c h o o l w ith th e re q u is ite n o tic e to im p o s e lia b ility u n d e r T itle IX . See i d. T h u s, u n d er G ebs er , i f D r . K i nzeroranother“appr opr i at e per s on” has actual know l edge of

di s cr i m i nat i on i n N O C ’ s pr ogr ams, t hi s i s s uffi ci entt o s at i s fy th e “ a c tu a l k n o w le d g e ” p ro n g o f T itle IX lia b ility. See i d. L ow ercour t s di ffe ron w hethernot i ce s uffi ci entt o t r i ggerl i abi l i t ym ay cons i s tof pr i orcompl ai nt s orm us tcons i s tof not i ce r egar di ng curr enthar as s m ent in th e re c ip ie n t’ s p ro g ra m s . C ompa re Johns on v. G al en Heal th Ins ts . , Inc. , 26 7 F. Supp. 2d 679, 688 ( W . D . K y . 2003) ( col l ect i ng cas es and expl ai ni ng t hat“the G ebser n o tice sta n d a rd d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t th e o ffe n d in g in stru c to r a c tu a lly comm i tpr evi ous act s of har as s m entagai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff- s tudentand thatt he pl ai nt i ff- s tudentcompl ai n befor e the i ns t i tut i on m aybe hel d l i abl e fort he i ns t ruct or ’ s s ubs equentr epea t ed mi s conductunderT i t l e I X . A ctual know l edge of i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d a c tu a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a c tu a l p l a i n t i ff's e x p e ri e n c e s a re tw o d iffe re n t th in g s .” ), w ith B aynar d v. Mal one , 268 F. 3d 228, 238 ( 4t h C i r . 2001) ( r equi r i ng “a s how i ng t hats chool di s t r i ctoffi ci al s pos s es s ed actual know l edge of

t he di s cr i m i nat or yconducti n ques t i on” ) . E ven undert he m ore perm i ssi ve st ance that al l egati on s of pri or cond uct s uffi ce t o im po se lia b ility, w e c o n c lu d e M s . E s c u e h a s n o t m e t th is b u rd e n . T he di s t r i ctcour tr eas oned thatt he pr i ori ns t ance s w er e “t oo di s s i m i l ar , t oo i nfr equent , and/ ort oo di s t anti n t i m e” t o pr ovi de the s chool w i t h actual know l edge13

o f s e x u a l h a r a s s me n ti n i t s p r o g r a ms . Ap l t ’ s Ap p . v o l . I V, a t8 2 4 . I n t h i s c a s e , we a g re e w ith th is a n a lysis . T he Supr eme C our ti n G ebs ernot ed thatone compl ai ntof a t eac herm aki ng i nappr opr i at e comm ent s “w as pl ai nl yi ns uffi ci entt o al er tt he pr i nci pal t o t he pos s i bi l i t yt hat[t he t eac her ] w as i nvol ved i n a s exual r el at i ons hi p w i t h a s tudent . ” 524 U . S. at291. A l t hough G ebser m ak es c lear tha t “ac tual n o ti ce req u ir es m o re t han a s i m pl e r epor tof i nappr opr i at e conduc tbya t eac her. . . t he ac tual not i ce sta n d a rd d o e s n o t se t th e b a r so h ig h th a t a s c h o o l d istric t is n o t p u t o n n o tice u n til i tr ece i ves a cl ear l ycr edi bl e r epor tof s exual abus e fr om t he pl ai nt i ff- s tudent . ” D oe v. Sch. A dm i n. D is t . No. 19 , 6 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 7 , 6 2 ( D . M e . 1 9 9 9 ) . G e n e r a l l y, t he di s t r i ctcour t s t hathave e xami ned the i s s ue have r equi r ed thatt he s chool have “ac tual know l edge of

