# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 36 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

K.T.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Cu lv er-S to ck to n C ol le ge ; A.B.; Lam bd a Ch i Al ph a Fra te rn it y ; Lam bd a Ch i Al ph a Frat ern it y Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

W om en ’s and Ch il dr en ’s Adv oc acy Project at New En gl an d Law Bo st on

ll ll ll ll Amicu s C

ur ia e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 5 , 20 17 Fil ed : Au gu st 1, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.K.T. bro ug ht a Tit le IX st ud en t-o n- st ud en t ha ras sm en t cl ai m ag ai ns t Cu lv erSt oc kt on Co ll eg e aft er sh e was al le ge dl y s ex ua ll y as sa ul te d by a Cu lv er-S to ck to n
st ud en t on cam

pu s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d he r co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a 1
cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro ced ur e 1 2( b) (6 ). W e aff irm.

I.

Si xt een -y ear- ol d K.T., a jun io r in hi gh sc ho ol

, was in vi te d by Cu lv er-S to ck to n Co ll eg e to vi si t cam

pu s as a po te nt ia l recr ui t to th e wom en ’s so c c e r te am

. W hi le
th ere, K.T. wen t to a pa rty at an on -cam pu s frat ern it y ho us e, whe re sh e sa y s sh e was

se rv ed al co ho l be fo re be in g ph y si cal ly an d se xu al ly as sa ul te d by a frat ern it y m em be r. The al le ge d as sa il an t was a st ud en t of Cu lv er-S to ck to n Co ll eg e. Acco rd in g to K.T.,
th e in ci de nt was rep or te d t o C ol le ge au th or it ie s t he same weeken d of th e pa rty, b ut
th e Co ll eg e di d no th in g ot he r th an can cel a sc he du le d co nf eren ce with K.T. an d he r
pa ren ts

.

K.T. su ed th e Co ll eg e in fed eral co ur t se ek in g m on ey da m ag es un de r Tit le IX
of th e Edu cat io n Am en dm en ts of 19 72

. The cl ai m was co uc he d in te rm s of st ud en t- 2

on -s tu de nt ha ras sm en t (o r pe er h aras sm en t), a th eo ry fir st art ic ul at ed by t he Uni te d
St at es Su pr em e Co ur t in Dav is ex r e l

. LaSh on da D. v. Mo nr oe Co un ty Bo ard of
Edu cat io n, 52 6 U.S. 62 9 (19 99 ). Dav is he ld th at a fed eral ly fu nd ed in st it ut io n m ay be li ab le f

o r d a mag es in a pr iv at e Tit le IX act io n if it s de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to
kn own act s of pe er ha ras sm en t de ni ed th e vi ct im acce ss to ed uc at io na l op po rtu ni ti es
pr ov id ed by th e in st it ut io n. Id

. at 65 0. K.T.’ s co m pl ai nt st at ed th at th e Co ll eg e act ed
wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to ward se xu al ha ras sm en t on it s cam pu s by fai li ng to (1 )

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es A. Sh aw, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Th ou gh Cu lv er-S to ck to n Co ll eg e is a pr iv at e Ch ris ti an sc ho ol

, it re c e i v e s 2 fed eral fin an ci al as si st an ce and is th eref or e su bjec t to Tit le IX’s pr oh ib it io n aga in st

se x- ba se d d is cri m in at io n. 2 0 U.S.C. § 16 81 (a).

-2

-ta ke reas on ab le pr ev en ta ti ve m eas ur es su ch as su pe rv is in g K.T. du rin g he r vi si t, an d

(2 ) in ve st ig at e an d pr ov id e tre at m en t fo r K.T. on ce th e Co ll eg e rece iv e d rep or ts of
th e al le ge d i nc id en t.

