Uop

Doe v. University of Pacific

Good Law
467 F. App'x 685
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 31, 201210-17315California1,007 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Doe was sexually assaulted by three male University of the Pacific (“UOP”) basketball players. Doe claims that UOP acted with deliberate indifference and retaliated against her in violation of Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment for UOP on all claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Damages under Title IX are available only if an official with authority to address the alleged discrimination and institute corrective measures has actual knowledge of the discrimination and fails to adequately respond — i.e., acts with deliberate indifference. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 , 118 S.Ct. 1989 , 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998). The test for deliberate indifference is “whether a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the [ official]’s response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Oden v. N. Marianas Coll, 440 F.3d 1085 , 1089 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is properly entered when a school’s response to the harassment was not clearly unreasonable as a matter of law. Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 649 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 , 143…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.