a s ubs t ant i alr is k of abus e t o s tudent s bas ed on pr i or compl ai nt s byot hers tudent s . ” D oe A. v. G r een , 2 9 8 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 3 ( D. N ev. 2004) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Johns on , 267 F. Supp. 2d at688 ( fi ndi ng s a m e )) . P ri o r i n s ta n c e s n e e d n o t b e “ c le a rl yc re d ib le [ b e c a u s e ] . . . [ a ] t s o me poi nt. . . a supervis oryschoo l offi ci al kn ow s . . . t hat a s cho ol em ploy ee i s a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t o s exual l yabus e chi l dr en. ” G o rd o n v . O ttu m w a C m ty. S c h . D ist. , 1 1 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 2 (S .D . Io w a 2 0 0 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he i ns t ance s of dat i ng t w o non- t r adi t i onal s tudent s near l yhi s ow n age do notpr ovi de N O C w i t h anyknow l edge thatM r . Fi nt on pos ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of14

s exual har as s m entt o N O C ’ s s tudent s : even though one of thes e r el at i ons hi ps m ay have be en i m pr oper( t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed thatone of the dat i ng r el at i ons hi ps di d noteven vi ol at e s chool pol i cy , even though i tw as notcondoned, A pl t ’ s A pp. vo l . IV , at82 1), t here i s no insi nu at i on any w here i n the r ecord t hat these re la tio n s h ip s w e re n o n -c o n s e n s u a l. T he othert w o i ns t ance s w her e M r . Fi nt on r ece i ved compl ai nt s conce r ni ng i nap propri at e beh aviorof a sex ual nature occu rr ed n earl ya deca de b efore M s. E sc u e ’s c o m p lain ts, a n d in v o lv e d sig n ifica n tlyd iffe re n t b e h a v io r – a sin g le in c id e n t o f

in a p p ro p ri a te to u c h in g a n d a s e ri e s o f in a p p ro p ri a te n a m e -c a llin g . W hen conf

r ont ed, M r . Fi nt on had t ol d N O C t hatt he t ouchi ng w as an ac ci dentand had ac know l edged the name- cal l i ng s houl d s t op. T hes e tw o epi s odes do not provide N O C w i t h actual kn ow l edg e t hat M r. F i nton present ed a “su bst anti al ri sk of abus e” t o ot hers tudent s – i ndeed, one of the i nci dent s i nvol ved no phy s i cal cont actw hat s oever , t he otherw as an i s ol at ed i nci dent , and nei t heri nvol ved anyw her e nea rt he degr ee of over tand pervas i ve har as s m entt hatM s . E s cue a lle g e s c o n s titu te d a h o s tile e d u c a tio n a l e n v ir o n m e n t. See G es ner , 524 U . S. at 2 9 1 ; S imp s o n v . Un iv . o f C o lo ., 372 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1235- 36 ( D . C ol o. 2005) ( hol di ng t hat“the r i s k m us tr emai n focus ed . . . [t ] he more a r i s k becomes g e n e ra lize d , the m o re th a t risk is lik e lyto fa ll o u tsid e o f th e n a rro w ly circu m scribe d sco p e o f T it le IX li ab il ity ”); G or don , 115 F. Supp. 2d at108215

(sta tin g th a t “a c tu a l n o tice ‘re q u ire s m o re th a n a sim p le r e p o rt o f in a p p ro p ria te conduct ’ on t he partof a s chool empl oy ee” ) ( quot i ng Sch. A dm i n. D i s t . No. 19 , 66 F. Supp. 2d at 62) . E s peci al l y gi ven t hatnear l y t en y ear s pas s ed w i t hout addi t i onal al l egat i ons , N O C s i m pl y di d not have t he r equi s i t e know l edge ba s ed on pr i or compl ai nt s t o bel i eve t hat M r . Fi nt on pr es ent ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of a b u s e o r h a ra s s m e n t to s tu d e n ts .

b. D el i ber at e I ndi ffe r ence We n o w tu r n t o M s . E s c u e ’ s s e c o n d a r g u me n t : t h a to n c e s h e i n fo r me d NOC o f h e r a lleg a tio n s a g a in st M r. F in to n , it s re sp o n se w a s m in im a l an d in su fficie n t, a n d th e re fo re N O C w a s d e lib e ra te ly in d iffe re n t to k n o w n a c ts o f h a ra s s m e n t. N O C does notdi s put e that , once M s . E s cue made heral l egat i ons aboutM r . Fi nt on, ith ad su ffici en t “ac tual k n o w ledg e” o f se x u al ha rassm en t un d er T it le IX . R athe r, N O C r es ponds t hati tw as notdel i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o M s . E s cue’ s al l egat i ons b e c a u s e i t s a c t i o n s we r e n o t“ c l e a r l yu n r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h to f t h e k n o wn ci rcum st ances” an d b ecause it s r espon se t o the harass m ent di d n ot “cause [M s. E s cue] t o under go har as s m entorm ake [ her ] vul ner abl e t o i t . ” D a v is , 526 U . S. at 643, 648. T he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hati n l i ghtof t he “hi gh s t andar d” r equi r ed for i m pos i ng l i abi l i t yunderT i t l e I X , N O C ’ s r es pons e t o M s . E s cue’ s al l egat i ons w as notcl ear l yunr eas onabl e. A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I V , at825. W e agr ee. A l t hough cert ai nl ya “mi ni m al i s tr es pons e i s notw i t hi n t he cont empl at i on16