The Co ll eg e m ov ed to di sm is s th e Tit le IX cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l
Pro ced u r e 12 (b )(6 ), arg ui ng th at K.T. fai le d to st at e a cl ai m be cau se sh e was no t a Cu lv er-S to ck to n st ud en t whe n th e al le ge d as sa ul t oc cu rred

. The Co ll eg e av erre d th at
th e st ud en t-o n- st ud en t ha ras sm en t do ct rin e, as it s na m e su gg es ts , ap pl ie s on l y in

cas es wher e a s tu de nt su es he r own sch oo l ov er ha ras sm en t by a fell ow s tu de nt . In

su pp or t, th e Co ll eg e qu ot ed la ng ua ge fro m Dav is th at a fu nd in g reci pi en t is no t li ab le

un de r Tit le IX “ u nl es s it s de li be rat e in di ffer en ce su bjec t[s ] it s st ud en ts to
ha ras sm en t.” Id

. at 64 4- 45 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (em ph as is ad de d) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The Co ll eg e fu r t h e r a ss ert ed th at no fed eral co ur t ha s

ex te nd ed Davi s’s h ol di ng to cla im s b y no n- st ud en ts

.

The di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h Cu lv er-S to ck to n. I n a n o r de r di sm is si ng th e Tit le IX cl ai m , th e co ur t fir st co nc lu de d th at as a no n- st ud en t K.T. co ul d no t br in g a Tit le IX cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Co ll eg e. Eve n if K.T. co ul d br in g su ch a cl ai m , th e di st ric t

co ur t co nt in ue d, sh e fai le d to pl au si bl y al le ge th at ( 1) an ap pr op ria te pe rs on at th e Co ll eg e ha d act ua l kn ow l e d g e o f pr ev io us in ci de nt s of si m il ar ha ras sm en t so as to
al ert it to a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of fu rth er ab us e, an d (2 ) th e Co ll eg e’s res po ns e to K.T.’ s al le ga ti on s was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t an d cau se d he r to un de rg o ha ras sm en t, m ad e he r vu ln erab le to it

, or su bjec te d he r to fu rth er di sc riminat io n. The co ur t de te rm in ed
th at K.T. the refo re fa il ed to st at e a p la us ib le cla im un de r Tit le IX. 3

In th e di st ric t co ur t, K.T. al so br ou gh t an as sa ul t cl ai m ag ai ns t th e al le ge d 3

as sa i l a n t , a s well as as sa ul t an d ne gl ig en t su pe rv is io n cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e lo cal frat ern it y ch ap te r an d th e frat er nit y ’ s na tio na l orga ni zat io n. Afte r di sm is si ng th e Tit le IX cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Co ll eg e, th e di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er t he rem ai ni ng st at e la w cla im s.

-3

-II.

The pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er K.T.’ s st at us as a no n- st ud en t pr ecl ud es he r fro m

as se rti ng a Tit le IX ha ras sm en t cl ai m

. Ass um in g arg ue nd o th at it do es no t, we fin d

n o merit in K.T.’ s ap pe al be cau se he r co m pl ai nt fai le d to st at e a pl au si bl e cl a i m t o

su rv iv e d is m is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

A. Stan da rd of R ev ie w

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s de

no vo

. Co x v. Mo rtg

. Elec

. Reg is tra ti on Sy s., In c., 68 5 F.3 d 66 3, 66 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).
To pr ev a i l

, K

. T. must al le ge m or e th an “ [t]hr ead ba re reci ta ls of th e el em en ts of a

cau se of act io n, su pp or te d by m ere co nc lu so ry st at em en ts .” Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6
U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9)

. The co m pl ai nt m us t al le ge su ffi ci en t fact s th at , ta ke n as tru e,

“ ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bel l Atl an ti c Co rp

.

v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ). A cl ai m is faci al ly pl au si bl e whe n it s fact ua l

co nt en t “ al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le
fo r th e m is co nd uc t all eg ed .” Id

. “ W e m ak e th is de te rm in at io n b y co ns id eri ng on ly
th e m at eri al s th at are ne ces sa ril y em br aced by th e pl ead in gs an d ex hi bi ts at ta ch ed to
th e co m pl ai nt .” Co x, 6 85 F.3d at 6 68 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

B. Tit le IX Stu de nt -o n- St ud en t Har as sm en t

Tit le I X p r o v id es th at “ [n ]o p ers on in th e Uni te d St at es sh al l, on th e ba si s of

se x, be ex cl ud ed fro m pa rti ci pa ti on in , b e de ni ed th e be ne fit s of , o r be su bjec te d to
di sc riminat io n un de r an y ed uc at io n pr og ram or act iv it y rece iv in g Fed eral fin an ci al

as si st an ce.” 20 U.S.C. § 16 81 (a). W he re, a s h e r e , th e pl ai nt iff ’s Tit le IX cl ai m is
ba se d on ha ras sm en t, th e sc ho ol is li ab le in da m ag es on ly whe re it is “ (1 ) de li be rat el y in di ffer en t (2 ) to k n o w n act s of di sc riminat io n (3 ) whi ch oc cu r un de r it s co nt ro l.”
Ost ran d e r v

