Roe v. St. Louis University, et al., No. 13-1206 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging deliberate indifference by the University to her rape by another student and state law violations including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence following a back injury she received in training for the field hockey team. The district court granted summary judgment to the University. The court concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine issue of matter fact as to whether the University acted with deliberate indifference in respect to her rape and its aftermath; although plaintiff's sexual assault was clearly devastating to her, plaintiff had not shown that the University violated Title IX in its response to it or otherwise; plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on her negligence claim because she had not presented evidence to show the University breached a duty to conform to a standard of care; the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's misrepresentation claims because she provided no evidence that any representations made to her were actually false; plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact on her breach of contract claim; plaintiff has not shown that Judge Autrey abused his discretion by declining to recuse where alumni connections were not a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality; plaintiff has not shown error or abuse by the district court or violation of her due process rights where she failed to present her positions as required by the court rules for the orderly disposition of issues; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend discovery under Rule 56(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Title IX and torts. In action by female student athlete alleging the University was deliberately indifferent to her rape in violation of Title IX, on this record the district court did not err in granting the University's motion for summary judgment as plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the school acted with deliberate indifference in respect to her rape and its aftermath; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the University was negligent in its treatment and supervision following a back injury she suffered in field hockey practice, she failed to present evidence to show the school breached a duty to conform to a standard of care; the court did not err in granting the school summary judgment on plaintiff's misrepresentation claims as she failed to show falsity, reliance or materiality with respect to claims regarding the quality of the school's athletic program and its support staff and facilities; the district court did not err in granting the University summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim based, in part, on her signed National Letter of Intent; alumni connections were not a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to recuse; claims of due process violations with respect to discovery and motion practice denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.