of a r eas onabl e r es pons e, ” Va n c e v . S p e n c e r C o u n ty P u b . Sc h . D ist. , 231 F. 3d 253, 2 6 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), N O C ’s re s p o n s e w a s n o t m in im a l. A ft er m eet i ng w i t h M s. E s c u e a n d h e rfa t h e ra n d l e a r n i n g o f h e ra l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s tM r . F i n t o n , NOC per m i t t ed M s . E s cue t o t r ans feroutof M r . Fi nt on’ s cl as s and i nt o one thatw as s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar . I tal l ow ed hert o s t op t aki ng hi s debat e cl as s and t ake he r g rad e a s o f th at t im e, m id-w aythro u g h the s em ester. N O C also co n fro n ted M r. Fi nt on w i t h t he al l egat i ons , as ked tw o ot hers tudent s aboutt he al l egat i ons , and det er m i ned thatt he s chool ’ s r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi m w oul d per m anent l yend af t er th e s e m e s te r. T hus , N O C ar gues t hati tt ook “s t eps t o pr eventfur t herand futur e cont act betw een A ppel l antand Fi nt on. ” A pl e. N O C ’ s B r . at17. M s . E s cue a r gues t hat N O C sh o u ld h a v e re m o v e d M r. F in to n f ro m th e c las sro o m , an d sp e c ifica lly instructed h im to k ee p aw ayfro m h er. M o reo v er, M s. F inton all eg es th at N O C ’s in v e stig a tio n in to h e r a lleg a tio n s w a s n o t sig n ifica n t u n til sh e filed th is la w su it. A l t hough N O C m i ghthave t aken mor e aggr es s i ve ac t i on agai ns tM r . Fi nt on, i tdoes notfol l ow t hatt he col l ege w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r ent . School admi ni s t r at or s need not“enga ge i n par t i cul ardi s ci pl i naryact i on, ” D a v is , 52 6 U. S. at648, and “[ v] i ct i m s do nothave a r i ghtt o s eek pa r t i cul arr emedi al demands, ” Theno v. Tonganoxi e Uni f i ed Sch. D is t . No. 464, 3 7 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 6 5 ( D. K a n . 2 0 0 5 ). M oreove r, N O C had no “kn ow l edg e t hat i t s r em edial act i on [w as]17

i nadequa t e and i neffect i ve. ” Vance , 231 F. 3d at261. N O C r emoved M s . E s cue fr om t he har as s i ng envi r onm entand i m m edi at el yques t i oned tw o of herpeer s and M r . Fi nt on aboutt he cha r ges . I tal s o det er m i ned t o pr eventM r . Fi nt on fr om t eaching an yothercl asses aft er the sem est er ended . W e con cl ud e t hat these act i ons cons t i tut e “t i m el yand r eas onabl e meas ur es t o end the har as s m ent . ” Wills v. B r ow n Uni v. , 184 F. 3d 20, 25 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) . B eca us e thi s r es pons e w as not “cl ear l yunr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he know n ci r cumst ance s , ” D a v is , 526 U . S. at 643, N O C w as notdel i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o M s . E s cue’ s har as s m ent , as a mat t er o f la w . Si gni fi cant l y , w e not e thatM s . E s cue doe s notal l ege thatfur t hers exual h a r a s s me n to c c u r r e d a s a r e s u l to f NOC’ s d e l i b e r a t e i n d i ffe r e n c e . Th e S u p r e me C ou rthas st at ed that“t he d el i berat e i nd i fference m ust , ata m i nim um , cause s tudent s t o under go har as s m entorm ake them l i abl e orvul ner abl e t o i t . ” Id. at 644- 45 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . For i ns t ance , i n Theno , a s tudentw as su bjec ted to y e a rs o f