. Dug ga n, 34 1 F.3 d 74 5, 75 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

-4

-om it te d)

. Add it io na ll y , th e di sc riminat io n m us t be “ so se ve re , p e r va si ve , an d
ob jec t i v e ly of

fen si ve th at it can be sa id to de pr iv e th e vi ct im [] of acce ss to th e ed uc at io na l o p po rtu ni ti es or be ne fit s pr ov id ed by th e sc ho ol .” Dav is

, 52 6 U.S. at
65 0.

i. Del ib er at e In di ff er en ce

K.T. fai le d to pl au si bl y al le ge th at Cu lv er-S to ck to n act ed wit h d e l i b e r at e in di ffer en ce. A fu nd in g reci pi en t “ m ay no t be li ab le fo r da m ag es un le ss it s de li be rat e in di ffer en ce su bj ect

[s ] it s st ud en ts to ha ras sm en t. Tha t is

, th e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

m us t, at a m in im

um , ca us e [s tu de nt s] to un de rg o ha ras sm en t or m ak e th em li ab le or

vu ln erab le to it .” Dav is

, 52 6 U.S. at 64 4- 45 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (em ph as is ad de d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Sh ru m ex rel

. Kell y v. Kluc k, 2 49 F.3d
77 3, 78 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ [D]elib erat e in di ffe r e n c e m us t ei th er di rect ly cau se th e ab us e to oc cu r or

m ak e st ud en ts vu ln erab le to su ch ab us e.”).

In he r co m

plai nt , K.T. al le ge d th at Cu lv er-S tockt on w as de lib er at el y ind if fe re nt by fai li ng to ad op t p ract ic es to pr ev en t sex ua l ass au lt an d als o fail in g to in ve st ig at e

an d of fer m ed ic al se rv ic es to K.T. aft er it rece iv ed r e p o r t s of th e al le ge d in ci de nt

. Bu t th e co m

pl ai nt id en ti fie d no cau sa l ne xu s be twee n Cu lv er-S to ck to n’s in act io n an d
K.T.’ s ex pe rie nc in g se xu al ha rassm en t. Rat he r, th e co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at “ as a di rect

an d pr ox im at e res ul t of

. . . [ C u l v e r -St oc kt on ’s] fai lu re to in ve st ig at e an d pr ov id e
gu id an ce, co un se li ng an d tre at m e n t , . . . Pl ai nt iff su st ai ne d su bs ta nt ia l m en ta l an d

e moti on al di st res s an d

. . . [s ]he cu rren tl y su ffer s fro m po st -tr au m a synd ro me a n d

ps yc h i a t r i c ov erl ay .” At m os t, th es e al le ga ti on s li nk th e Co ll eg e’s in act io n wit h

em ot io na l tra um a K.T. cl ai m s sh e ex pe rie nc ed fo ll owi ng th e as sa ul t. The co m pl ai nt
do es no t, ho wev er, al le ge th at Cu lv er-S to ck to n’s pu rp or te d in di ffer en ce “ su bjec t[e d] [K.T.] to ha ras sm en t.” See Dav is

, 52 6 U.S. at 64 4. Thu s, whi le K.T. was di ss at is fie d
wit h Cu lv er-S t o c k t o n ’s res po ns e, ba se d on th e al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt th e

res po ns e can no t b e ch arac te riz ed as d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce th at ca us ed th e as sa ul t

.

-5

-See, e.g ., Sh ru m , 24 9 F.3 d at 78 2. W e th eref or e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at K.T.
fai le d t o a de qu at el y

pl ead de li be rat e in di ffer en ce.

ii . Actu al Kn ow le dg e

W e al so ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t t h a t K

. T. di d no t pl au si bl y pl ead th at
Cu lv er-S to ck to n ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge of di sc riminat io n. Ci ti ng W il li am s v. Bo ard
of Reg en ts of th e Uni ve rs it y Sy st em of Geo rg ia

, 44 1 F.3 d 12 87
, 12 98 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ), va ca te d

, 47 7 F.3 d 12 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ), K.T. arg ue s th at a pl ai nt iff sa ti sf ie s th e act ua l kn owl ed ge el em en t si m pl y by no ti fy in g th e sc ho ol th at sh e was su bjec te d

to a se xu al as sa ul t. Bec au se K.T.’ s co m pl ai nt st at ed th at he r as sa ul t al le ga ti on s were
rep or te d to Cu lv er-S to ck to n on e to two da y s aft er th e frat ern it y pa rty, K.T. arg ue s th at
sh e su ffi ci en tl y

pl ed act ua l k no wled ge

.

