Title IX Survey

1. I am fully aware of the nature and extent of my participation in this project and the possible
risks involved or arising from it. I understand that I may withdraw my participation in this
project at any time without prejudice or penalty of any kind. I hereby agree to participate in the
project.
Y/N

2. What is your gender? Female/Male

3. Are you a college student? Y/N

4. Do you your college campus is a safe environment to protect you from sexual harassment?
Strongly agree/Agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree

5. Do you feel your authority figures protect you from sexual harassment?
Strongly agree/Agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree

6. Have you ever experienced any form of sexual harassment on a college campus? (Sexual
harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature)
Y/N

7. If yes, was the attacker a person of higher power than you (ex: coach, professor, counselor,
etc.)?
No/If yes, what position did they hold?

8. If yes, was the attacker a peer (ex: teammate, classmate, etc.)?

No/If yes, how did you know them?

9. Do you know how to report a sexual harassment incident?

No/If yes, how do you report an incident?

10. Did you feel you had available resources to report your incident?
Unlimited/Limited/None/N/A

11. If none, why did you feel there were not available resources? (Choose all that apply)
Lack of knowledge/Lack of guidance/N/A/Other (Please Specify)

12. Was Title IX ever discussed on your college campus?

Always/Usually/Sometimes/Rarely/Never

13. What is your level of knowledge on Title IX?

Nothing/Very little/Somewhat/well/Extremely well
14. Did you know Title IX protected young women from sexual harassment?
Y/N

15. Have you ever reported a sexual harassment case to a Title IX officer?
Y/N

16. If yes, was the Title IX officer able to offer you resources to help?
A great deal/A lot/A moderate amount/A little/None/N/A

17. If no, why did you not report your incident to a Title IX officer? (Choose all that apply)
Fear of retaliation/Did not want to start a court case/Felt the situation was not important/Did not
know Title IX could help you/Other (Please Specify)

18. Do you feel there should be improvements to Title IX?

A great deal/A lot/A moderate amount/A little/None

19. What improvements do you think can be made to Title IX?

Written response

20. Do you feel it is necessary to be educated on Title IX?

Strongly agree/Agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree
 Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff co-ed challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that
dismissed her claims for student-on-student sexual harassment and failure to supervise under Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The court sua sponte vacated
its prior opinion in its entirety and substituted the following opinion in its place.

Overview
The co-ed was gang-raped by three male basketball players in a dorm room. At a hearing held nearly one year after
the incident, university officials decided not to sanction the players. The co-ed left school soon after the incident,
fearing reprisals by the players for reporting the incident. On rehearing, the court held that the district court erred by
denying the co-ed's motion to amend her complaint as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The complaint
adequately pleaded claims under Title IX against the university and its athletic association because plaintiff alleged
that its coaches and officials knew at the time they recruited the player who instigated the gang rape that he had been
expelled from other colleges for sexual misconduct against female students and had a violent history. Such
knowledge was sufficient upon which to base a claim of deliberate indifference and failure to supervise. However,
the 11th Amendmentbarred the co-ed from asserting Title IX or equal protection claims in a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit.
The co-ed lacked U.S. Const. art. III standing to pursue injunctive relief because neither she nor her assailants
continued to attend the university.

Outcome
The court remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the co-ed's Title IX claims against the university
and its athletic association and to allow the co-ed to file her first amended complaint. The court affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the co-ed's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims and state law claims.

S.S. v. Alexander, 143 Wn. App. 75

Procedural Posture
Appellant, a former public university undergraduate student, challenged a judgment of the Superior Court for King
County (Washington), which granted the motion of respondent university for summary judgment, thereby
dismissing her claims against the university under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq.

Overview
The student alleged that she was raped in her dormitory room by a fellow student and a member of the football team.
She further alleged that the actions of the university officials following her report of the rape, coupled with the
trauma of the rape, deprived her of her right to be free from sex discrimination in education programs in violation of
Title IX. Reversing the grant of summary judgment with regard to the Title IX claim, the court found that (1) the
student presented a great deal of evidence in support of her claim that she was raped by the football player; (2) by
submitting evidence that "appropriate persons," who had control over her rapist and the campus environment in
which the rape occurred, had actual knowledge of the rape and responded in a deliberately indifferent manner, the
student submitted sufficient proof of causation in a Title IX cause of action to warrant submission of the claim to a
jury; (3) the single act of rape committed upon the student was sufficient to support her claim; and (4) the student
presented evidence that the university's handling of her rape report resulted in her being denied the full benefit of her
educational experience.

Outcome
The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The court reversed the dismissal of the
claim under Title IX, and the court remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
 Benefield v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham, 214 F.
Supp. 2d 1212
Copy Citation

Procedural Posture
Defendant university trustees board moved to dismiss and moved to strike a claim for punitive damages in plaintiff
student's action alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Overview
The university trustees board claimed that it had sovereign immunity from the student's action, and that, because the
peer on peer sexual encounters alleged by the student were admittedly consensual, no sexual harassment in violation
of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) occurred. The court initially held that, pursuant to 42
U.S.C.S. § 2000d-7, the board, as an arm of the state, was not entitled to sovereign immunity from the student's Title
IX action. The court then held that the board was not liable under Title IX because the student's actions were
voluntary, and she specifically denied the alleged sexually harassing behavior when questioned by the university.
The court found that the board did not stand in loco parentis, even though the student was under the age of majority.
The court further found that, given the university's attempt to ascertain the truth of the sexual harassment rumors and
the plaintiff's multiple denials of the same, that the school was not deliberately indifferent in violation of Title IX.

Outcome
The motion to dismiss was granted. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Doe v. Blackburn College, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24797

Overview
A college was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff student's Title IX claim because there were no
disputed factual issues that the college did not have actual knowledge of any prior sexual harassment of the student
or of any harassment of others that put it on notice that the risk of an assault was increased, the college did not have
control over the harasser/assailant, and there was no evidence that the college's response to the sexual assault
amounted to deliberate indifference or was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.

Outcome
Motion granted.
 Liu v. Striuli, 36 F. Supp. 2d 452
Procedural Posture
In her amended complaint alleging federal and state causes of action against defendants, plaintiff alleged that
defendant professor sexually harassed her at defendant college. Defendant professor and defendant college each
moved for summary judgment.

Overview
Plaintiff, a foreign graduate student at defendant college, alleged that she was sexually harassed by defendant
professor. Plaintiff had a visa problem and alleged that defendant professor used his position as an official for
immigration matters to force her into having sex with him. After an investigation, defendant college reprimanded
defendant professor. Plaintiff brought federal and state causes of action against both defendants, and both moved for
summary judgment. The court granted defendant college's motion because a damages remedy did not lie under Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681-1688 (Title IX), unless a school official who had
authority to take corrective action had actual knowledge of the discrimination and failed adequately to respond. A
financial aid officer was only aware of an apparently consensual relationship. The court granted defendant
professor's motion in part and denied it in part. Among other things, plaintiff's claims of rape stated a cause of action
under the Civil Rights Remedies for Gender Motivated Violence Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 13981 (1994), but individuals
were not liable under Title IX in their personal capacities.

Outcome
The court granted in part and denied in part defendant professor's summary judgment motion because, among other
things, plaintiff's claims of rape stated a cause of action under the Civil Rights Remedies for Gender Motivated
Violence Act, but individuals were not liable under Title IX. The court granted defendant college's summary
judgment motion because plaintiff failed to demonstrate an action for vicarious liability under Title IX.