h a ra ss m e n t b yh is p e e rs. A lth o u g h th e sc h o o l re sp o n d e d to di s cr et e i nci dent s , i ti s s ued onl yw arni ngs t o t he perpetr at or s and s om et i m es r equi r ed them t o under go couns el i ng. D es pi t e t hes e meas ur es , t he s t udent w as s t i l l har as s ed. T he Theno c o u rt fo u n d th a t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s in a p p ro p ria te beca us e “a r eas onabl e j ur y cer t ai nl y coul d concl ude t hat at s om e poi nt dur i ng t he four - y earper i od of har as s m ent t he s chool di s t r i ct ’ s s t andar d and i neffect i ve18

r es pons e t o t he know n har as s m ent beca m e cl ear l y unr eas onabl e. ” Theno, 37 7 F. S u p p . 2 d a t 9 6 5 . M s . E s cue’ s ar gum ent s do notpr es enta s i m i l ars i tuat i on. A tno poi ntdoes s he al l ege thatN O C ’ s r es pons e t o heral l egat i ons w as i neffect i ve s uch thats he w as fur t herhar as s ed. A l t hough M r . Fi nt on at t empt ed t o cont actheronce the day th a t sh e re p o rte d h e r a lleg a tio n s to D r. K in z e r, h e w a s u n su c c e ss f u l an d th is in c id e n t d id n o t lea d to se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t. S u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e se fa c ts is t her efor e appr opr i at e, as M s . E s cue ha s nots how n t hatN O C ’ s r es pons e w as c le a rl yu n re a s o n a b le n o r h a s s h e s h o w n th a t it le d to f u rt h e r s e x u a l h a ra s s m e n t. See D a v is , 526 U . S. at649 ( “In an appropri ate ca s e, there i s no reas on w hycourt s , on a m o ti o nto d i s m i s s , f

o rs um m ary j u d g m e nt , o rf o rad ire c te dv e rd i c t , c o u l dn o ti d e nti f y a respons e asnot‘ cl earlyunreas onabl e’ asa matterof l aw . ”) . 2. N egl i gentSupervi s i on T he di s tri ctcourtal s o granted N O C s um m aryj udgm enton M s . E s cue’ s cl aimthat N O C is liab le f

o r n e g lig e nt sup e rv isio n . InO k lah o m a , ane mp lo ye r m ayb e h e ldliab le fornegl i gents upervi s i on “i f – atthe criti caltim e of the torti ous inci dent– , the empl oyer h a dre a s o nto b e lie v e th at th e p e rs o nw o u ldc re ate anun du e ri s ko f h armto o th e rs . E mp lo ye rs are h e ldliab le f o r th e ir p rio r kn o w led g e o f th e se rv ant’s p ro p e n sityto c o m m it the veryharmforw hi ch damagesare s ought . ” N ewH am ps hire v. Pres byterian Church (U .S.A .) , 9 9 8 P . 2 d5 9 2 , 6 0 0 (O k la. 1 9 9 9 ). W e sub stanti allyag ree w iththe d istri ct co urt ’s19

reas oning thatthi s el ementof the O kl ahoma tortof negl i gents upervi s i on l argelyoverl aps w ithth e “ a c tu a l kn o w le d g e ” p ro n go f T itle IX liab ility. SeeA p lt’ s A p p . v o l. IV , at 8 2 7 . T herefore, forthe s ame reas ons thatN O C di d nothave suffi ci entknow l edge,bas ed on the pri or incident s, to b el i eve thatM r. F inton presented a sub stanti alri sk of abu se to stud ents , “[t] he inform ati on the s choolpos s es s ed aboutFinton’ s behavi ordi d notappri s e N O C of Finton’ s ‘ propens ityto comm itthe veryharm ’ forw hi ch the pl ainti ff nows uesthe col l ege. ” I