Co nt rary to K.T.’ s co nt en ti on , th e act ua l kn owl ed ge el em en t req ui res sc ho ol s
to ha ve m or e th an aft er-t he -fac t no ti ce of a si ng le in st a n ce in whi ch th e pl ai nt iff

ex pe rie nc ed se xu al as sa ul t. See, e.g ., Pl am p v. Mi tc he ll Sch

. Dis t. No. 17 -2
, 56 5 F.3 d
45 0, 45 4, 45 7 (8 th Cir . 2 00 9) (n o act ua l kn owl ed ge of di sc riminat io n whe re a hi gh

sc ho ol st ud en t’s pa ren ts “ im m ed ia te ly rep or te d” a te ach er’s se xu al ha ras sm en t of th e
st ud en t). Rat he r, a pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th at th e fu nd in g reci pi en t ha d pr io r no ti ce of

a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of pe er ha ras sm en t “ in th e reci pi en t’s p r o g r am s,” se e Geb se r v. Lag o Vis ta In de p. Sch . Di st ., 5 24 U.S. 2 7 4
, 2 9 0 (1 99 8) , b as ed on ev id en ce su ch as
pr ev io us si m il ar in ci de nt s of as sa ul t. In Ost ran de r, fo r in st an ce, th is co ur t in ti m at ed
th at act ua l kn owl ed ge m ay be es ta bl is he d whe re th e reci pi en t ha s pr io r kn ow le dg e of (1 ) ha ras sm en t pr ev io us ly co m m it te d by th e sa m e pe rp et rat or an d/ or (2 ) pr ev io us
rep or ts of se xu al ha ras sm en t oc cu rri ng on th e s a me p r e mi s es

. 34 1 F.3 d at 75 1.
Si m il arl y , in Tho m as v. Bo ard of Trus te es of th e Neb ras ka St at e Co ll eg es , th is co ur t

st at ed th at a p la in ti ff m

us t sh ow th at th e sc ho ol “ ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge th at [th e

as sa il an t] po se d a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of su ffi ci en tl y se ve re ha rm to st ud en ts ba se d on [th e

as sa il an t’s] pr evi ou s kn ow n co nd u c t .” 66 7 F. App ’x 56 0, 56 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er

-6

-cu ria m ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Eve n in W il li am s— whi ch K.T. m is read s as fav or in g he r

cas e—t he Elev en th Ci rcu i t o n s ua sp on te reh eari ng fo un d th at sc ho ol of fic ia ls ha d

act ua l kn owl ed g e o f di sc riminat io n in pa rt be cau se th ey recr ui te d th e st ud en tas sa il an t de sp it e ha vi ng “ pr eex is ti ng kn o w l e d g e ” of th e st ud en t’s pr ev io us se xu al

m is co nd uc t. 4 77 F.3d at 1 29 3- 94

.

K.T.’ s co m

pl ai nt la ck s an y as se rti on th at Cu lv er-S to ck to n kn ew—p rio r to th e al le ge d as sa ul t on K.T.—th at in di vi du al s in th e Co ll eg e’s so ccer recr ui ti ng pr og ram face d a ris k of se xu al ha ras sm en t. As th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d, K.T. “ m ak es

no fact ua l al le ga ti on s th at th e Co ll eg e was aware of in vi te d hi gh -s ch oo l ag ed recr ui ts , vi si to rs or Co ll eg e st ud en ts be in g as sa ul te d in si m il ar ci rcu m st an ce s , o r th at th e Co ll eg e was aware of an y pr io r a ll eg at io ns of se xu al as sa ul t by [th e sa m e al le ge d

pe rp et rat or ]. ” W e th eref

or e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at K.T. fai le d to pl au si bl y al le ge th at Cu lv er-S to ck to n ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge of di sc riminat io n w i t h i n th e

m ean in g o f a Tit le IX pe er h aras sm en t cl ai m

.

