Author: Michael P. McKeon

THE ELEMENTS OF TITLE IX LIABILITY IN FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION V. UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON AND K.T. V. CULVER-STOCKTON COLLEGE

Two recent federal court cases delineate the requisite elements of a Title IX deliberate indifference claim brought by students against educational entities. In Feminist Majority Foundation v. University of Mary Washington, the plaintiffs – consisting of the national Feminist Majority Foundation [“FMF”], Feminists United on Campus, an FMF affiliate, and five executive board members of…

Read more

LIMITING TITLE IX LIABILITY IN DOE V. THE CITADEL

A decision issued by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina underscores the limitations of college and university liability under Title IX. In John Doe v. The Citadel, the court declined to extend standing to sue under Title IX to an individual who had no relationship to the educational institution but had been sexually assaulted…

Read more

UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS: COACHES, CONCUSSIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN MANN V. PALMERTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have coaches checking with their lawyer before deciding whether to allow an injured player to go back into a game or practice. In an alarming decision for public secondary schools, colleges, and universities, the Third Circuit held in Mann v.…

Read more

Doe v. Brown University: Non-Students and the Limits of Title IX Liability

In a case that raises a number of interesting questions, a federal judge in Rhode Island recently held that a student at one school could not bring a Title IX action against another school following her sexual assault by some of the latter school’s students. In Jane Doe v. Brown University, the court granted Brown…

Read more

BAD IDEA: ATTORNEY’S FEES AND THE HIGH COST OF IGNORING STAY PUT IN M.R. & J.R. V. RIDLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit calls to mind an automobile repair chain’s erstwhile slogan: “Pay me now, or pay me later,” although in this case, the more applicable variation would be:  “Pay now, or really, really pay later.”  In M.R. & J.R. v. Ridley School District,…

Read more

CLEAR AND CONVINCING: DOE V. JACKSON, DEVOS, AND THE FUTURE OF CAMPUS SEXUAL MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS

  On September 7, 2017, Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, announced that the United States Department of Education intended to revisit the “Dear Colleague” letter that the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, or “OCR,” issued on April 4, 2011. Although over the years OCR has issued a number of these often draconian Dear Colleague…

Read more

Doggone: False Statements and Free Speech in Clemmons v. Guilford Technical Community College

Sometimes, the motivation for chronicling a court decision is not because it is particularly groundbreaking; rather, it can simply be a confluence of peculiar facts and a reiteration of relevant legal principles.  That is certainly true with Clemmons v. Guilford Technical Community College, a case arising out of the United States District Court for the…

Read more

Stick to the Script: The Consequences of Mishandling Sexual Misconduct Investigations in Doe v. Skidmore College

It would seem fairly self-evident that when a college or university establishes procedures for handling sexual misconduct claims, it should actually follow them.  That, however, was not the case in Matter of John Doe v. Skidmore College, a recently issued decision by the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.  Given what it termed…

Read more

Canary in a Coal Mine: Analyzing Title IX, OCR, and On-Campus Sexual Misconduct Adjudications in Plummer v. University of Houston

It is unusual for a dissenting opinion to be more noteworthy than the majority’s holding, yet that is the case in Plummer v. University of Houston, a decision recently handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Except for the unsavory facts upon which the decision is based and Judge…

Read more

IDEA Exhaustion is Alive and Well: Applying Fry in Graham v. Friedlander

A Connecticut Superior Court judge has issued what might be the first decision in the country applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent test for determining whether a party is required to exhaust the administrative remedies available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [“IDEA”]. The case of Graham, et al. v.…

Read more