d. ( quoting Pres b

y te ria n Ch u rc h (U

.S.A .) , 9 9 8 P .2 dat 6 0 0 ). B . A rgum ent s P ert ai ni ng t o D ef endant Fi nt on Pur s uantto Rul es50 and 59 of the FederalRul esof C ivi lProcedure, M s . E s cue asked the dis tri ctcourtto g ranta new tri al , or in the alternative, grantj ud gm ent asa m atterof l awasto eac h of herthree c l aim s agains tM r . Finton: ( 1) deprivati on of cons tituti onalri ght s , acti onabl e under§ 1983; ( 2) as s aultand batteryunders tate l aw ; and ( 3) intenti onalinfl i cti on of emoti onaldi s tres s unders tate l aw . W e revi ewde novo the d istric t co urt’s d e n ial o f M s. E sc u e ’s m o tio nf

o r ju d g m e nt as am atter o f law un d e r Ru le 5 0 o f th e F e d e ra l Ru le s o f

C iv il P ro c e dure . Loughridge v. Chi lesP ow erSuppl y Co. , 431 F. 3d 1268, 1280 ( 10th C ir . 2005) . W e make al lreas onabl e inference s in favorof the nonm o v in gp arty . I

d. “ Ju d g m e nt as am atter o f law is ap p ro p riate o n lyif th e e v id e n c e p o ints butone w ayand i s s us ceptibl e to no reas onabl e inference s w hi ch mays upportthe nonm oving party ’ s pos iti on. ” Id
. (inte rn a l qu o tatio nm ark s o m itte d). W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of M s . E s cue’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al20

forabus e of di s cr et i on, vi ew i ng al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he p re v a ilin g p a rt y . Snyderv. C i t y of Moab , 3 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 7 -88 (10 th C ir . 20 03 ). “[A ] m oti on for a new t ri al on t he g round s that the jur yverdi cti s agai nst t he w ei ghtof t he evi dence nor m al l yi nvol ves a r evi ew of t he fa ct s pr es ent ed at t r i al , and thus i nvol ves t he di s cr et i on of t he tr i al cour t . ” B l ack v. Hei b’s En t ers. , 805 F. 2d 360, 363 ( 10t h C i r . 1986) . T hus , even i f w e do notnece s s ar i l yagr ee w i t h t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , i tm us tbe uphel d unl es s i ti s “cl ear l y , deci dedl yor overw hel m i ngl yagai ns tt he w ei ghtof t he evi dence . ” Id. 1 . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 C laim T he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ruct ed the j uryt hat , t o fi nd i n favorof M s . E s cue on t hi s cl ai m , i thad t o fi nd t he fol l ow i ng t o be true: ( 1) M r . Fi nt on had depr i ved her of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ( 2) he ac t ed undercol orof s t at e l aw , and ( 3) hi s act i ons w er e the pr oxi m at e ca us e of the i nj ur i es and damages s he s us t ai ned. A pl t ’ s A pp. v o l. IV , at 8 6 4 ; s ee 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e ju ryw a s in stru c ted th a t, w ith re g a rd to the s ec o n d p ron g o f th at t est, M r. F inton h ad ac ted u n d er c o lor o f state law . A p lt ’s A p p . v o l. I V , a t 8 6 6 . T he di s t r i ctcour tfur t heri ns t ruct ed that , w i t h r egar d t o t he fi r s tpr ong of t hatt es t , M r . Fi nt on vi ol at ed M s . E s cue’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om s ex d isc rim in a tio n u n d e r th e e q u a l p ro tec tio n c lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t if t he j ur yfound t hat : ( 1) M r . Fi nt on’ s conducts ubj ect ed hert o s ex di s cr i m i nat i on,21

( 2) t he conduc tw as unw el come, and ( 3) t he conduc tw as s uffi ci ent l ys ever e or per vas i ve as t o i nt er fer e unr eas onabl yw i t h hers chool per for m ance and cr eat e a h o s tile o r a b u s iv e e d u c a tio n a l e n v ir o n m e n t. Id. a t 8 6 5 ; see also Li ps etv. Uni v. of P. R. , 864 F. 2d 881, 898 ( 1s tC i r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng t hat , undert he equa l pr ot ect i on c lau se , a p lain tiff

m a k e s a “ p rim a fa c ie c a se o f h o stile e n v iro n m e n t h a ra ss m e n t” byshow i ng t hat “he or she w as subj ect ed to unw el com e sexua l adv ances so