ii i. S ever e, Perv as iv e, an d Ob

je ct iv el y Off en si ve Di sc ri min at io n

By th e la ng ua ge of Ti tl e IX it se lf, li ab il it y li es on ly whe re th e pl ai nt iff is

“ su bjec te d to di sc riminat io n un de r an y ed uc at io n pr og ra m or ac ti vi ty rece iv in g Fed eral fin an ci al as si st an ce.” 20 U.S.C. § 16 81 (a) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t in Dav is in te rp ret ed th i s pr ov is io n to “ su gg es t[] th at th e be ha vi or be se rio us

en ou gh to ha ve th e syste m ic effe ct of de nyin g t h e vi ct im eq ua l acce ss to an ed uc at i o n a l p r o g ram or act iv it y .” 52 6 U.S. at 65 2. “ [I]n th eo ry ,” th e Co ur t

ex pl ai ne d, “ a si ng le in st an ce of su ffi ci en tl y se ve re on e-o n- on e pe er ha ras sm en t co ul d
be sa id to ha ve su ch an e f f e c t , [b ut ] we th in k it un li ke ly th at Co ng res s wou ld ha ve
t h o u g h t su ch be ha vi or su ffi ci en t to ris e to th is le ve l in li gh t of th e

. . . am o u n t o f
li ti ga ti on th at wou ld be in vi te d by en te rta in in g cl ai m s of of f i c i a l i n di ffer en ce to a si ng le in st an ce of on e-o n- on e pe er ha ras sm en t.” Id

. at 65 2- 53 ; se e al so W il li am s, 47 7
F.3 d at 12 97 (“ [D]isc riminat io n mu s t be m or e wid es pr ead th an a si ng le in st an ce of

-7

-on e-o n- on e pe er ha ras sm en t.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d ) )

. Rat he r, th e

di sc r i mi na ti on m

us t be “ se ve re, pe rv as iv e, an d ob jecti ve ly of

fen si ve .” Dav is

, 52 6
U.S. at 6 51

.

K.T.’ s co m

pl ai nt is li m it ed to an al le ga ti on of a si ng le se xu al as sa ul t. Alt ho ug h

we are sym

pa th et ic to K.T.’ s ci rcu m st an ces an d ag ree th at sh e ha s al le ge d

op pr ob rio us m is co nd uc t on th e pa rt of th e frat ern it y m em be r, K.T.’ s si ng ul ar
gr ie va nc e on it s own do es no t p la us ib ly alle ge pe rv as iv e d is cri m in at io n as requ ire d

to st at e a pe er ha ras sm en t cl ai m

. See id

. Acco rd in gl y , K.T.’ s co m pl ai nt la ck s fact ua l

c o n t e n t al lo win g us to co nc lu de th at ei th er th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t or Cu lv erSt oc kt on ’s res po ns e to K.T.’ s al le ga ti on s ha d th e req ui red “ syste m ic effe ct ” su ch th at
K.T. was de ni ed eq ua l acce ss to ed u c a ti on al op po rtu ni ti es pr ov id ed by Cu lv erSt oc kt on

. See id

. at 65 2. The co m pl ai nt th eref

or e fai le d to st at e a cl ai m of pe er ha ras sm en t u nd er Tit le IX. 4

III.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we affi rm th e or de r of th e di st r i c t c o u r t g r a n t in g C ul ve rSt oc kt on ’s m ot io n to di sm is s for fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l
Pro ced ur e 1 2( b) (6 ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Bec au se K.T. fai le d to a d e qu at el y pl ead th e el em en ts of de li be rat e 4 in di ffer en ce, act ua l kn owl ed ge , an d pe rv as iv e di sc riminat io n de pr iv in g he r eq ua l

acce s s t o a n ed uc at io na l pr og ram , we ne ed no t de te rm in e whe th er sh e su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d th e el em en t of Cu lv er-S to ck to n’s “ su bs ta nt ia l co nt ro l ov er bo th th e ha ras se r

an d th e co nt ex t in whi ch th e kn own ha ras sm en t oc cu rs .” See Ost ran de r, 34 1 F.3 d at 75 0.

-8

-