Uop
Doe v. University of Pacific
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…