‘ s ever e orper vas i ve’ t hati tal t er ed hi s orherw or ki ng oreduca t i onal envi r onm ent ”) ( quot i ng Mer i t orSav. B ank v. Vi ns on , 4 7 7 U .S . 5 7 , 6 7 (1 9 8 6 )) . T herefore, i f t he jur ydeterm i ned t hat the co nd uct w as not unw el com e or t hat M s. E sc u e c o n se n ted to th e c o n tac t, i t co u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d in fa v o r o f h e r o n th is c la im . T he Supr eme C our thas obs er ved that“the ques t i on w hetherpar t i cul ar conductw as i ndeed unw el come pr es ent s di ffi cul tpr obl ems of pr oof and tur ns l ar gel yon cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons comm i t t ed t o t he tr i erof fa ct . ” Mer i t orSav. B ank, 4 7 7 U .S . at 6 8 (e x a m in in g a se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t su it b ro u g h t u n d e r T itl e V II). A lth o u g h a ju ryc o u ld h a v e fo u n d in M s. E sc u e ’s fa v o r o n th is c laim h a d it favor ed hert es t i m onyaboutt he i nci dent s , i f a j ur ydi d notcr edi therver s i on of event s , t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fori tt o fi nd t hatM r . Fi nt on’ s conductw as n o t u n w e lc o m e . M s . E s cue t es t i fi ed thats he di d notw el come t he conduc t , and M r . M ey er22

t es t i fi ed thatt he l ook on herfac e dur i ng t he i nci dent s t hathe w i t nes s ed s how ed t hatM r . Fi nt on’ s act i ons w er e unw el come. H ow ever , t he j ur yneed nothave found t hi s t es t i m onycr edi bl e. M or eover , t he j ur ycoul d have found t hats om e of M s . E s cue’ s t es t i m onyt ended t o s how t hatM r . Fi nt on’ s conductw as not unw el come: M s . E s cue a dm i t t ed thats he neve rverbal l yobj ect ed t o anyof t he c o n d u c t, th a t sh e e x p licitlyc o n se n ted to th e ste rn u m a dju stm e n t an d v o lu n tar ily l ai d on M r . Fi nt on’ s offi ce f l oor , and thats he s entM r . Fi nt on a V al ent i ne’ s D ay car d. M r . M ey er ’ s t es t i m onyt hatM s . E s cue w entt o M r . Fi nt on’ s offi ce t o gi ve M r . Fi nt on back mas s ages and s how ed hi m t at t oos t hatw er e underhercl ot hi ng al s o coul d have pe r m i t t ed the j ur yt o dr aw t he i nfer ence t hatM r . Fi nt on’ s conduct w a s n o t u n w e lco m e . T h e re fo re , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o M r . Fi nt on, t he j ur y ’ s ver di cton M s . E s cue’ s § 1983 cl ai m w as notagai ns tt he w ei ghtof t he evi dence , and the di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ydeni ed M s . E s cue’ s m ot i ons fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict a n d n e w trial. 2 . A ss a u lt an d B a ttery C laim T he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hateven i f i tfound t hatan as s aul tor bat t eryoccurr ed, “[d] efe ndanti s notl i abl e t o Pl ai nt i ff on he rcl ai m of as s aul tor herbat t erycl ai m i f he pr oves hi s aff i r m at i ve defens e of c ons ent . ” A pl t ’ s A pp. v o l. IV , at 8 7 0 ; see also Tayl orv. Hes s er , 9 9 1 P .2 d 3 5 , 3 9 (O k la . C iv . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). M r. F in to n c o u ld h a v e p ro v e d c o n se n t b ysh o w in g th a t M s. E sc u e led h im23

