Simpson V. University Of Colorado Boulder

Simpson v. University of Colorado Boulder Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) Key Search Term: Title IX, sexual assault, football, deliberate indifference, recruiting Facts Two female students at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, claim that they were sexually assaulted in December 2001, by football players and recruits of CU. Both victims brought an action against CU, a federally funded institution, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Plaintiffs are appealing district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of CU. Issue Was there sufficient evidence to show that CU violated Title IX when CU failed to respond to previous incidents of sexual assault by football players and recruits as well as the football team’s unwritten policy of showing recruits a “good time” by taking them to parties and promising sex with female students? Holding The Court applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Canton (City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378) that deliberate-indifference claims could be established by a failure to train for certain obvious risks. The Court examined evidence of numerous allegations of sexual assault and harassment against football players and recruits over the past 30 years of the program. There was also evidence that, despite efforts by athletics department to raise awareness and enforcement, CU football coaches failed to meaningfully address and enforce recruiting guidelines or sexual harassment and misconduct. Thus, the 10th Circuit held that the evidence presented was sufficient to supporting findings that (1) CU had an official policy of showing high-school football recruits a “good time” on their visits to the CU campus, (2) that the alleged sexual assaults were caused by CU’s failure to provide adequate supervision and guidance to player-hosts chosen to show the football recruits “a good time,” and (3) that the likelihood of such misconduct was so obvious that CU’s failure was the result of deliberate indifference. Thus, CU was not entitled to summary judgment and the district court’s ruling was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Summarized by: Lucy Wess