r eas onabl yt o bel i eve thats he cons ent ed t o hi s cont act , and thatt he cont actw as the s am e o r sub stan ti all ysim il ar to the co n tact t o w h ich s h e c o n sen ted. A p lt ’s A p p . v o l. IV , at 8 7 0 . M r. F in to n a rg u e s th a t th e ju ryh a d su fficie n t ev id e n c e to fin d th a t h e p ro v e d h is a ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e o f c o n s e n t. U nderO kl ahoma l aw , cons entdoes notal w ay s need t o be verbal ; i tcan be i nferr ed fr om a per s on’ s act i ons . “‘ I f w or ds orconductar e r eas onabl yunder s t ood byanothert o be i nt ended a s cons ent , t heycons t i tut e appa r entcons entand ar e as effect i ve as cons enti n fac t . ’ ” D ubbs v. Head Star t, Inc. , 336 F. 3d 1194, 1219 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) T ORTS § 892( 2) ) ( appl y i ng O kl ahoma l aw ) . Si m i l ar l y , t he Thi r d C i r cui thas expl ai ned that“[e ] xpr es s cons ent m aybe gi ven byw or ds oraff i r m at i ve conduc tand i m pl i ed cons entm aybe m ani fes t ed w hen a pe r s on t akes no act i on, i ndi cat i ng an appa r entw i l l i ngnes s for t he conduc tt o occur . ” B ar nes v. A m . Tobacco C o. , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir . 1998) ( ci t i ng R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) T OR TS § 8 9 2 cm t. b & c). V iew ing the e v iden ce in the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o M r. F inton , the ju ry v e r d i c ti s n o ta g a i n s tt h e we i g h to f t h e e v i d e n c e . E v e n i f M r . F i n t o n ’ s o wn a d m iss io n s d u rin g trial s h o w e d th a t h e c o m m itt e d th e p rim a fa c ie e lem e n ts o f b o th assaul tand batt ery , as M s. E scue co ntends, t he jur ycou l d h ave fou nd t hat M s. E s cue l ed M r . Fi nt on t o bel i eve thats he cons ent ed t o hi s cont act , orcont actt hat24

wa s s u b s t a n t i a l l ys i mi l a r . As e x p l a i n e d a b o v e wi t h r e s p e c tt o h e r§ 1 9 8 3 c l a i m, M s . E s cue a dm i t t ed thats he neve robj ect ed t o M r . Fi nt on’ s conduct , s he vo l un t ari l yw ent t o h i s office on a n um ber of o ccasi on s, gav e him back m assages, gave hi m a V al ent i ne’ s D aycar d, cons ent ed t o t he s t ernum adj us t m ent , and r emai ned i n hi s offi ce a ft ert he s t ernum - adj us t m enti nci dent . M r . Fi nt on m ai nt ai ned att r i al t hat , dur i ng t he s t ernum adj us t m ent , he di d not , i n fac t , t ouch M s . E s cue’ s br eas t s . T he j ur yw as notr equi r ed t o cr edi tM s . E s cue’ s t es t i m ony t hats he di d notcons entt o orw el come M r . Fi nt on’ s conductbeca us e “[ i ] ti s t he j ur y ’ s excl us i ve pr ovi nce t o as s es s t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es and det er m i ne the w ei ghtt o be gi ven t o t hei rt es t i m ony . ” Lam on v. C i t y of Shaw nee , 972 F. 2d 1145, 1 1 5 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). F rom M s. E scu e’s a d m issi o n s, co u p led w ith M r. M ey ers’s and M r . Fi nt on’ s t es t i m ony , a r eas onabl e j ur yhad s uffi ci entevi dence t o fi nd t hat sh e im p licitlyc o n se n ted to th e c o n d u c t. 3 . In ten tio n a l In flictio n o f E m o tio n a l D istre ss C laim A s t he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ruct ed, fort he j ur yt o fi nd i n favorof M s . E s cue on h er inten ti o n al i n fli cti o n o f e m o ti o n al distr ess c lai m , sh e h ad to p rov e tha t: (1) M r. F in to n ’s c o n d u c t w a s s o e x tre m e a n d o u tra g e o u s th a t itw e n t b e y o n d a ll p o ss ib le b o u n d s o f

d e c e n c y ; (2 ) th e c o n d u c t w o u ld b e c o n sid e re d a tro c io u s a n d in to ler a b le in a c ivil ized so ciety ; and (3) M r. F inton inten ti o n all yo r reck lesslyca u sed sev ere25

emot i onal di s t r es s t o M s . E s cue be y ond t hatw hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on coul d be e x p e c ted to e n d u re . A p lt’s A p p . v o l. IV , at 8 6 8 ; see also G ayl or d E ntm ’ tC o. v. Thomps on , 958 P. 2d 128, 149 ( O kl a. 1998) ( char act er i zi ng t or tof i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s as “narr ow ” and e xpl ai ni ng t hat“[c ] onductw hi ch, t hough unr eas onabl e, i s nei t her‘ bey ond al l pos s i bl e bounds of dec ency ’ i n t he se tti n g in w h ich it o c c u rre d , n o r is o n e th a t ca n b e ‘re g a rd e d a s u tterlyin to ler a b le i n a ci vi l i zed c om m uni t y ’ fal l s s hor tof havi ng act i onabl e qual i t y ”) ( quot i ng R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS § 4 6 ). A s expl ai ned above , a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have c oncl uded thatM s . E s cue co n sen ted to the e v en ts th at oc cu rred . G iven this, itfo ll o w s tha t th e sa m e jury w oul d l i kel ynothave found t hatM r . Fi nt on’ s conductw as extr eme and out r ageous , or“bey ond al l pos s i bl e bounds of dec ency . ” G aylor d E ntm ’ tC o. , 958 P .2 d a t 1 4 9 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). E ven i f M r . Fi nt on’ s conducthad met t hi s hi gh s t andar d, t he j ur ycoul d have r eas onabl yconcl uded thatt he emot i onal di s t r es s M s . E s cue s uffe r ed w as not s ever e enough t o i m pos e l i abi l i t yon M r . Fi nt on. I n D aem i v. C hur ch’s Fr i ed C hi cke n , w e hel d t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatt he pl ai nt i ff su ffe re d se v e re e m o tio n a l d istre ss , w h e re th e p lain tiff a lleg e d th a t h e w a s s ick to hi s s t om ach, ner vous , i ns ecur e, unr es t ful , no l ongeract ed l i ke hi m s el f, and thathe had t o di s cus s t he compl ai ned- of conduc tw i t h a ther api s the w as cons ul t i ng for26

d i ffe r e n tp r o b l e ms . 9 3 1 F . 2 d 1 3 7 9 , 1 3 8 9 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( a p p l y i n g Ok l a h o ma l aw ) . W e expl ai ned thatt o pr eventa cl ai m of i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal d istre ss “ f

ro m b e c o m in g a p a n a c e a fo r a ll o f life ’s ills, . . . d istre ss [ su fficie n t to s u p p o r tt h e c l a i m] i s o f t e n a c c o mp a n i e d b ys h o c k , i l l n e s s , o ro t h e rb o d i l yh a r m, butbodi l yhar m i s nota pr er equi s i t e. ” Id
. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). H er e, M s . E s cue c om pl ai ns t hat , as a r es ul tof M r . Fi nt on’ s conduct , s he s uffe r ed fr om fea r , coul d nots l eep, had ni ght m ar es , s uffe r ed fr om depr es s i on, and w as s ubj ect ed t o r i di cul e and humi l i at i on byherpeer s . T he j ur ycoul d have r eas onabl yfound t hatM s . E s cue’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t hes e effec t s w as not c re d ib le, a s M s. E sc u e d id n o t p ro ffe r a n ye v id e n c e b e sid e s h e r o w n tes tim o n yto p ro v e th a t sh e su ffe re d e m o tio n a l d istre ss . M o re o v e r, h e r a lleg a tio n s a re q u ite s i m i l art o t hos e thatw e hel d “l egal l yi ns uffi ci ent ” i n Da e mi – i nabi l i t yt o s l eep, per s onal i t ychange s , phy s i cal m ani fes t at i ons of s t r es s ( i n Da e mi t hr ough s t om ach p ro b le m s , a n d fo r M s . E s c u e , d e p re s s io n ), n e rv o u s n e s s , a n d fe a r. See i d. T her efor e, t he j ur ydi d notactagai ns tt he w ei ghtof t he evi dence byfi ndi ng t hat M s . E s cue ha d notm etherbur den of pr oof w i t h r es pectt o t he i nt ent i onal in flic tio n o f

e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s c la im .

I I I . CO NC L US I ON For t he r eas ons expl ai ned above , w e A FFIRM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof sum m aryj ud gm ent t o N O C . W e al so A F F IR M t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of M s.27

E s cue’ s m ot i ons fora new t r i al and j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw w i th r es pectt o her c la im s a g a in s t M r. F in to n .